---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Tuesday, June 18, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 119

                              Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Three Suits For Violations of CA Consumer Laws
AMERICAN BOYCHOIR: Former Student Files Sex Abuse Suit in New Jersey
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Gender, Age Discrimination Suit for $31M
APARTHEID REPARATIONS: US Attorney To File Suit Against Swiss Banks
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: TX Jury Says Firm Guilty of Obstruction of Justice

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Alleged Victims Speak Of Clergies' Abuse At Conference
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS: Court Approves $5.5M Power Suit Settlement
CLEAR CHANNEL: Music Fan Files Antitrust Suit Over Ticket Prices in NY
CMS GENERATION: Reaches $9M Settlement for 1999 Tire Pile Fire
COMMERCE ONE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. New York

DANA CORPORATION: Settles For $380T EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit
DORCHESTER HUGOTON: Named As Defendant in OK Suit over Gas Royalties
MEDICAL INDUSTRY: Proposed Work Limits For Medical Residents Criticized
MICROTUNE INC.: Will Ask NY Court To Dismiss Suits For Securities Fraud
MONTANA: Game Farm Owners Challenge State Law That "Takes" Property

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers' Suit Likely After Alleged Mold Allergies Strike
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Faces Ten Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NY
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Faces Suit For Deceptive Business Practices in CA
SWISS ARMY: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in DE Court
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Building Vigorous Defense V. Suits in NY

UNOCAL CORP.: Burmese Rights Activists Laud Ruling Allowing Suits
WESBANCO INC.: Faces Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan in N.D. West Virginia

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
ALLIED CAPITAL: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
APPLIED DIGITAL: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
CMS ENERGY: Much Shelist Investigates Possible Securities Fraud Claims
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon

DUKE ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Goodkind Labaton Launches Amended Securities Suit in NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Much Shelist Investigates Possible Securities Fraud
EXELON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in TX

HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in TX
LANTRONIX INC.: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Launches Securities Suit in GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: The Emerson Firm Launches Securities Suit in GA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Four Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in S.D. CA
                              
                              *********

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Three Suits For Violations of CA Consumer Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply, LLC faces several securities class actions
filed in the Superior Court of California, relating to the alleged
manipulation of energy markets in California by power suppliers and to
its contract with the Department of Water Resources.

On April 23, 2002, a class action was filed, seeking relief and an
unspecified amount of restitution from various defendants, including
the Company, under the California Unfair Business Practices Act.  Two
additional suits were later filed on May 13,2002 alleging that power
suppliers, including the Company, took advantage of a manipulated
market to overcharge for contracted electricity.  

While the Company believes that the charges are without merit, it
cannot predict the outcome of the litigation at this time.  As of the
date of this report, the Company has not been served any documents
related to the two additional complaints.


AMERICAN BOYCHOIR: Former Student Files Sex Abuse Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Palmatier, 39, of Summit, New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit
against the American BoyChoir School, in Princeton, New Jersey,  
alleging he was sexually abused when he was a student there, according
to a report by the Star Ledger (Newark).

Mr. Palmatier is seeking class action status for his lawsuit, hoping to
include any student abused at the private boarding school  between 1970
and 1982, the Times of Trenton reported.  Mr. Palmatier was nine when
he arrived at the school, then known as the Columbus BoyChoir School,
which he attended from 1971 to 1977.  He claims he was molested by  
choirmaster Donald Hanson, sometimes several times a day.

Mr. Hanson, named as a defendant along with the school, faced similar
charges in a January 2001 lawsuit filed by another former student, John
W. Hardwick Jr. of White Hall, Maryland.  That lawsuit is pending.

Mr. Palmatier's lawsuit claims that he and "other class members were
subjected to acts of extreme and horrific physical, emotional and
sexual abuse, were raped, molested, sodomized (and) forced to engage in
oral sexual acts."  The lawsuit accuses the school of gross negligence,
saying they should have foreseen "the potential for such sexual abuse
and should have properly screened, hired, trained and supervised the
employees."

Mr. Palmatier says that he still suffers from physical, emotional and
psychological damage.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, along with money to create a court-supervised trust to pay for
medical and psychological treatment for affected alumni.

Donald B. Edwards, the school's vice president for institutional
advancement, said in a written statement, that school officials were
deeply saddened by Mr. Palmatier's accusations.  He wrote that, as far
as the school knows, Mr. Hanson left the country after he was dismissed
and has not returned.  Mr. Edwards said the choirmaster was reported to
the state Division of Youth and Family Services.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Gender, Age Discrimination Suit for $31M
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court Judge Henry Kennedy gave final approval
today to a $31 million dollar settlement of a nationwide gender and age
discrimination class action case against American Express Financial
Advisors, Inc., a subsidiary of American Express, AFX reports.

The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement before the case was
filed with the court, and Judge Kennedy issued preliminary approval of
the settlement on March 22, 2002.  Notice of the terms of the proposed
settlement was then provided to the class, which could involve as many
as 4,000 female financial advisors. Following this notice, not a single
objection was filed with the Court.

Bill O'Brien of Miller O'Brien, one of the law firms representing the
women, stated, "This settlement has been so favorably received by the
class because it is a fair resolution of the claims raised in the
complaint."

Lawrence Schaefer, a partner at Sprenger & Lang, added, "The company
should be commended for focusing its energy and resources on
eradicating barriers and on enhancing opportunities for women financial
advisors rather than on litigation."

The case began in October 1999, when Shelley Kosen, Lois Wisocky, and
Meg Roy filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging sex and age discrimination, as well as unequal pay.  The women
claimed the company created a glass ceiling for women by handing
lucrative accounts and steering client leads to male advisors, and by
engaging in preferential training, mentoring, and promotion of men.
Fourteen women, from seven different states, later joined the action by
filing additional charges alleging the same practices.

Lawyers representing the women spent almost two years analyzing the
evidence and the parties spent almost a year negotiating over the terms
of the settlement.  The settlement was filed on January 18, 2002 in
federal district court in Washington, DC.

In addition to the $31 million, which will be distributed to eligible
class members and pay attorneys' fees and costs, American Express
Financial Advisors has agreed to enhance its operations nationally,
including making changes to its account and lead distribution process,
its internal complaint procedures, and its promotion process.  The
Company will also create a Field Diversity Officer position that will
implement and monitor these changes internally at the company.

The terms of the settlement, both monetary and workplace relief items,
are set forth in a Consent Decree which will last four years.

For more details, contact Larry Schaefer by Phone: 612-871-8910 or
Michael Lieder by Phone: 202-772-1159 or Bill O'Brien by Phone:
612-333-5831 (work) or 612-961-2896 (cell)


APARTHEID REPARATIONS: US Attorney To File Suit Against Swiss Banks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An American attorney known for his efforts to win compensation from
Swiss banks for Holocaust victims is ready to sue the financiers again
on behalf of people who suffered under South Africa's apartheid-era
regime, reports the Associated Press Newswires.

