CAR_Public/020621.mbx                 C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                  Friday, June 21, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 122

                               Headlines

AARON RENTS: FL State Court Refuses Certification to Consumer Suit
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Swiss Press Hostile to Suit vs. Top Two Banks
ARCHER DANIELS: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Natural Gas Sale in TX
BEHR PROCESS: WA Appeals Court Grants Review of Class Certification

CONSECO FINANCE: Asks for Dismissal of Options Suit in MN Federal Court
CONSECO INC.: Forges New MOU in $125M Settlement of Securities Suit
EVERGOOD PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Suits Over Health Drink in CA Court
INDIAN FUNDS: Indians Label Money-Management Proposals "Too Vague"
K-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Yet to Commence in IL Fraud Suit

MARCOS WEALTH: Swiss Financier Says He Should Not Be Made to Testify
MCLEODUSA INC.: Investors File Suit vs. Officers Over "Bogus Orders"
OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks for Dismissal of Consumer Suits in S.D. NY
PARADYNE NETWORKS: FL Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
PARADYNE NETWORKS: To Mount Vigorous Defense in NY Securities Suit

PARKER DRILLING: TX Court Approves Settlement of Wage Antitrust Suit
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Flight Attendant Wins $5.5M Award in Smoking Suit
WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reinstates Injury Suit Over Hanford Complex
WORLDCOM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in MS

WORLDCOM INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense in Securities Suits in S.D. NY

                      New New Securities Fraud Cases

ALCATEL SA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
GREAT ATLANTIC: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in NJ
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Zwerling Schachter Launches Securities Suit in TX

IT GROUP: Kwasi Asiedu, Glancy Binkow File Securities Suit in NV
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Wites Kapetan Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA

MIRANT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
OMNICOM GROUP: Scott Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PEROT SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PETS.COM: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

RELIANT RESOURCES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
SALOMON SMITH: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Rabin Peckel Launches Securities Suit in CA
TRITON NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
TRITON NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL

USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in MD
VERISIGN INC.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

                               *********

AARON RENTS: FL State Court Refuses Certification to Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Escambia County Court in Florida awarded Aaron Rents, Inc. summary
judgment and denied class certification to a consumer suit, charging
the Company with technical violations of the Florida consumer
collections practices act and related claims.  The suit alleges
statutory damages of $500 per violation.

The case remains on appeal, and a second action filed on behalf of the
same putative class has been stayed pending the outcome of that appeal.
The Company believes the summary judgment will be upheld on appeal and
that it will not incur any material liability in connection with these
claims.  However, given the novelty of the action and the uncertainty
of consumer suits, there can be no assurance that such will be the
case.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Swiss Press Hostile to Suit vs. Top Two Banks
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss press roundly criticized Ed Fagan, the lawyer who filed a
class action against top Swiss banks Credit Suisse and UBS, alleging
that the banks supported South Africa's former apartheid regime, the
Xinhua News Agency reports.

Zurich-based newspaper, Tages Anzeiger, criticized Mr. Fagan's suit,
saying Swiss banks were a "sitting target" for Mr. Fagan, because they
"paid up quickly and were so scared."  The paper also questioned Mr.
Fagan's credibility, describing him as a vociferous "PR-manager" liable
to crop up wherever there was a lucrative claim to be made.

Swiss banks have nothing to fear from the suit, it added.  The paper
also suggested that the issue of the banks' moral responsibility in
helping to support the Apartheid regime should be put under public
scrutiny in the same way that the Bergier Commission was charged with
the investigation of Switzerland's wartime past.

The French-language Tribune de Geneve was also hostile to the suit,
saying they were right not to "let themselves be manipulated any
longer."  The paper also rejected Mr. Fagan's opportunism in seeking
substantial cash rewards by representing victims of historical
injustices.  "History is not a magic cauldron from which lawyers can
seek out their fortunes," the paper said.

Another newspaper, Berner Zeitung conceded that Swiss investment in
South Africa probably helped to sustain the Apartheid regime, according
to a Xinhua News Agency report.  However, the paper went on to state
that Switzerland is one of the world's leading investors in post-
Apartheid South Africa, and that it would be a shame if the suit would
jeopardize the close links between Switzerland and South Africa.

Le Temps said the Swiss people were becoming "increasingly exasperated"
by their country being held accountable for past injustices.  The paper
warned that the popular anger against Fagan ran counter to the ideal of
an open, responsible Switzerland, and played into the hands of populist
politicians.


ARCHER DANIELS: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court reversed a lower court's ruling dismissing a
six-year-old civil lawsuit, alleging that Archer Daniels Midland Co.
(ADM) and three other companies were involved in a conspiracy to fix
the price of high-fructose corn syrup, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled recently that
the plaintiffs in the class action, which includes softdrink makers
Coca-Cola and Pepsi, could pursue their case against ADM and:

      (1) AE Staley Manufacturing Co.,

      (2) Cargill Inc. and

      (3) American Maize Inc.

While the three-judge appeals panel said it did not want to prejudge
the outcome of a trial, it found there was "sufficient admissible
evidence in support of the hypothesis of a price-fixing conspiracy."

"The evidence is not conclusive by any means - there are alternative
interpretations of every bit of it," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the
panel.  "But it is highly suggestive of the existence of an explicit,
though of course covert, agreement to fix prices."

The Seventh Circuit thus reversed a ruling by Chief Judge Michael Mihm
of the US District Court for the Central District Illinois in Peoria.
Judge Mihm had granted a summary dismissal of the lawsuit.


The lawsuit grew out of a federal investigation into Decatur-based
ADM's involvement in a price-fixing scandal.  The Company received
immunity from all other charges when it pleaded guilty to fixing the
prices of lysine and citric acid in 1996.  The Company was never
convicted of fixing the price of corn syrup.

Three former ADM executives - Michael Andreas, Terry Wilson and Mark
Whitacre - received prison sentences in 1999 as a result of the
price-fixing scandal.


ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in Natural Gas Sale in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmos Energy Corporation faces a class action filed in February 2002 in
the 287th District Court of Parmer County.  Anderson Brothers, a
partnership, filed the suit, charging the Company and a member of its
divisions and subsidiaries with breach of contract concerning the
sale of natural gas used in irrigation activities since 1998 and an
alleged violation of the Texas Agricultural Gas Users Act of 1985.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages plus attorney's
fees.  The Company has denied any liability and intend to vigorously
defend against the plaintiffs' claims.


BEHR PROCESS: WA Appeals Court Grants Review of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington Appeals Court Commissioner granted Behr Process
Corporation's petition seeking a review of a Washington Superior Court
ruling granting class certification to a consumer suit, relating to its
exterior wood coating products.