Ed Fagan is expected to file a class action in a Manhattan court
seeking $51 billion from two Swiss banks, UBS and Credit Suisse, citing
their assistance to South African authorities from 1985 to 1993, when
the country was under a United Nations embargo, the Sonntags-Zeitung
newspaper reports.  During that period, the banks helped the white-
dominated regime with loans and other business deals worth billions of
dollars as foreign capital fled the country.

Neutral Switzerland never joined the UN sanctions against the apartheid
regime and has faced criticism from various segments of the world
community.

Mr. Fagan represented Holocaust victims and their heirs who forced
Swiss banks into a $1.25 billion settlement in 1998.  The plaintiffs
alleged the banks had made it almost impossible to recover money
deposited for safekeeping as the Nazis swept across Europe.  The banks,
maintaining a status quo posture in the face of a devastated Europe,
demanded all the indicia of an orderly world:  documents irretrievably
lost, death certificates of people killed in Nazi concentration camps.

In an interview with the Sonntags-Zeitung, South African lawyer Dumisa
Ntsebeza, who is working with Mr. Fagan, said that the banks "should be
financially answerable for the suffering they caused the black
population."  South Africa's white minority controlled the country from
1948 until 1994.

"The regime would never have survived so long if it had not been
propped up after 1985 by firms whose only motive was profit," said
Dumisa Ntsebeza.  "Now, they should do something to help build the
country and aid the victims of apartheid."

"South Africa is now a democratic country and every citizen has the
right to turn to the courts," he added.  A telephone hot line for
victims who want to join the case has opened in South Africa as of
Monday this week.

Credit Suisse spokeswoman Karin Rhomberg said the bank saw "no grounds"
for the lawsuit.  "We are against all forms of racism, but it is absurd
that our group should be held jointly responsible for the wrongs of the
apartheid system," she said.  "There is no factual evidence to back
this."  UBS spokesman Michael Willi said he knew nothing of the case
and declined to comment.

Last year Swiss authorities said they were reopening an investigation
into links between the Country's intelligence service and apartheid-era
South Africa, after reports that Switzerland's former spy chief Peter
Regli helped the South African government in its plans to develop
chemical and biological weapons for use against blacks.

An earlier inquiry, in 1999, cleared the Swiss intelligence service and
Mr. Regli, who is now retired, of colluding with the former head of
South Africa's chemical and biological warfare program, Woutter Basson.
However, during a trial last year, Mr. Basson claimed he had enjoyed
good contact with the Swiss, and particularly with Mr. Regli.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: TX Jury Says Firm Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Houston, Texas federal court ruled that prominent accounting firm
Arthur Andersen was guilty of obstruction of justice in the
government's investigation of the collapse of energy giant Enron
Corporation, Xinhua News Agency reports.  The 12-member jury, which
heard nearly five-weeks of testimony before US District Judge Melinda
Harmon, reached their verdict fifteen minutes after reconvening on
Saturday morning.  

Andersen was found guilty of obstructing justice for shredding
documents related to its client Enron Corp. on notice of a federal
investigation.  Andersen had claimed that the documents were destroyed
as part of its housekeeping duties and not as a ruse to keep Enron
documents away from the regulators.

The verdict came a day after Judge Harmon issued a crucial ruling in
the case, one that appeared to give the jury permission to convict the
accounting firm even though the individual jurors differed as to which
Andersen employee broke the law.

The verdict will likely be a fatal blow for the 89-year-old accounting
firm, which has laid off 7,000 employees and lost more than 650 of its
2,300 public audit clients this year.  Andersen still faces an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a class
action filed by Enron shareholders and employees.

The government hopes to use the verdict in the Andersen case to build
other prosecutions against senior managers at Enron, which moved
millions of dollars in debt off of its books with accounting tricks
approved by its auditors.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Alleged Victims Speak Of Clergies' Abuse At Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four of the alleged victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy recently
stood before 280 bishops and 750 reporters, detailing the events that
transformed them from children to victims, the Allentown Morning Call
reported.

Paula Gonzales Rohrbacher told of being molested by a seminarian who
was boarding with her family.  Michael Bland told of being abused by a
parish priest who told the adolescent that their sexual activity was
part of growing up.  Craig Martin recounted abuse by a priest who took
him on a fishing trip, while David Clohessy related being sodomized by
a priest who was a family friend.

The bishops, who had initially invited the victims, almost did not hear
their stories.  They rescinded the invitation last week when conference
officials learned that the largest victims group, Survivors Network for
those Abused by Priests (SNAP), had joined a class action to fight the
church's practice of having victims sign confidentiality agreements to
settle lawsuits.  The group was re-invited after withdrawing from the
lawsuit.

David Clohessy, director of SNAP, told the bishops that the greatest
honor they could offer the victims would be "to do what Jesus would do
when a deeply wounded survivor walks through the door."

The victims told their stories, but they also told the bishops that
they want the dioceses to remove the gag orders that have keep victims
from speaking out.  They want an independent agency to audit each
diocese to determine not only how cases were handled but also how much
money was spent to settle lawsuits.  They want all states to make
clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse, as they are in Pennsylvania.  
They also want statutes of limitations extended so that more priests
can be prosecuted.

The victims were easily identifiable in the corridor outside the
meeting room because they were carrying portrait-size pictures of
themselves as children.  Television cameras zoomed in on Bill Crane of
Portland, Oregon, who talked about being abused for four years in New
Jersey by a priest who also abused his twin brother.

At a news conference after the bishops' meeting with the victims, about
a dozen victims shared similar stories of abuse by priests who invested
a lot of time in first gaining their trust.  The victims, generally,
agree that what bothers them is that the perpetrating priests have been
allowed to remain in the clergy.

Peter Iseley, a SNAP Board member, said that the victims often face
hardball tactics when they take a case against a priest to court.  Mr.
Iseley is encouraged, but not convinced, that the bishops' conference
will bring about the kind of policy change his group is fighting for.
"I am both proud and thoroughly disgusted," he said


CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS: Court Approves $5.5M Power Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Cruz County Court in Arizona approved the US$5.5 million
settlement proposed by Citizens Communications Co. to settle all claims
in a class action pending against the Company, arising from claims by a
class of plaintiffs that includes all of the Company's electric
customers in Santa Cruz County for damages resulting from several power
outages that occurred during the period January 1, 1997, through
January 31, 1999.  

The Company did not admit any guilt or wrongdoing upon entering the
settlement.  The court approved the settlement on March 29, 2002, and
the suit has been dismissed with prejudice.   The Company has accrued
the full settlement amount, plus an additional amount sufficient to
cover legal fees and other related expenses, in its financial reports
during the fourth quarter of 2001.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Music Fan Files Antitrust Suit Over Ticket Prices in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A music fan recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against Clear Channel
Communications Inc., claiming the Company has gained too much control
over the concert-promotion industry, according to a report by The Wall
Street Journal.  The suit requests class action status on behalf of all
those who have bought rock-concert tickets from the Company since
January 1997.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court in Manhattan, and claims
that the Company "gobbled" up smaller concert-production companies
through a series of mergers and is harming consumers by pumping up the
cost of tickets.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

"Clear Channel's anticompetitive practices . are gouging (the)
plaintiff and the class and are unrelated to inflation," says Melinda
Heerwagen, a Cook County, Illinois resident, in the lawsuit.  "Clear
Channel has built a monopolistic, multimedia empire that is severely
harming and decreasing overall competition."

The Company, a producer and marketer of entertainment events, sells 70
percent of all US concert tickets.  From 1991 to 1996, concert-ticket
prices rose 21 percent, while the Consumer Price Index shows all prices
rose 15 percent, according to the lawsuit.

Company spokesman Howard Schacter declined to comment on the specifics
of the lawsuit.  On the matter of ticket prices, he said a concert
promoter, such as Clear Channel, is only one of many parties that has a
role in setting prices.


CMS GENERATION: Reaches $9M Settlement for 1999 Tire Pile Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Generation-Oxford Tire Recycling agreed to settle for $9 million
several class actions filed in California state court relating to a
September 1999 fire at a tire pile.

In 1999, the California Regional Water Control Board of the State of
California named the Company as a potentially responsible party for the
cleanup of the waste from the fire that occurred in the Filbin tire
pile.  The tire pile was maintained as fuel for an adjacent power plant
owned by Modesto Energy Limited Partnership.  Oxford Tire
Recycling of Northern California, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company
until 1995, owned the Filbin tire pile.

In 2000, the California Attorney General filed a complaint against the
potentially responsible parties for cleanup of the site and assessed
penalties for violation of the California Regional Water Control Board
order.  The parties have reached a court-approved settlement with the
state pursuant to which the Company must pay $6 million, $2 million of
which it had already paid.

The suits allege that the fire resulted in damage to the class and that
management of the site caused the fire.  The primary insurance carrier
will cover one hundred percent of the settlement once the agreement is
finalized.


COMMERCE ONE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Commerce One, Inc.
filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between July 1, 1999 and June 15,2001, consists of a set of
"Master Allegations" and individual amended complaints against the
various defendants, including the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.  

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder).  The

The Company stated that various plaintiffs have filed similar actions
asserting virtually identical allegations against more than 200 other
companies.  The suits against the Company and other companies have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes with these other related lawsuits and
have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits
and will defend itself vigorously.  The Company does not believe that
the outcome of any of these disputes or litigation will have a material
effect on its financial condition or results of operations.


DANA CORPORATION: Settles For $380T EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Automotive parts supplier Dana Corporation agreed to pay $380,000 to
settle a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by 14 black employees and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the South Bend
Tribune reports.

The Toledo-based corporation and one of its divisions, Spicer
Manufacturing Inc. of Indiana, will pay $50,000 in attorneys' fees to
the private plaintiffs' lawyers.  The $380,000 in settlement funds will
be divided among 14 members of the class action.  The individual
payments range from $23,000 to $32,500 for the four lead plaintiffs.

The four lead plaintiffs, Delenor Guyton, Derrick Martin, Michael
Steadman and Curtis Thompson, all of Fort Wayne, and others, alleged
that they suffered racial discrimination while working at the Dana
plant in Syracuse.  On May 18, 2001, the four men, along with the EEOC
and ten other black Dana employees, filed suit in US District Court in
South Bend.  The men alleged that:

     (1) nooses were erected at their work stations;

     (2) Ku Klux Klan markings were left on machinery; and

     (3) they received written and verbal threats.

In addition, Mr. Guyton charged that after two years on the job, he was
subjected to a training review, while his white peers were exempt from
such review.  As a resut, the suit alleged, "he was falsely
disqualified and unable to perform the job, due to his race, which
resulted in lost wages."

Mr. Martin said he suffered retaliation after he complained that
"similarly situated" white employees were not disciplined for violating
plant rules.  He said he made the complaint in confidence, but a
supervisor revealed his identity.  Mr. Martin attributes his subsequent
layoff to his allegation of racial discrimination.

The Company agreed that it will not discriminate on the basis of race
nor tolerate discrimination.  However, the settlement does not contain
an acknowledgement of culpability, spokesman Jeff Cole said.  He said
that the Company was willing to offer a settlement because it was in
the Company's and employees' best interests to avoid litigation.

According to court documents, the Company agreed to "adopt and
implement a training program for all of its employees at its Syracuse
facility . Among other things, the training will identify specific
racial issues that the organization may be dealing with and how best to
address those issues."  The settlement calls for the training to begin
within 120 days of the decree's filing date and to be repeated
approximately 10, 16, and 22  months after the filing date.

The EEOC will monitor the training and may offer input to the Company
at least 10 days before training sessions begin.   "The plaintiffs are
happy that the case is over now," said Lori Jansen, an attorney with
Haller & Colvin PC of Fort Wayne, which represented the plaintiffs.
The employees are optimistic that the Company will create a work
environment free from discrimination, Ms. Jansen added.

A jury trial set for October 21 was vacated after the settlement was
filed in US District Court.

Messrs. Guyton, Martin, Steadman and Thompson approached the EEOC with
discrimination charges in February 2000,and the suit was filed after
the EEOC investigated and after conciliation efforts with the Company
failed, EEOC attorney Johanna Maple said.  The Company's actions,
according to the EEOC, violated the federally protected rights of black
employees as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


DORCHESTER HUGOTON: Named As Defendant in OK Suit over Gas Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd. has been named as a defendant in a class
action suit filed in January 2002 by the Rural Residents for Natural
Gas Rights (RRNGR) in Oklahoma State Court.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation,

     (2) Conoco, Inc.,

     (3) XTO Energy Inc.,

     (4) ExxonMobil Corporation,

     (5) Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated and

     (6) Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.

RRNGR consists primarily of Texas County, Oklahoma residents who use
natural gas at their own risk free of cost from gas wells in residences
located on leases.  The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic
gas use is not limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited
to a principal dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease agreements
with defendants in the 1930's to the 1950's.

Plaintiffs also assert defendants conspired to restrain trade by
warning of dangers of natural gas use and using such warnings to induce
some plaintiffs to release their domestic gas rights.  

The Company believes plaintiffs' claims are completely without merit
and has filed an answer, including a motion for summary judgment
against plaintiff.  Further, based upon past measurements of such gas
usage and current natural gas prices, the Company believes the damages
sought by plaintiffs to be minimal.