The Company was initially served with 21 suits filed by consumers in
state courts in:

      (1) Alabama,

      (2) Alaska,

      (3) California,

      (4) Illinois,

      (5) New Jersey,

      (6) New York,

      (7) Oregon,

      (8) Washington,

      (9) British Columbia, Canada and

     (10) Ontario, Canada

The complaints allege that some of the Company's exterior wood coating
products fail to perform as warranted, resulting in damage to the
plaintiffs' wood surfaces.  Some of the complaints seek nationwide
class action certification, while others seek class action
certification for one state or region.

Proceedings in the California suits are being coordinated in the San
Joaquin, California Superior Court.  The Multnomah County, Oregon
Circuit Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for state
class certification in the Oregon case.  In addition, the Grays Harbor
County, Washington Superior Court issued an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for national class certification in the Washington case.  As a
result of that decision, the cases in all of the other states, except
for New Jersey and Illinois, have been stayed.  The New Jersey case was
dismissed without prejudice.

On May 9, 2002, the Washington Appeals Court Commissioner granted the
petition for immediate appellate review of the Washington decision.

The Company is continuing to defend the lawsuits and believes that
there are substantial grounds for denial of class action certification
and that there are substantial defenses to the claims.


CONSECO FINANCE: Asks for Dismissal of Options Suit in MN Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Finance Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota to dismiss one of the two securities class
actions pending against it, while the other two suits are in
preliminary discovery.

Three suits were initially filed on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased the Company's common stock or options alleged class periods
that generally run from July 1995 to January 1998.  One action (Florida
State Board of Admin. v. Green Tree Financial Corp., et. al) was
brought not on behalf of a class, but by the Florida State Board of
Administration, which invests and reinvests retirement funds for the
benefit of state employees.  The suits name as defendants the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The Company and other defendants obtained an order consolidating the
lawsuits seeking class action status into two actions, one of which
pertains to a purported class of common stockholders and the other of
which pertains to a purported class of stock option traders.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated
federal securities laws by, among other things, making false and
misleading statements about the current state and future prospects of
the Company (particularly with respect to prepayment assumptions and
performance of certain loan portfolios) which allegedly rendered the
Company's financial statements false and misleading.

On August 24, 1999, the court issued an order dismissing with prejudice
all claims alleged in the suits.  The plaintiffs subsequently appealed
the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  In
October 2001, a three judge panel issued an opinion reversing the
dismissal order and remanding the suits to the federal court.

The Company again moved to dismiss the options lawsuit on the grounds
that stock option traders lack standing under the federal securities
laws.  Argument on the motion is scheduled for May 24, 2002.  Pretrial
discovery in the options lawsuit is stayed pending disposition of the
motion to dismiss.  In the other lawsuits, pretrial discovery commenced
in April 2002.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
continue to defend them vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty.


CONSECO INC.: Forges New MOU in $125M Settlement of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. forged a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the
US$125 million settlement of the consolidated amended securities class
action against it, in April 2002.

A total of forty-five suits were filed in 2000 against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Nineteen of these cases were putative class actions on behalf of
persons or entities that purchased the Company's common stock during
alleged class periods that generally run from April 1999 through April
2000.

All of these class actions were consolidated into one case in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
captioned: "In Re Conseco, Inc. Securities Litigation."  An amended
complaint was filed on January 12, 2001, which asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, with
respect to common stock and various other securities issued by the
Company and Conseco Financing Trust VII.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in April
2001.  In January 2002, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to settle the litigation for US$120 million subject
to court approval.  Under the MOU, as amended on February 12, 2002,
$106 million was required to be placed in escrow by March 8, 2002 while
the remaining $14 million was to be paid in two installments - $6
million by April 1, 2002, and $8 million by October 1, 2002 (all
payments with interest from January 25, 2002).

The $106 million due on March 8, 2002, was not paid, and the MOU has
been terminated by the plaintiffs.  On April 15, 2002, a new MOU was
executed.  Pursuant to the new MOU,  US$ 95million was funded on April
25, 2002, with the remaining $25 million to await the outcome of the
coverage litigation between the Company and certain of its directors'
and officers' liability insurance carriers.


EVERGOOD PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Suits Over Health Drink in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Health supplement manufacturer Evergood Products Corporation faces
three separate lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in the first quarter of 2002, relating to its health drink
named KAVA.

The Company anticipates that these actions will be certified as a class
action.  The suits are first commencing and no responsive pleadings
have yet been filed.  It is impossible to currently predict the outcome
of these actions.  However, based upon currently available information
and considering its various claims and defenses, management is
confident that the outcome of these actions will not have a materially
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.


INDIAN FUNDS: Indians Label Money-Management Proposals "Too Vague"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposals before the National Congress of American Indians to change
the way the government manages Indian money are so vague that they are
open to abuse by the Interior Department, said a California tribal
chairman recently, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Clifford Marshall, head of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, told tribal leaders
at a three-day conference that five reform options developed by a task
force are too similar to a proposal made and later thrown out by
Interior Secretary Gale Norton.  "Are you prepared to submit this to
Congress?  I'd be shaking in my boots.  I am shaking in my boots," he
said.

Secretary Norton, who met with tribal leaders recently, said she does
not expect any single reform proposal to have unanimous support.  The
task force - comprised of federal officials and 24 tribal
representatives from 12 regions of the country - was created after Ms.
Norton's initial plan was opposed by tribes, who said they were not
consulted.

Ms. Norton's proposal was to create a new bureau to track American
Indian money.  The options developed by the task force of tribal
leaders and federal officials involve restructuring the agencies that
deal with trust management, or creating a new agency.

A class action, filed on behalf of 300,000 American Indians, alleges
mismanagement in the system that oversees $500 million annually in
royalties from the leasing of Indian land.  The current mismanagement
is preceded by decades of money-handling by Interior which resulted in
funds stolen, lost and not even collected - to an extent that the total
damages sought in the lawsuit runs into the tens of billions of
dollars.

Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth is considering holding Secretary
Norton and Neal McCaleb, assistant secretary for American Indian
affairs, in contempt, because the department has not acted quickly
enough to correct the problems.  The government acknowledges
mismanaging the trust system, but disputes the amount of money lost.

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has scheduled a June 26 hearing
in Washington on the reform efforts.  The National Congress of American
Indians, which represents more than 250 tribes, hopes to develop a
proposal to take to Congress in early July, said its president, Tex
Hall.


K-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Yet to Commence in IL Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not yet begun in the class action against K-tel
International, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The suit also names certain of the Company's subsidiaries,
and other manufacturers, distributors and a number of nationwide
retailers, as defendants.