MEDICAL INDUSTRY: Proposed Work Limits For Medical Residents Criticized
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new limits that will prohibit residents from working longer than 80
hours a week, were announced last week by the Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education.  The new limits also would ensure they get
at least 10 hours of rest between shifts, and state they can't be on
duty for more than 24 hours straight.  Probably, everyone thinks these
limits are laudable, but even among those who think these limits would
be a good thing, are some who say the limits are not feasible, they
will create crises in the hospitals, according to a report by the
Houston Chronicle.

New national limits on the hours medical residents can work will, for
example, leave Houston's Ben Taub Hospital's surgery unit in crisis,
Chief of Staff Dr. Kenneth Mattox says.  The rules which will take
effect in July 2003, will reduce surgical staffing by a third and cause
significant problems in patient treatment and continuity of care.  Dr.
Mattox said the change likely will require more manpower at the
physician or faculty level.

"I was up last night calculating the number of positions funded and the
hours that will be allowed, and it was absolutely impossible to
accomplish the math," said Dr. Mattox, who is also chief surgeon at Ben
Taub.

The Council, which accredits 7,800 residency programs nation wide, said
it will act quickly to sanction violators.  Sanctions can include
withdrawing accreditation, which costs institutions lost students and
millions of dollars in federal funding.

The limits were announced amid concern regarding medical errors in
hospitals that some attribute to the long hours residents routinely
work.  Although some specialties already impose 80-hour limits, there
is often no limit on residents' schedules at many hospitals, and some
doctors-in-training say they work as much as 120 hours a week.

Into this largely unshaped debate rushed the residents.  In May,
200,000 residents filed a class action in federal court, accusing seven
medical associations and 35 teaching hospitals of rigging the system
that determines where they go as residents, how much they are paid and
how many hours they work.  The class action, which approaches the
problem through charges of market control (rigging the system) is still
in the courts.  However, the Accreditation Council's quick response may
alter support for the legal approach.

Dr. Mattox said he thought the new limits will cause crises at
hospitals around the country, like Ben Taub, underfunded public
hospitals that treat the most serious trauma cases.  He expressed
skepticism toward data showing medical errors are a result of fatigue
and said his hunch is the problem is a lack of continuity of care,
which will get worse under the new rules.

Dr. Maximillian Buja, dean of UT-Houston's medical school and a member
of the accrediting council's board of directors, acknowledged the new
rules will have a "definite financial impact on hospitals."  He
however, claimed that is not the council's concern, and added that the
change will result in better-functioning residents and improved patient
care.

Dr. Major Bradshaw, dean of education at the Baylor College of
Medicine, acknowledged that the rules might cause some problems, such
as the staffing at Ben Taub's emergency room, and could require
solutions such as enrolling more residents


MICROTUNE INC.: Will Ask NY Court To Dismiss Suits For Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss three securities suits, filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
August 4, 2000 through December 6, 2000.

One of the suits names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Douglas J. Bartek, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Everett Rogers, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of
         Finance and Administration, and

     (3) several investment banking firms that served as underwriters
         of the Company's initial public offering.

The other two suits assert claims against the underwriters only.

Among other things, the complaints allege liability under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration
statement for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose
that:

     (i) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

    (ii) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their customers
         to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits challenging over 180 other initial public offerings conducted
in 1998, 1999, and 2000. No specific amount of damages is claimed in
the three complaints involving the Company's IPO.  

These cases are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 and the Company expects that the cases will be consolidated
into a single action.  These cases and all of the other lawsuits filed
in the Southern District of New York making similar allegations have
been coordinated before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin who is
expected to set a brief schedule for motions to dismiss.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suit are without
merit, and intends to contest them vigorously.  However, the Company is
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation
will have a material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition in any future period.


MONTANA: Game Farm Owners Challenge State Law That "Takes" Property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Montana faces a class action filed by owners of two elk
farms over a Montana law that regulates game farms, arguing that the
law amounts to the `taking' of their property, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Len and Pam Wallace and Bruce and Shirley Buhmann are seeking more than
$22 million in damages for lost profits and investments, in the suit,
which is pending in the District Court in Blaine County.  They say
state law considers elk and other alternative livestock to be private
property.  However, a measure that voters approved in 2000, put such
strict conditions on game farms that their operations were crippled,
and they were forced to abolish their businesses.

"There no exemptions, no retroactivity.  There were no waiver
provisions," attorney Art Wittich said recently.  "There needs to be
just compensation for the taking of private property."  Tim Feldner,
who manages the commercial wildlife permit program for Montana's
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP), said he had not yet seen
the lawsuit and could not comment.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of challenges that have been
brought since voters approved Initiative 143.  The measure bans the
shooting of captive game-farm animals for a fee in Montana.  It also
bans the licensing of new game farm operations, expansions of existing
game farms or the transfer of licenses.

Alternative ranchers, in a federal class action, sought an unsuccessful
preliminary injunction to keep the state from enforcing limits on fee
shooting. The case was voluntarily dismissed.  The Wallaces' attempt to
transfer elk from their Big Velvet ranch in the Bitterroot Valley to
the Crow Indian tribe in southeast Montana was stopped by the state,
with an injunction later upheld by the state Supreme Court.

The Buhmanns, elk breeders from Blaine County, who also sold feed
supplements and the Wallaces, who said they used to see gross annual
revenue of more than $1 million, contend in the latest lawsuit that
Montana's game farm law amounted to a government taking of their
private property rights.

The law "retroactively imposed new rules on old . practices," the
lawsuit says, and left the Wallaces' investment "valueless"  and a
"liability."   It would have been far fairer if FWP had simply moved in
on November 8, 2000, and confiscated Wallaces' land, improvements and
elk, for in reality, that is what they did over an 18-month period
thereafter, the lawsuit says.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers' Suit Likely After Alleged Mold Allergies Strike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers at the Rockingham County Court building say the air is making
them so sick, they are considering legal action, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  The workers, who are on the verge of a class action
say they want to be relocated or the building gutted and rebuilt.

Many people who work out of the Register of Deeds office are suffering
from allergy-type symptoms that a recent report suggests is caused by
bacteria and mold.  Some even wear protective masks to work.

Title abstractor Sandra Whittaker, 54, of Salem, is among the more
seriously inflicted.  She is on medication to fight sinus problems, a
persistent cough, itchy eyes and fatigue.  She says, "the choice the
state and the county have is to get us out of this infection."

Last year, the title abstractors paid for an environmental study of the
courthouse.  The report prompted the state to fund a second report that
found high levels of bacterial contamination in parts of the building.
County officials say the state intends to evaluate a scientific report
on the building and explore mitigation methods.  

However, workers fear being there for months before the state decides
what to do.  Workers believe the problems may be from flood and sewer-
system damage to the building during a 1996 flood.  They claim the wet
insulation and carpets were never replaced.

Commissioner Don Hill of the state Department of Administrative
Services said the department may develop a course of action in the next
two weeks.  He also said additional, highly specialized testing is
necessary, and that the state wants to see the job done correctly so
the contamination does not recur.  While the existing tests pinpointed
some high bacteria areas, it didn't identify a cause, he said.

Abstractor Scott Komisarek, 41, of Candia, says anything less than a
total rebuild won't be good enough.  His symptoms got so bad that he
had to leave for good.  Mr. Komisarek said that if the county doesn't
move the workers out of the building, "the recourse would be to bring a
lawsuit."


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Faces Ten Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NewPower Holdings, Inc. faces ten securities class actions pending
against it and other defendants, including its officers and directors,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled as:

     (1) Peter A. Prau, Joseph Harre, and James Casey Lippmeir v. H.
         Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed February 27, 2002,

     (2) Irvin Solomon v. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed March 1,
         2002,

     (3) Dorina Miller V. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed March
         7,2002,

     (4) Lisa A. Weber V. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed March 11,
         2002,

     (5) Jack A. Halpern V. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed
         March 21, 2002,

     (6) Victor Parker V. NewPower Holdings, Inc., et. al., filed March
         26, 2002,

     (7) Patricia O'Donoghue, et. al., V. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al.,
         filed April 8, 2002,

     (8) Christophe J. Amon V. H. Eugene Lockhart et. al., filed April
         11, 2002,

     (9) Rosalyn M. Haratz V. H. Eugene Lockhart, et. al., filed April
         12, 2002, and

    (10) Manisha Patel V. NewPower Holdings, Inc., et. al., filed April
         24, 2002

Each lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of persons or entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between October 5, 2000 and
December 5, 2001.  The suits allege violations of the federal
securities laws as a result of:

     (i) alleged misrepresentations and omissions made in connection
         with the Company's October 5, 2001 initial public offering;
         and

    (ii) allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
         occurring during the class period

With respect to the Pfau, Miller, O'Donoghue, and Haratz suits, service
has been made upon the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  None of the other complaints has been served.


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Faces Suit For Deceptive Business Practices in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NewPower Holdings, Inc. faces a class action pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco,
styled Aaron Timm V. NewPower Holdings, Inc., et. al., filed March 22,
2002.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of California residents solicited as
customers by The New Power Company, and alleges violations of the
California Business and Professions Code, California Civil Code and
common law as a result of:

     (1) alleged deceptive advertising and marketing to induce new
         customers to sign up and maintain service; and

     (2) alleged intentional delay of customer billing to prevent
         customers from canceling service

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.


SWISS ARMY: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss Army Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq:SABI) faces two securities class
actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County.  The
suit names the Company, its officers and its majority stockholder,
Victorinox AG as defendants, in connection with the proposal by
Victorinox to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
Swiss Army Brands not held by Victorinox and its affiliates.

The lawsuits purport to be class actions on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company.  The plaintiffs in these actions have
asserted a variety of claims, including allegations that:

     (1) Victorinox's proposed offer price for the publicly held shares
         of the Company is unfair and grossly inadequate; and

     (2) officers and directors of the Company have breached their
         fiduciary duties to the public stockholders.

The Company does not believe that these lawsuits state valid claims
against it or any of its officers or directors, and intends to defend
against the suit vigorously.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Building Vigorous Defense V. Suits in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunication Systems, Inc. faces a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its current
officers and a director, and several investment banks that were the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO)

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period August 8, 2000 through December 6, 2000, alleges that
the underwriters agreed to allocate common stock offered for sale in
the Company's IPO to certain purchasers in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those purchasers to make
additional purchases of common stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

The plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the
underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  The Company
believes that more than 180 other companies have been named in nearly
identical lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same law firms
that represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against it.


UNOCAL CORP.: Burmese Rights Activists Laud Ruling Allowing Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Human rights activists in Burma are praising the recent landmark
decision by a Los Angeles judge that says US energy giant Unocal
Corporation can be sued for allegedly profiting from a gas pipeline in
Burma at the expense of harsh rights violations, the Inter Press
Service reports.

The landmark class action, filed in 1996 by Burmese villagers against
the Company and Total, a French-based multinational, claimed that a
number of human rights violations had been committed by the Burmese
military, which had been contracted to provide security for the gas
pipeline project the two multinationals were constructing.  The abuse
villagers allegedly endured ranged from slave labor, arbitrary
detention, intimidation, torture and rape, to summary executions,
according to the US division of the global human rights lobby Amnesty
International (AI)

The pipeline, which costs nearly $1.2 billion, spans 416 miles.  It
begins off Burma's western coast from the offshore Yadana gas field in
the Andaman Sea, cuts through the Tenasserim region in southern Burma
and ends in Thailand.  The US division of Amnesty International says
that Burma's military regime "began flooding the area with troops when
construction started.  Villagers living in the region were driven from
the pipeline route."

Since the lawsuit against the Company was first filed, rights activists
have faced legal setbacks in the courts, ranging from the issue of
extra-territoriality - when the Company would argue that the US courts
had no jurisdiction to hear the case - to its claim that the plaintiffs
lacked concrete evidence.  The decision in the Los Angeles courtroom
that the Company can be sued in the United States is a landmark
decision, says Tyler Giannine, a director at EarthRights International,
a non-governmental organization (NGO) that has taken a lead role in
bringing the case for the Burmese victims, most of whom are villagers.

Mr. Giannine is confident that this legal battle will go ahead as
scheduled in Los Angeles, in September.  "There is nothing between us
and the trial date, and we have sufficient evidence."

Debbie Stothard of the Bangkok-based ALTSEAN, a regional human rights
body, says she expects the case to resemble a "David versus Goliath"
tussle, given the lengths the Company has gone to in avoiding a court
appearance.  "They (Unocal) have spent so much before the trial to stop
it, maybe millions of dollars."

The Los Angeles court's decision could not have come at a worse time
for Rangoon's ruling junta, which is witnessing a rapid drop in the
number of US companies willing to set up shop in Burma.  According to
the US Department of Commerce, apparel imports to the United States
from the garment industry in Burma fell 35 percent between January
through March.

That drop "marks a major reversal of recent trends," states the
Washington-based Free Burma Coalition (FBC), a lobby group that is
campaigning to get US companies to sever all economic links with the
Southeast Asian nation.  The FBC interprets this shift to US companies
becoming more aware of "Burma's brutal system of forced labor."

According to the FBC, there are reports that "forced labor, including
forced child labor, has contributed materially to the construction of
industrial parks, subsequently used largely to produce manufactured
exports, including garments."