The suits seeks damages on behalf of himself and purchasers of cassette
tapes and compact discs produced, distributed and/or sold by the
defendants.  The suit alleges that defendants engaged in deceptive and
misleading packaging of cassette tapes and compact discs by failing to
give proper notice to consumers that the songs contained therein are
not the original recordings by the original artists.  The suit also
alleges:

      (1) consumer fraud,

      (2) deceptive and unfair practices, and

      (3) fraud in connection with website advertising and marketing.

Similar litigation was brought against the Company by the lead
plaintiff in 1997 and was dismissed by a federal court in 1999 on
jurisdictional grounds.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in June 2000.  In
February 2001, the court dismissed the complaint against the other
manufacturers, distributors and nationwide retailers, but allowed the
case to continue against the Company.

The Company denies that it mislabeled cassette tapes and compact discs
or engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct and intends to defend
vigorously the purported action.  While discovery has not yet begun and
no assurance can be given that the Company will be successful in
defending this action, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the plaintiff's claims.


MARCOS WEALTH: Swiss Financier Says He Should Not Be Made to Testify
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss financier Jean-Louis Sunier, reported to have helped former
Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos manage assets, insists that he
should not be forced to testify regarding a now-US$3.1 billion class
action judgment against Mr. Marcos, Associated Press reports.  Mr.
Sunier said recently that he was unaware of a suggestion agreed to by
his attorney in federal court in Hawaii that he make his deposition
next month in Munich, Germany.

"Calling me to testify in this manner is a violation of the Hague
Convention, which were signed by the United States and Switzerland,"
Mr. Sunier told the Associated Press.  "It specifies that citizens of
one country can only be questioned in their country."

Robert Swift, an attorney for the Filipinos who successfully sued the
Marcos estate, had asked US District Judge Manuel Real, visiting from
Los Angeles, to find Mr. Sunier in contempt and fine him $10,000 a day
until he testifies.  Judge Real delayed ruling on the motion and gave
attorneys two days to make a final offer that would allow Mr. Sunier to
testify under certain conditions and avoid incriminating himself.

Attorneys were ordered to report progress back to Judge Real, at which
time he would decide whether the sanctions were warranted.  Jack
Cullen, Mr. Sunier's attorney, told the judge he would recommend to his
client that he accept the offer.

Robert Swift, the Filipinos' attorney, said he believes Mr. Sunier can
provide information that would be helpful in enforcing a US$2 billion
judgment against the Marcos estate that has grown to US$3.1 billion
with interest.

However, Mr. Sunier has said that until attorneys are ready to pursue
his testimony under the terms of the Hague Convention, he remained
bound by "professional secrecy."  He also said that his testimony would
add nothing because Mr. Marcos' home was already looted after his fall
from power and all necessary documents already in the plaintiffs'
hands.

The class action filed on behalf of by 9,539 Filipinos was commenced
against the Marcos estate in 1986, the year he was deposed and fled to
Hawaii.  He died in 1989.  In 1995, a Honolulu jury warded plaintiffs
US$2 billion, after finding the former president responsible for
summary executions, disappearances and torture.  The judgment was
upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 1996, but
plaintiffs had trouble collecting money from foreign accounts with
contested ownership.

Judge Real in 1999, approved a US$150 million settlement that was to be
taken from $570 million of Mr. Marcos' frozen Swiss bank deposits held
in an escrow account in a Philippine bank.

When the payout was tied up in Philippine courts, Judge Real reinstated
the original US$2 billion judgment in November 2000.  Whether or not
Mr. Sunier can impart any information or documentation that would
assure the Philippine government that other parties, with well-defined,
superior interests in the monies in Mr. Marcos' Swiss accounts, will
not show up and hold that government liable for monies released to the
class action plaintiffs, well, that is indeed the question, convoluted
in its substance, as well as in its expression on the printed page.


MCLEODUSA INC.: Investors File Suit vs. Officers Over "Bogus Orders"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
McLeodUSA, Inc. investors contend in a lawsuit that the company
backdated contracts and booked bogus orders to inflate quarterly
results, Associated Press Newswire reports.

Statements attributed to unnamed former Company employees are cited in
the consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court in Cedar Rapids.  "According to numerous former
employees, the company resored to a myriad of improper revenue
practices to report favorable financial results, which were in line
with, or exceeded analysts' estimates despite the significant and
worsening financial decline McLeodUSA was experiencing," the lawsuit
said.

The lawsuit names three current and former Company officials since
shareholders are prevented by a bankruptcy filing from suing the
company.  The following defendants are named:

      (1) Clark McLeod, former Chairman and co-CEO,

      (2) Stephen Gray, Current President,

      (3) Chris Davis, current Chairman and CEO

The list of plaintiffs was expanded in the consolidated pleadings to
include J. Lyle Patrick, formerly chief financial officer and
accounting officer.

The lawsuit combines and expands allegations from about a dozen
lawsuits seeking to recover damages from the Company during a period
from January 30,2001 to December 3, 2001.  Many investors are still
stinging from losses incurred during that period, when Company shares
plummeted 98 percent to 40 cents and the Company announced plans to
seek bankruptcy protection.

Previous lawsuits relied primarily on allegations that the company made
false and misleading public statements to the investment community in
violation of federal securities law.  The consolidated case cites
problems with the Company's financial reporting and accounting system.
Examples include:

      (1) a former Chicago-are employee who reported that he was
          specifically instructed by management not to report the
          cancellation of a large contract by K&K Consulting in the last
          week of September 2001 until the next fiscal quarter "so they
          could make their numbers;" and

      (2) a former senior sales manager for the small-business group
          advised that the manipulation of sales numbers was a company-
          wide problem.

The cases were ordered consolidated by Chief Magistrate John Jarvey.


OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks for Dismissal of Consumer Suits in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trucking and courier services company Overseas Partners, Ltd. asked for
the dismissal of several class actions filed against them relating to
its relationship with United Parcel Services, Inc (UPS).

The Company was named as a defendant in two class actions filed on
behalf of customers of UPS, in Montgomery County, Ohio Court and Butler
County, Ohio Court.  The lawsuits allege, amongst other things, that
UPS told its customers that they were purchasing insurance for coverage
of loss or damage to goods shipped by UPS.  The lawsuits further allege
that UPS wrongfully enriched itself with the monies paid by its
customers to purchase such insurance.

The two suits were later removed to federal court and thereafter
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and consolidated in a multi-district litigation
for pretrial discovery purposes with other actions asserting claims
against UPS.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended those claims against all
defendants to join a Rackeeter Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) claim as well.

On August 7, 2000, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Overseas Partners Capital Corporation (OPCC), were added as defendants
in a third class action, also consolidated in the multi-district
litigation, which alleges violations of United States antitrust
laws, and state unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws.