Burma, which has been under a military dictatorship for the last 40
years, also has been singled out by the International Labor
Organization (ILO), a United Nations agency, on the issue of forced
labor.  The ILO maintains that forced labor is being used by the
authorities in Burma to build military camps, to serve as porters and
for agricultural work.

Somchai Homlaor, head of Forum Asia, a Bangkok-based regional human
rights watchdog, says about the ruling in Los Angeles, that the Company
can, and will, be sued, that "This is a lesson for the multinational
companies; they cannot always get away."  The Unocal case should make
all foreign companies doing business in Burma take note of the "dirty
manner" in which they are raking in the profits, Mr. Homlaor said.


WESBANCO INC.: Faces Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan in N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia limited the scope of the class in the class action against
WesBanco, Inc., filed by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement plan.  The Company acquired
American Bancorporation on March 1,2002, thus it has essentially become
substituted as the principal defendant in this suit by reason of the
merger.

The suit challenges benefit calculations and methodologies used by the
outside plan administrator in determining benefits under the plan,
which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit accruals,
some years ago.   

The plan had been the subject of a predecessor action in a case styled
American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v. McKain, which was
also litigated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia.  The McKain case resulted in an Order
entered by the district court on September 22, 1995, which directed
American Bancorporation to follow a specific method for determining
retirement benefits under the plan.  

American Bancorporation has asserted that they have calculated the
benefits in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 district court
order.  The purported class of plaintiffs now assert that they are not
bound by the 1995 district court order since they were not parties to
that proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination.

The court in the current case has substantially limited the class of
plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals and has granted
partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the scope and extent
of the underlying case.

It is not believed that the case presents any material risk of
exposure to the Company though, as with any litigation matter, there
are uncertainties in the outcome of the proceeding which cannot
be determined with any degree of certainty.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP launched a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia
Business Solutions, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: ABIZQ) between January 6,
2000 and March 27, 2002, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants:

     (1) John J. Rigas,

     (2) Michael J. Rigas,

     (3) Timothy J. Rigas, and

     (4) James P. Rigas

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the
class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

Defendants portrayed Adelphia Solutions, during the class period, as a
growing telecommunications business.  However, the complaint alleges
that defendants knew or were deliberately reckless in disregarding that
the growth they reported publicly was grossly overstated through
practices put into place by or condoned by defendants at the Company.  
These practices included reporting sales of services that were never
ordered by the Company's customers.

Prior to January 11, 2001, the Company was a majority (79%) owned
subsidiary of Adelphia Communications Corp.(Adelphia).  The complaint
further alleges that Adelphia Solutions was materially impacted by
loans, in excess of $2 billion, guaranteed by Adelphia, which were not
publicly disclosed to Adelphia Solutions investors.  On March 1, 2002,
Adelphia Solutions announced that it would fail to make an interest
payment of $15.3 million on certain secured notes of the Company and
would be in default.

Then, on March 27, 2002, Adelphia Communications Corporation announced
that it had entered into off-balance sheet financing arrangements which
required Adelphia to pay for approximately $2.3 billion in debts, with
Highland Holdings, another entity managed by the Defendants. Later that
day, March 27, Adelphia Solutions announced that it had filed for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

For more details, contact Lawrence P. Kolker, Michael Miske, George
Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Adelphia Solutions.


ALLIED CAPITAL: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Allied Capital Corporation
(NYSE:ALD) between November 14, 2001, and May 16, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and Arthur Andersen, LLP with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that the Company's public
statements and SEC filings were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that the Company was overstating the value of
its investments in companies such as Velocita, Inc. and The Loewen
Group, Inc.

The suit alleges that the Company was improperly delaying the write-
down of its impaired investments, and as a result, the Company's
investments were being carried at unrealistically and misleadingly high
values on its balance sheet.

The complaint charges that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's investments and their valuation caused its
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150
or Toll Free at 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


APPLIED DIGITAL: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Applied Digital Solutions, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ADSXE) securities between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company and Richard J. Sullivan.

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or 561-
712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


CMS ENERGY: Much Shelist Investigates Possible Securities Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
possible securities claims against CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE:CMS) on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company between August 3,
2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.

It has been alleged that the Company, and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market.

According to the allegations, the Company had, throughout the class
period, improperly recognized approximately $4.4 billion in revenues by
engaging in transactions lacking any economic substance using what are
known as "round-trip" trading transactions.  The improperly recognized
revenues were reported in the Company's quarterly and annual press
releases and in financial filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), throughout the class period.

On May 9, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Company had
engaged in round-trip trades with Dynegy, Inc. On May 10, 2002, the
Company announced that the SEC was investigating the propriety of its
"round-trip" trading practices. On May 13, 2002, Reliant Resources,
Inc. disclosed that it had also engaged in round-trip trades with the
Company. In response to these announcements, its common stock price
collapsed, falling from a high of $20.06 on May 10, 2002 to a low of
$15.72 on May 13, 2002, a drop of more than 21% on extremely heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of
purchasers of Computerized Thermal Imaging (Amex:CIO) common stock
during the period between October 11, 1999 and December 21, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company has admitted that during the class period, the
Company's then-President and Chief Operating Officer, David Packer,
consistently made material public misrepresentations regarding FDA
approval of the Company's Breast Cancer Detection System.

These statements had the effect of artificially raising the price of
Company stock so that investors who purchased shares during the class
period did so at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


DUKE ENERGY: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Duke
Energy Corporation (NYSE:DUK) and certain of its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's stock between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, throughout the class
period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous statements
and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's increasing revenues and financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in approximately $1 billion of
         "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit
         for the Company;

     (2) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         adequately monitor the trading of its power; and

     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's revenues and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On May 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued a
press release announcing that it had "analyzed its trades for the
three-year period from 1999 through 2001 to identify those trades which
may have some of the characteristics of sell/buy-back trades."  These
trades, known as "round-trip" or "wash" transactions, involve the
simultaneous buying and trading of power in the same price and same
amount and provide no economic benefit to the Company.

Following this announcement, and the disclosure of inquiries by both
the Federal Regulatory Commission and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the market price of Company stock fell to $30.05 per share,
after reaching a split-adjusted class period high of $44.97 on November
30, 2000.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Goodkind Labaton Launches Amended Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP announces that pursuant to
Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, it
filed an amended class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
open market purchasers of the common stock of Edison Schools Inc.
(NASDAQ:EDSN) during the period of December 14, 1999 and May 14, 2002
inclusive.   The named defendants are the Company, Adam Feild, H.
Christopher Whittle and Christopher D. Cerf.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is the
largest for-profit private manager of public schools and charter
schools in the United States.  Between December 14, 1999 and May 14,
2002 inclusive, the Company reported impressive financial results from
its operations and in particular the Company reported spectacular
growth in revenue.

However, the suit alleges that the Company's financial reporting was
false and misleading because it failed to disclose that from fiscal
year 1999 until the first six months of fiscal year 2002, it never
actually received a material portion of the revenue supposedly realized
by the Company. An investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) revealed the Company recorded as "revenue" monies it
paid for expenses such as teachers' salaries, students' transportation
and utility bills that were remitted directly by school districts.

In addition, the SEC investigation revealed two more accounting
improprieties committed by the Company. Between 1999 and 2001, the
Company improperly accounted for proceeds of a warrant purchased by a
philanthropic organization causing the Company to overstate its balance
sheets by $1.9 million.

The SEC investigation also revealed that in 1999, the Company
improperly accounted for a severance agreement between the Company and
one of its senior officers causing the Company to overstate its balance
sheets by $2.5 million.  As a result of the SEC investigation the
Company will restate its financial results for the class period.

When news of the Company's false and misleading accounting practices
reached the market, the price of its stock fell dramatically, causing
harm to members of the class.

For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 12th
Floor New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone: 212-0907-0700 by E-mail:
hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com  


EDISON SCHOOLS: Much Shelist Investigates Possible Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. is investigating
potential securities fraud claims against Edison Schools, Inc.
(Nasdaq:EDSN) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002, inclusive.

It has been alleged that the Company, Chris Whittle, President and CEO;
Adam Field, Chief Financial Officer and Christopher Cerf, Chief
Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and
financial condition during the class period.

According to the allegations, throughout the class period, the Company
issued numerous quarterly press releases reporting its supposedly
growing revenue stream and increasing income.  Such representations
were repeated in reports filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

It has been alleged that these representations were materially false
and misleading because the Company was improperly recognizing revenue
by recognizing as revenue monies that were remitted to their clients,
comprised of school districts and charter schools, even though the
Company did not receive this money.  Accordingly, the Company's
revenues and other financial data reported throughout the class period
were materially false and misleading.

On May 14, 2002, the Company revealed that it had been the subject of a
SEC investigation and has entered into a settlement with the SEC under
which it agreed to reclassify the revenues that the Company had
reported for numerous quarters.  At the time of the disclosure, the
common stock was trading at $1.50 to $2 per share, after reaching a
class period high of $36.75 per share.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


EXELON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP launched a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC) who
publicly traded securities between April 24, 2001 and September 27,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Illinois-based Company repeatedly issued
statements concerning the strength of its operations and repeatedly
assured the market that it would meet or beat its $4.50 per share
projected earnings figure for 2001.  The suit alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose, among other things:

     (1) that the investments in telecommunications companies held by
         Exelon's Enterprises segment were dropping in value at a rapid
         pace and, therefore, the Enterprises segment could not and
         would not meaningfully contribute to the Company's financial
         results, and that in fact, the Company was carrying tens of
         millions of dollars of impaired investments on its financial
         statements; and

     (2) that InfraSource, Exelon's infrastructure subsidiary, was
         experiencing declining demand for its products as its primary
         customers, telecommunications companies, were facing severe
         industry-wide problems, such as mounting debt and over-
         capacity, and were significantly cutting back on their capital
         expenditures.

On September 27, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it would not meet its earnings commitment of $4.50 for 2001,
blaming the economy, poor weather and write-downs for failed
investments made by the Enterprises unit.

In reaction to the announcement, the Company's common stock price
plunged by 22%, falling to a low of $38.85 per share on September 27,
2001, after closing at $50.45 the previous day, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
pguiteau@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) securities during the
period between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company violated 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002.  

As alleged in the suit, beginning in the fourth quarter of 1998,
unbeknownst to the public, the Company materially changed its revenue
recognition policy to recognize revenue on claims and change orders
relating to cost-overruns which its clients had not approved.
Previously, the Company would only recognize revenue on approved change
orders or claims.

The suit further alleges that the alteration of the Company's
accounting policy and financial results reported as a result thereof
through the class period were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because,
among other things, the accounting change was not disclosed to the
public or supported as the preferred accounting treatment in the
Company's financial statements and because collection of the claims or
change orders was not probable and the amounts involved could not be
estimated reliably.

As a result of these violations of GAAP, according to the complaint,
the Company's quarterly and annual earnings press releases and
financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) throughout the class period were materially false and misleading
and artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues and earnings,
thereby inflating the price of Company securities.

On May 28, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC is conducting an investigation
into its accounting for cost overruns.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
212-213-6222 by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.nyclasslaw.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL - News)
between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002 inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint charges that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, beginning in the fourth quarter of 1998,
unbeknownst to the public, the Company materially changed its revenue
recognition policy to recognize revenue on claims and change orders
relating to cost-overruns which its clients had not approved.
Previously, the Company would only recognize revenue on approved change
orders or claims.

The suit further alleges that the alteration of the Company's
accounting policy and financial results reported as a result thereof
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because,
among other things, the accounting change was not disclosed to the
public or supported as the preferred accounting treatment in the
Company's financial statements and because collection of the claims or
change orders was not probable and the amounts involved could not be
estimated reliably.

As a result of these violations of GAAP, according to the complaint,
the Company's quarterly and annual earnings press releases and
financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) throughout the class period were materially false and misleading
and artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues and earnings,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

On May 28, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC is conducting an investigation
into its accounting for cost overruns.  In reaction to the press
release, the price of its common stock dropped by 3.3% in one day on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or drscott@scott-
scott.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.scott-scott.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Halliburton Co. securities
(NYSE:HAL) between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) David J. Lesar,

     (2) Gary V. Morris, and

     (3) R. Charles Muchmore, Jr.

The suit alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Throughout the class period, the Company improperly recognized revenues
in connection with its long-term construction projects in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.  Beginning in the fourth
quarter of 1998 and without disclosing the change to the market, the
Company altered its accounting policies to report revenues to cover
disputed cost overruns on long-term construction projects, making the
tacit assumption that its customers would pay the disputed amounts. The
Company made this change during a very difficult year, with lower oil
prices adversely impacting its business and reported a net loss of
$14.7 million for the year ended December 31, 1998 (down dramatically
from net income of $722.4 million the year before).

In addition, in the third quarter of 1998, shortly before the
accounting change was made, the Company had just completed its
acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., which had been suffering from
an onslaught of hundreds of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits.  
For the change, the Company would have reported a loss in excess of
$100 million in 1998.

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by
Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


LANTRONIX INC.: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Lantronix Inc. (Nasdaq:LTRXE) publicly traded
securities during the period between April 25, 2001 and May 30, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company designs, develops, and markets network device servers.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused
Company shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  As a result of
this inflation, the Company was able to complete a secondary offering
of 8 million shares, raising proceeds of $64 million on July 17, 2001.