The allegations in the lawsuits are drawn from an opinion by the United
States Tax Court that found that the insurance program, as offered
through UPS, by domestic insurance companies, and ultimately reinsured
by the Company, should not be recognized for federal income tax
purposes.

In June 2001, the tax court opinion was reversed by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remanded to the tax court
for further consideration.  The parties filed supplemental briefs on
remand on March 18, 2002.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to all three
actions and intends to defend them vigorously.  The Company filed
motions to dismiss all of the actions on a number of grounds, including
that the antitrust claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, and that the remaining claims are preempted by federal law.
There can be no assurance, however, that an adverse determination
of the lawsuits would not have a material effect on the Company.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: FL Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division refused to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action against Paradyne Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors:

      (1) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at the time,

      (2) Patrick Murphy, s Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
          President,

      (3) Thomas Epley, Chairman of the Board, and

      (4) Sean E. Belanger, current President and Chief Executive
          Officer and a director


The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations by the defendants
of the securities anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
specifically Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It further alleges that the individual defendants are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as "control persons of the
Company."  The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors
during a purported class period of September 28, 1999 through September
28, 2000 and allege, in effect, that the defendants during that time,
through material misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulently or
recklessly inflated the market price of the Company's stock by
allegedly erroneously reporting that:

      (i) the Company was performing well;

     (ii) its inventories were properly stated; and

    (iii) its customer base and product demand were solid

The Company filed a motion in May 2001, asking the court to dismiss the
suit with prejudice.  The court, however, denied this motion.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them, although it cannot predict the outcome.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: To Mount Vigorous Defense in NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc. faces a securities class action pending since
December 2001 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the Company, some
of its executive officers and the chairman of the board, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).  One of
the Company's directors, Keith B. Geeslin, is employed by the successor
to an affiliate of DLJ Capital Corporation, one of the underwriters of
the IPO.

The suit alleges that defendants, during the period from July 15, 1999
through December 6, 2000, violated federal securities laws by
allocating shares of its IPO to favored customers in exchange for their
promise to purchase shares in the secondary market at escalating
prices.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them, although it cannot predict the outcome.


PARKER DRILLING: TX Court Approves Settlement of Wage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division approved a US$625,000 settlement proposed by two of
Parker Drilling Company's subsidiaries and other defendants in a wage
antitrust class action.

The plaintiff in the suit is a former employee of a drilling contractor
engaged in offshore drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.  The
defendants are various drilling contractors, including the Company's
subsidiaries, who conduct drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

The suit alleged that the defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by agreeing with each other to depress wages and
benefits paid to employees working for said defendants.  The suit was
filed on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
of the defendants that have allegedly suffered similar damages from the
alleged actions of defendants.

The defendants later entered into a stipulation of settlement with the
plaintiff, pursuant to which the subsidiaries will pay $625,000 for a
full and complete release of all claims brought in the case.  The court
issued its final approval of the settlement on April 18, 2002.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Telaxis
Communications Corporation filed an amended suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Four suits were initially filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and the the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).  The amended suit supersedes the
individual complaints originally filed.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws
due to alleged statements in and omissions from the Company's IPO
registration statement concerning the underwriters' alleged activities
in connection with the underwriting of the Company's shares to the
public.

The suit has been assigned along with approximately 1,000 other
lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately
300 other publicly-traded companies and their public offering
underwriters to a single federal judge in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes.

The Company denies any liability and intends to vigorously defend
the allegations against it.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Flight Attendant Wins $5.5M Award in Smoking Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A former flight attendant who blames her sinus disease on second-hand
smoke in airplanes recently was awarded US$5.5 million in her lawsuit
against four tobacco companies, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Lynn French, 56, of Calabasas, California, had worked 14 years before
in-flight smoking was banned on domestic flights in 1990.  Based on a
1997 class action settlement, the jury had to presume that secondhand
smoke caused her chronic sinusitis, a persistent inflammation of the
sinus.  Ms. French had to prove, however, that secondhand smoke
significantly contributed to her illness.

During the two-week trial, lawyers for the tobacco companies called
doctors who said the disease was more commonly caused by bacteria and
allergies rather than secondhand smoke.  Ms. French's lawyers told the
jurors not to trust the doctors, saying they were paid to testify.

"They are going to take simple issues and make them confusing, cloudy
and dirty," said Ms. French's attorney, Adam Trop.  He had asked for
compensatory damages to make up for Ms. French's past and future
medical bills and intangible losses.  It took the jury about two hours
to reach its verdict against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Lorillard.

Tobacco attorney William McCew said no decision had been made whether
to appeal.

In the $349 million national class action settlement, a system of mini-
trials for attendants suing the four cigarette makers was created.
About 3,125 flight attendants are seeking money for illnesses blamed on
secondhand smoke, but not yet have won in a lawsuit.  No punitive
damages are possible in any of the mini lawsuits.


WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reinstates Injury Suit Over Hanford Complex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated two suits
filed by "downwinders" - people who lived downwind from the Hanford
nuclear complex, in Washington.  The "downwinders" filed the suits,
alleging radiation from the nuclear weapons complex caused them to
become sick, the Associated Press reports.

The Hanford nuclear complex made plutonium for the nation's arsenal for
more than 40 years.  The suit names as defendants five former Hanford
contractors:

      (1) E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,

      (2) General Electric Co.,

      (3) UNC Nuclear Industries,

      (4) Atlantic Richfield Co. and

      (5) Rockwell International Corp.

The two suits were dismissed in part by a Washington federal judge in
1998.  One lawsuit, filed on behalf of 4,500 plaintiffs, was dismissed
after the court ruled that scientific evidence of radiation injury was
too complex for a jury to determine.  The court also dismissed all
claims in the second suit, which includes about 1,000 plaintiffs,
except those from people who had certain types of cancer, and from
those who could show exposure to radioactive emissions put them at
great risk for those cancers, AP reports.

"It's a great victory for the people who have suffered from the last 50
years as a result of enormous radiation releases from Hanford," Roy
Haber, a lawyer representing about 600 plaintiffs, told Associated
Press.


"We're disappointed in the decision, and we strongly disagree with it,"
said Kevin Van Wart, an attorney for the five contractors.  "We're
considering our options."

In both cases, the appeals panel said the lower court needed to
consider whether there was proof that exposure to radiation at the
level alleged by the plaintiffs could cause illness in the general
population.  According to an AP report, the appeals panel also rejected
the contractors' argument that residents should have to show they were
exposed to so much Hanford radiation that it more than doubled the risk
of harm.


WORLDCOM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in MS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against
Worldcom, Inc. appealed a Mississippi federal court's ruling dismissing
the suit with prejudice.

Several suits were initially commenced in November 2000 against the
Company and some of its executive officers in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Southern
District of New York, and the District of Columbia.

All of these actions were consolidated in the Southern District of
Mississippi in March 2001, along with another purported class action
filed on behalf of individuals who purchased stock in Intermedia
between September 5 and November 1, 2000, which action asserted
substantially similar claims and alleges that after the announcement of
the WorldCom-Intermedia merger, the price of Intermedia stock was tied
to the price of Company stock.

In June 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended suit.  Among
other things, the consolidated amended suit alleged that:

      (1) statements regarding the Company's revenues, the integration
          of MCI, the success of UUNET Technologies, and the expansion
          of the Company's network were false;

      (2) the Company's financial disclosures were false; and

      (3) the Company's announcement of its "generation d" initiative
          was misleading.

Based on these allegations, the consolidated amended suit asserts
claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit complaint seeks to certify a
class of persons who purchased Company shares between February 10, 2000
and November 1, 2000, inclusive, but it does not assert separate claims
on behalf of purchasers of Intermedia shares.

In March 2002, the court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated
suit filed by the defendants, and entered final judgment dismissing the
complaint with prejudice.  In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The Company believes that the suit and the notice of appeal are
without merit and will continue to defend against them vigorously.


WORLDCOM INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense in Securities Suits in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldCom, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) between
January 3, 2000 and April 29, 2002, inclusive against the Company and:

      (1) Bernard J. Ebbers, President and Chief Executive Officer,

      (2) James C. Allen, director,

      (3) Max E. Bobbitt, director,

      (4) Francisco Galesi, director, and

      (5) Arthur Andersen, LLP

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder, as well as pendant state law claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and intentional deceit and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with
false and/or misleading financial statements.

The Company believes the factual allegations and legal claims asserted
in these complaints are without merit and will defend them vigorously.


                      New New Securities Fraud Cases


ALCATEL SA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of:

      (1) all purchasers of the common stock of Alcatel SA (Nasdaq:
          ALAO) relating to Alcatel's Class O common shares in or
          traceable to the initial public offering of the ADSs conducted
          by Alcatel on or about October 20, 2000; and

      (2) all persons other than defendants who purchased Alcatel's
          Class A common shares (NYSE: ALA) and Class O common shares in
          the form of ADSs between October 20, 2000 and May 29, 2001,
          inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing a false and misleading prospectus on October 20, 2000, and
by making material misrepresentations to the market between October 20,
2000 and May 29, 2001.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on October 20, 2000, the
Company issued a prospectus for the sale of Class O stock in the form
of American Depositary Shares (ADSs) that purportedly would track the
performance of its Optronics Division.

The prospectus was materially false and misleading, as alleged in the
complaint, because it failed to disclose:

      (i) that demand for the Company's optical components was weakening
          as Alcatel and the Optronics Division's other customers were
          experiencing severe and persistent business slowdowns;

     (ii) that the purportedly increasing demand for the Optronics
          Division's optical components was the result of a massive
          inventory build at the Optical Division's primary customer,
          Alcatel, and at the Company's external customers;

    (iii) that the Company was amassing hundreds of millions of dollars
          of obsolete inventory which would have to be written-off; and

     (iv) that in light of the decreasing demand for optical components,
          the Company was not in a position to successfully promote
          sales of all product lines to outside customers.

Subsequently, on May 29, 2001, the Company issued an unexpected and
severe profit warning and separately announced that it expected to
report a second- quarter loss of approximately $2.6 billion.

Following this announcement, the price of Alcatel Class O common
shares, in the form of ADSs, declined by 11% from a closing price of
$21.26 on May 29, 2001 to a closing price of $18.92 on May 30, 2001.
Similarly, Alcatel Class A common shares, in the form of ADSs declined
by 8.8% from $27.14 to 24.74.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-
551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com


CMS ENERGY: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of CMS Energy Corp. (NYSE:CMS) securities
during the period from August 3, 2000 through May 10, 2002 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The complaint charges the Company, as well as its Chief Executive,
Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officers, with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The alleged violations, according to the complaint, stem from
materially false and misleading financial statements issued by the
defendants during the class period that, as detailed below:

      (1) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and
          financial performance; and

      (2) caused Company securities to trade at artificially inflated
          prices.

The suit alleges that, during the class period, the Company inflated
its publicly reported revenues through sham "round-trip" energy trading
in which it purchased and sold the exact same amount of energy at the
exact same price.  There is no reason for doing these transactions
other than to inflate reported revenues, growth, and market share.

As the complaint alleges, the Company has admitted to reporting $4.4
billion in false revenues from such sham energy trading, thereby
inflating its publicly reported revenues by approximately 30% during
2001.

The complaint alleges that the inflated and publicly reported revenue
and trading figures misrepresented the Company's real revenue, growth
rate, and market share.  As a result, the complaint alleges, Company
securities traded at inflated prices based on such publicly reported,
but misleading, figures; and investors who purchased Company securities
at such inflated prices were damaged thereby.  The SEC is now
investigating the Company, which is restating its financial statements
for 2001 in order to remove previously reported and misleading revenues
stemming from round-trip trading.

When the Company admitted the existence and extent of such round-trip
trading, its shares lost approximately 20% of the their value, falling
from above $20.00 per share on May 10, 2002 to below $16.00 per share
on May 13, 2002.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Michele Kennedy by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-
2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: mkennedy@kmslaw.com


DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock between April 17, 2001 and April 25, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period
defendants:

      (1) made false and misleading public disclosures regarding its
          cash flows from operations; and

      (2) failed to disclose information material to investors,
          including the details of its "Project Alpha," a transaction
          involving two special purpose entities and a partnership
          Dynegy created for the purposes of increasing cash flow from
          operations and decreasing tax costs.

As a result of defendants' misleading statements and omissions during
the class period, the price of Company common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Shelley Thompson by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-
1952 or (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com


GREAT ATLANTIC: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (NYSE:GAP), and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities
between November 15, 2001 and May 28, 2002.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, David C. Katz and/or James E.
Tullman by Mail: 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York NY 10176 by
Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Zwerling Schachter Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
securities of Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) between July 22, 1999 and
May 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations during the class
period.

As alleged in the complaint, beginning in the fourth quarter of 1998,
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 during the class period, the Company
improperly recognized revenues in connection with the Company's long-
term construction projects in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

On May 28, 2002, the Company disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) had begun a preliminary investigation of its
accounting treatment of cost overruns on construction jobs.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Don Lanier by Phone: 1-800-
721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or dlanier@zsz.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.zsz.com.


IT GROUP: Kwasi Asiedu, Glancy Binkow File Securities Suit in NV
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kwasi Asiedu and Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District Of Nevada
on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of IT Group Inc.
(IT) during the period between February 24, 2000 and January 15, 2002.

The suit charges the Company, Anthony J. DeLuca and Harry J. Soose with
violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff
claims that defendants' omissions and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's business operations, revenues and earnings
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

For more details, contact Kwasi Asiedu by Mail: 3858 Carson Street #204
Torrance, CA 90503 or by Phone: (310) 792-3948 or contact Lionel Z.
Glancy by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars #311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 or
by Phone: (310) 201-9150


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP  initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of GoTo, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVER) between January 11, 2001 and June 6,
2001, inclusive.

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

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing their GoTo analyst
reports, the 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 GoTo analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of GoTo stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed
about GoTo.

Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained positive
recommendations on GoTo in order to obtain and support lucrative
financial deals for Merrill Lynch.  As a result of defendants' false
and misleading analyst reports, GoTo's common stock traded at
artificially inflated levels during the class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or Donald
R. Hall by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-
mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody 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 shares of the Internet
Strategies Fund, Inc. ((Fund: "MANTX") "MBNTX" "MCNTX" "MDNTX"
"MANTXEMP" "MANTXFEE") between March 14, 2000 and October 15, 2001,
inclusive against defendants:

      (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

      (2) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

      (3) Henry Blodget,

      (4) Paul G. Meeks, and

      (5) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund.

On October 15, 2001, the Internet Strategies Fund merged with The
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund ((NASDAQ:"MAGTX") "MBGTX" "MCGTX"
"MDGTX").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that throughout the class period defendants knowingly or
recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding, among other things, the risk factors and investment
strategies of the Internet Strategies Fund.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a
scheme that was intended to use Mr. Blodget's strong reputation and
bullish ratings on Internet stocks to market the Internet Strategies
Fund to unsuspecting investors.  In fact, as a result of defendants'
scheme, over one billion dollars was invested in the Internet
Strategies Fund by investors.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Interliant, Inc. (Nasdaq: INIT) common
stock during the period between August 4, 1999 and April 8, 2002,
inclusive, against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and its former star
Internet analyst Henry Blodget for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint 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 Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-
551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, claiming that the company
misled investors about its business and financial condition.  The suit
is filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all investors who bought Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies
Fund securities between March 14, 2000 and October 15, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the New Jersey-based Merrill Lynch Internet
Strategies Fund issued false and misleading statements to the public
concerning its recommendations of shares of Internet companies in the
Fund.

Furthermore, when issuing shares of the Fund and their Internet Company
reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest which they had, in light of their use of
defendant Henry Blodget's reputation and his Internet companies'
analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business for Merrill
Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing shares of the Fund and their Internet company
reports, in which they were recommending the purchase of stock in
Internet companies, the defendants failed to disclose material, non-
public, adverse information which they possessed about Internet
companies in the Fund as well as their true opinion about Internet
companies in the Fund.

For more details, contact Shareholder Relations Manager by Phone: 888-
299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Interliant, Inc. (Nasdaq: INIT)
common stock between August 4, 1999 and April 8, 2002 inclusive,
against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and its former star Internet analyst
Henry Blodget for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by the issuance of analyst reports regarding Interliant
which recommended the purchase of Interliant common stock and which set
price targets for Interliant common stock without any reasonable
factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing their Interliant reports, defendants failed
to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest which they had,
in light of their use of Mr. Blodget's reputation and his Interliant
analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business for Merrill
Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Interliant reports, in which they were
recommending the purchase of Interliant stock, defendants failed to
disclose their true opinion about Interliant, and that because of an
undisclosed, internal policy, the "reduce" and "sell" recommendations
were not issued, thereby altering a published five category rating
system into a three category system.

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, Robert Abrams, Michael
Miske, George Peters, 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. E-mail should refer to Interliant.


MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action against the Merrill
Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. ("MANTX"; "MBNTX"; "MCNTX";
"MDNTX"; "MANTXEMP"; "MANTXFEE") on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased shares of the Internet Strategies Fund during the period
from March 14, 2000 through October 15, 2001, inclusive.  The suit also
names as defendants:

      (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

      (2) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

      (3) Henry Blodget,

      (4) Paul G. Meeks and

      (5) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund

On October 15, 2001, the Internet Strategies Fund merged with The
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund ("MAGTX"; "MBGTX"; "MCGTX";
"MDGTX").

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint charges defendants with violations
of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that throughout the class period
defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and
misleading statements regarding, among other things, the risk factors
and investment strategies of the Internet Strategies Fund.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a
scheme that was intended to use Mr. Blodget's strong reputation and
bullish ratings on Internet stocks to market the Internet Strategies
Fund to unsuspecting investors.  In fact, as a result of defendants'
scheme, over one billion dollars was invested in the Internet
Strategies Fund by investors.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. By Phone: (800) 889-
3701 by E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) and other affiliated parties in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased Merrill's Internet Strategies Fund
("MANTX," "MBNTX," "MCNTX" and "MDNTX") during the period March 14,
2000 through October 15, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants manipulated the market price of
the Internet companies comprising the Internet Strategies Fund through
the issuance of inflated ratings and biased research reports.

This scheme was part of a larger undisclosed scheme whereby Merrill
Lynch research analysts in the Internet group, under pressure from
Merrill Lynch's investment bankers, initiated and/or manipulated
research coverage to maintain and attract investment banking clients,
even when the analysts internally harbored doubts about the valuation
of the internet stocks that they covered.

Shares of the Internet Strategies Fund, which were first issued on
March 17, 2000 at $10.00 a share, plummeted over 80% to $1.77 per share
on October 12, 2001, at which time it was merged into Merrill Lynch's
Global Technology Fund ("MAGTX," "MBGTX," "MCGTX" and "MCGTX").

Defendants' misconduct was first revealed on April 8, 2002, after the
New York Attorney General issued a scathing report on Merrill Lynch's
analysts' practices.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel or Abigail Kowaloff by Mail:
845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9620 or
877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 by E-Mail:  IRRep@wolfpopper.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Wites Kapetan Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Wites & Kapetan, PA initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Merrill Lynch's Internet Architecture
HOLDRS Trust (AMEX:IAH) during the period between February 10, 2000
through April 8, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

      (1) Ahmass L. Fakahany,

      (2) John J. Steffens,

      (3) E. Stanley O'Neal, and

      (4) George A. Schieren

The Company violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements to the
market during the class period about the IAH Trust, which holds 20
publicly traded companies involved in the internet-architecture
business.

According to the suit, Merrill and the individual defendants failed to
disclose in the Prospectus for the IAH Trust that Merrill's Internet
research analysts issued inflated ratings and biased reports for many
of the companies in the IAH Trust.

The suit further alleges that Merrill engaged in such conduct despite
knowing that these companies were overvalued and, as a result, the IAH
Trust's value would decline.

The suit's allegations are based, in part, on the New York State
Attorney General's reports on the activities of Merrill's Internet
research practices.

For more details, contact Wites & Kapetan, PA by Mail: 1761 West
Hillsboro Boulevard Suite 403 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 by Phone:
954/570-8989 by Fax: 954/428-3929 by E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.wklawyers.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all persons who purchased securities of Mirant Corporation (NYSE:MIR)
between January 19, 2001, and May 6, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants obtained 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.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Company
announced quarter after quarter of outstanding growth and assured
investors that problems in the California market had been properly
accounted.  The Company, however:

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

      (2) failed to provide for professional fees associated with the
          investigations arising from the fraud, and

      (3) failed to disclose 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, during the class period, defendants' financial statements
were materially overstated and failed to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The complaint alleges that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's revenues and earnings caused the Company's
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 (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Mirant Corporation (NYSE:MIR) (formerly known as
"Southern Energy Company") and four of the Company's senior officers on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities during the period between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002,
inclusive.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) under Index Number 02-CV-1685,
charges the Company and four of its senior officials with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants conspired to
manipulate the supply and price of electricity in the wholesale
electricity market.  As a result of defendants' manipulation, the
Company (a global competitive energy company) reported quarter after
quarter of "record" financial results throughout the class period.  It
is further alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition and business.

According to the suit , the Company's financial results were
artificially inflated through the use of fraudulent activities such as
"gaming the market" and "double dipping," or selling reserves already
owed to California to other purchasers, and otherwise artificially
manipulating the market price of energy in California, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

On March 12, 2002, the Company announced that it was one of six
companies identified by the Public Utility Commission of Texas as
having "over-scheduled power requirements in the Texas wholesale energy
market."  Thereafter, the State of California sued the Company alleging
that the Company overcharged the State during its power crisis.

On May 7, 2002, the New York Times reported that documents in the Enron
investigation revealed that the Company might have engaged in
fraudulent practices similar to Enron in the California market.  The
market reaction to the New York Times article was swift. The price of
Company stock lost over 80% of its value, falling from its class period
high of $50.00 per share to close at $9.75 per share on May 7, 2002, on
a trading volume of over 7 million shares.

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


MIRANT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of persons who acquired securities of Mirant Corporation (NYSE:MIR)
(formerly known as "Southern Energy Company") between January 19, 2001
and May 6, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws by artificially inflating the
price of the Company's stock through their actions and statements.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants schemed to manipulate the supply and
price of electricity in the wholesale electricity market, as alleged in
a lawsuit filed against the Company by the State of California.

As a result of defendants' manipulation of the electric market, the
Company reported quarter after quarter of outstanding growth and
positive financial results during the class period.

Defendants also made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition and business, including
assuring investors that financial issues related to the California
energy market had been properly accounted for.

The complaint alleges that defendants' manipulation allowed the Company
to complete a lucrative secondary stock offering in December 2001 and a
$750 million convertible debenture offering in May 2001.  In addition,
defendants reaped more than $8 million by selling Company stock at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Since its class period high of $47, the price of Company stock has more
than 80% of its value.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiff and other members of the class who purchased Company stock at
artificially inflated prices during the class period have suffered
damages.

For more details, contact Timothy J. Burke by Phone: 888-388-4605 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.secfraud.com


OMNICOM GROUP: Scott Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Omnicom Group, Inc. (NYSE: OMC) between
April 25, 2000 and June 11, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and:

      (1) John D. Wren,

      (2) Randall J. Weisenburger,

      (3) Bruce Crawford and

      (4) Philip J. Angelastro

The suit 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 material misrepresentations to the
market between April 25, 2000 and June 11, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that prior to and throughout the class period,
defendants reported that the Company was continuing to experience
growth in its revenues and earnings, despite the overall economic
slowdown and the worst decline in advertising revenue that the industry
had ever experienced.  As alleged in the complaint, the Company's
growth was attributed, for the most part, to the numerous acquisitions
made by the Company, which were accretive to the Company's earnings.

However, on June 12, 2002, an article in The Wall Street Journal
highlighted the Company's acquisition accounting and raised questions
concerning the Company's creation of an off-balance sheet entity in
which it transferred certain Internet investments.  In particular, with
respect to the Company's accounting for acquisitions, the article noted
that:

      (i) the Company immediately included revenue and earnings from
          recent acquisitions in its reported financial results, in
          contrast to its competitors who excluded the results for the
          first year after the company was acquired, thereby creating a
          materially misleading impression of the Company's performance;

     (ii) that the Company continued to owe hundreds of millions of
          dollars in additional payments for companies that it had
          previously acquired; and

    (iii) the Company faced a potential future liability whereby, under
          certain circumstances, it might be required to acquire
          companies in which it had invested.

With respect to the off-balance sheet entity, the article described the
Company's transfer of its internet investments to Seneca, which had
been jointly created with Pegasus Capital LLP in May 2001. According to
the article, Seneca had been created as a vehicle for the Company to
avoid reporting a loss on its investments in internet companies that
had become devalued.

In response to the revelations contained in The Wall Street Journal
article, the price of Company common stock dropped precipitously,
falling almost 20% to close at $62.28, on volume of more than 31
million shares traded.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone: 1-
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


PEROT SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Perot Systems
Corp. (NYSE:PER) between February 2, 1999 and June 7, 2002, inclusive,
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and seeks to recover damages.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants omitted to disclose
crucial facts regarding risky business practices engaged in by the
Company in order to obtain new consulting business and generate
additional revenues.

These crucial facts included the Company's disclosure of crucial
proprietary information regarding the architecture of California's
power grid that could be used to cause artificial congestion on such
grid to power-trader Reliant, thereby causing the Company to face
substantial potential legal liability by virtue of the possibility that
its improper disclosures of proprietary information enabled power
traders to exploit such weaknesses for their own profit, and that the
Company did not have in place sufficient management controls to prevent
its personnel from using confidential information obtained in the
course of its consulting work as a selling point in trying to obtain
lucrative consulting business.

The complaint further alleges that when Wall Street learned about the
foregoing after California State Sen. Joseph Dunn unearthed a Company
sales presentation mapping out strategies to exploit weaknesses and
loopholes in the California power grid, Company stock tumbled 19% on
June 5, 2002 and an additional 11.3% to close at $12.90 on June 6,
2002, down from its class period high of $85.75.

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


PETS.COM: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud 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 on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Pets.com, Inc.
(formerly traded OTC Bulletin Board: IPET) from March 7, 2000 through
November 7, 2000, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  The suit alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding the
Company that recommended the purchase of Company stock and which set
price targets for Company stock, which were materially false and
misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.

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

Furthermore, in issuing their Company analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Company stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed
about the Company.

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: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


RELIANT RESOURCES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP launched a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf all persons who purchased the common stock of
Reliant Resources Inc. (NYSE:RRI) in the period between April 30, 2001
and May 13, 2002, including those persons who purchased shares in the
initial public offering of the Company's common stock.

The action charges the Company, its auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, the
underwriters of its IPO, and its chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and chief accounting officer, with violations of
Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The violations, as the complaint alleges, stem from the materially
false and misleading statements made by the defendants during the class
period that, as detailed below:

      (1) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and
          financial performance; and

      (2) caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially-inflated
          prices.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Company
inflated its publicly reported revenues through sham "round-trip"
energy trading in which the Company purchased and sold the exact same
amount of energy at the exact same price.

The complaint alleges, and the Company's chief executive officer has
admitted, that there is "no apparent reason for doing these
transactions other than to enhance volume" and revenue.

As the complaint alleges, the Company has admitted that such "round-
trip" trading inflated its publicly reported revenues by approximately
10% during 1999, 2000 and 2001, and inflated its trading volume by as
much as 25% during this period.  The complaint alleges that the
inflated and publicly reported revenue and trading figures
misrepresented the Company's real revenues, growth rate, and market
share and acceptance.

As a result, the complaint alleges, Company shares traded at inflated
prices based on such publicly reported, but misleading, figures; and
investors who purchased Company shares at such inflated prices were
damaged thereby.

When the Company admitted the existence and extent of such round-trip
trading, its shares lost approximately 40% of the their value, falling
from $14.49 per share on May 9, 2002 to close trading on May 14, 2000
at $8.70 per share.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300
or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com


SALOMON SMITH: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC 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 the publicly traded securities of
WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) from May 15, 1999 through April 21, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that Salomon Smith Barney and its well-known
telecommunications stock analyst Jack Grubman violated the federal
securities laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading analyst
reports regarding WorldCom during the class period. The suit alleges
that Salomon failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest
between their investment banking and research departments.

Specifically, Jack Grubman and other Salomon Smith Barney analysts
issued very favorable analyst reports regarding WorldCom to the public
when they allegedly knew that the positive recommendations were
unwarranted.  Unbeknownst to the investing public, Salomon Smith
Barney's buy recommendations and price targets for WorldCom were
influenced by its efforts to be retained as a financial advisor for
WorldCom and other telecommunications companies. Such lucrative
investment banking engagements were worth millions of dollars in fees
to Solomon.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net


SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Rabin Peckel Launches Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Specialty Laboratories, Inc.
securities (NYSE:SP) between December 8, 2000 and April 10, 2002, both
dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

      (1) Paul F. Beyer,

      (2) James B. Peter,

      (3) Frank J. Spina,

      (4) Richard E. Belluzzo,

      (5) Deborah A. Estes,

      (6) Douglas S. Harrington,

      (7) William J. Nydam,

      (8) Thomas R. Testman,

      (9) Thomas E. England,

     (10) Bart E. Thielen, and

     (11) John W. Littleton

The suit alleges that defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, 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.

The complaint alleges that in June and October of 2001, the California
Department of Health Services representing the State of California and
acting as agent of the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services (CMS),
inspected Specialty Labs. The inspectors were mortified by their
findings.

As a result of the inspections, the Company was initially cited by the
State of California with 20 deficiencies, and then in a separate
statement in February 2002 for 12 overlapping deficiencies by CMS.  The
Company was notified that if it failed to correct 6 of the issues,
relating primarily to personnel licensing and the enforcement of
regulatory requirements, the Company would face monetary and other
penalties, including the possible revocation of its license.

The Company's deficiencies in question relate to two broad areas, both
of which focus on the number of licensed personnel in the lab.  First,
historically there have been required ratios for labs in terms of the
number of licensed supervisors per the number of testing personnel.
Second, California implemented a requirement for labs performing
testing in the areas of cytogenetics and molecular genetics.

Specifically, directors of such operations must now be at least at the
M.D. or Ph.D. level and must also be Board certified in their area of
focus. However, defendants sought to avoid compliance with California's
laboratory requirements in order to inflate the Company's revenue and
EPS.

On April 11, 2002, before the market opened, the Company issued a press
release which provided a more comprehensive explanation and discussion
of the compliance problems. On this news, the Company's shares plunged
to an all time low of $10-1/4, more than an 80% drop from the class
period high.

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.sbclasslaw.com.


TRITON NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of Triton Network Systems, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: TNSIE) publicly traded securities during the
period between July 13, 2000 and August 14, 2001, inclusive.  The suit
names as defendants:

      (1) Kenneth R. Vines,

      (2) Howard "Skip" Speaks,

      (3) Brian J. Andrew,

      (4) Joseph Antinucci,

      (5) Stanley R. Arthur,

      (6) Bandel L. Carano,

      (7) James F. Gibbons,

      (8) Robert P. Goodman,

      (9) Arjun Gupta,

     (10) James Wei,

     (11) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (12) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown,

     (13) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (14) Ernst & Young, LLP,

     (15) US Telesource, Inc. and

     (16) Oak Investment Partners

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and 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 July
13, 2000 and August 14, 2001.

According to the suit, the Company's July 13, 2000 Prospectus contained
false and misleading statements regarding its sales and revenue.  The
prospectus also touted a three year supply agreement with a customer
called Advanced Radio Telecom (ART) representing that this agreement
would account for a significant amount of revenue.

However, defendants revealed on November 14, 2000, that "a key
customer" that had previously been represented in the offering as
having a issued "firm purchase orders," had requested that the Company
"postpone delivery" of the orders until after it (ART) obtains
additional financing." ART filed for bankruptcy on March 30, 2001.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants disseminated
materially false financial statements for each of the Company's interim
quarters during the class period and for the year ended December 31,
2000, which materially overstated the Company's revenues and its net
income.  Defendants also made a series of other materially false and
misleading statements about the Company and its financial condition and
performance.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, defendants:

      (i) failed to include in its financial statements, all
          adjustments, necessary for a "fair presentation" of the
          financial results in violation of GAAP;

     (ii) applied a non-GAAP accounting method which resulted in a
          material $2.7 million under-provision for