The defendants' alleged wrongful course of business:

     (1) artificially inflated the price of Company stock during the
         class period;

     (2) deceived the investing public, including plaintiff and other
         class members, into acquiring Company securities at
         artificially inflated prices;

     (3) allowed certain of the Individual Defendants to sell more than
         $13 million worth of the shares held/controlled by them and
         allowed the Company to sell $50 million worth of its own
         stock; and

     (4) permitted the Company to grow and benefit economically from
         the wrongful course of conduct.

The Company and its top officers inflated the price of the Company's
stock in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program.
Defendants knew that concealing its joint venture and the true impact
it would have on the Company provided the only way that they could
foster the perception in the business community that the Company was a
"growth company," i.e., the only way the Company could post the revenue
and earnings per share growth claimed by defendants.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5336, by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Interliant, Inc. (Nasdaq: INIT) from
August 4, 1999 through April 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that Merrill Lynch and its well-known Internet stock
analyst Henry Blodget violated the federal securities laws by knowingly
issuing false and misleading analyst reports regarding Interliant
during the class period.

Based on e-mails and other internal Merrill Lynch communications, which
were made public as a result of the investigation conducted by the New
York State Attorney General, Eliot L. Spitzer, the suit alleges that
defendants failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest
between their investment banking and research departments.

Specifically, Henry Blodget and other Merrill Lynch analysts issued
very favorable analyst reports regarding Interliant to the public when
they allegedly knew that the positive recommendations were unwarranted.  
Unbeknownst to the investing public, Merrill Lynch's buy  
recommendations and price targets for Interliant were influenced by its
efforts to attract lucrative investment banking business from
Interliant and other Internet companies.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) and its former
Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing false and
misleading analyst reports about 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:TFSM).
The case was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of 24/7 during the period from February 18, 2000 through November
9, 2000, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that in order to maintain and enhance Merrill
Lynch's investment banking relationships with 24/7, defendants issued
positive ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as
they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse
assessments of 24/7. For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a
short and long-term accumulate rating on 24/7 despite Mr. Blodget's
internal description of 24/7 as a "piece of shi(-)."

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market
price of 24/7 common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or
stabilized during the class period.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529,
888-4-POMLAW by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.pomlaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Openwave Systems, Inc. common
stock (Nasdaq:OPWV) between October 16, 2000 and August 13, 2001, both
dates inclusive.  Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its star analyst Henry
Blodget are named as defendants in the action.

The suit alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in analyst reports concerning Openwave during the class
period.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing analyst reports regarding Openwave that recommended the
purchase of Openwave common stock and which set price targets for
Openwave common stock, which were materially false and misleading and
lacked any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing their Openwave analyst
reports, defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts
of interest, which resulted from their use of Mr. Blodget's reputation
and his ability to issue favorable analyst reports, to obtain
investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Openwave analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Openwave stock, defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information they possessed about
Openwave.  Throughout the class period, defendants maintained
"ACCUMULATE/BUY" or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Openwave in order to
obtain and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
Openwave's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during
the class period.

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by
Fax: 212-682-1892, by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Launches Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of Mirant Corporation (NYSE:MIR) stock during the
period between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

The suit charges that the Company and certain of its senior officers
and directors made materially false and misleading statements to the
market, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the Company reaped illegal profits in the
state of California by artificially manipulating energy prices through
a variety of improper tactics.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company's fraudulent practices have resulted in investigations by both
the Attorney General of the State of California, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of lawsuits filed by the
state of California, and consumers.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, while the
Company announced quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and
assured investors that it had properly accounted for problems in the
California market, the Company, in fact, failed to:

     (1) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through
         a charge to earnings;

     (2) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings; and

     (3) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees.

Defendants' class period financial statements were therefore materially
overstated and, the complaint alleges, failed to comply with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: 612-339-6900 or
by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com  


MIRANT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Mirant Corporation, (NYSE: MIR) between January 19, 2001 and May 6,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements between January
19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

The complaint charges that the Company reaped illegal profits in
California by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety
of improper tactics that resulted in investigations by both the
Attorney General of the State of California, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of private lawsuits.

During the class period, while the Company announced quarter-after-
quarter of outstanding growth, and assured investors that problems in
the California market had been properly accounted for, the Company, in
fact, failed to:

     (1) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through
         a charge to earnings;

     (2) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings; and

     (3) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees.

As a result, defendants' class period financial statements were
materially overstated, and failed to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


MIRANT CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of Mirant Corp. (NYSE: MIR) securities during the period
between January 19, 2001 and May 16, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company reaped illegal profits in California by artificially
manipulating energy prices through a variety of improper tactics.

The complaint alleges that the Company's fraudulent practices have
resulted in investigations by both the Attorney General of the State of
California, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as a
number of lawsuits filed by California, and consumers.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, while the
Company announced quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and
assured investors that problems in the California market had been
properly accounted for, the Company, in fact, failed to:

     (1) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through
         a charge to earnings;

     (2) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings; and

     (3) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees.

As a result, according to the complaint, defendants' class period
financial statements were materially overstated, and failed to comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
212-213-6222 by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.nyclasslaw.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: The Emerson Firm Launches Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of Mirant Corporation (NYSE:MIR) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company reaped illegal profits in
California by artificially manipulating energy prices through a variety
of improper tactics.  The complaint alleges that the Company's
fraudulent practices have resulted in investigations by both the
Attorney General of the State of California, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of lawsuits filed by
California, and consumers.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, while the
Company announced quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and
assured investors that problems in the California market had been
properly accounted for, the Company, in fact, failed to:

     (1) provide for the return of illegally obtained revenue, through
         a charge to earnings;

     (2) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings; and

     (3) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees.

As a result, alleges the complaint, defendants' class period financial
statements were materially overstated, and failed to comply with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Four Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aguirre & Meyer, Kiesel Boucher & Larson, The Law Offices of Robert
Ottilie and Shapiro Haber & Urmy have filed a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Peregrine Systems, Inc.'s
(Nasdaq: PRGN) securities from June 19,1999 to May 6,2002.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Arthur Andersen,

     (2) JMI Services, Inc.,

     (3) JMI Equity Fund LP,

     (4) John J. Moores,

     (5) Charles E. Noell III,

     (6) Stephen Gardner, and

     (7) Matthew C. Gless

The complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements knowing the reports would inflate the price at which the
Company traded.  John J. Moores is alleged to have sold directly and
indirectly over $611 million of Company stock after the company went
public, including during times in which he knew Company stock was
trading at prices inflated by the Company's false financial statements.

For more details, contact Michael J. Aguirre of Aguirre & Meyer by
Phone: 619-235-8636

                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *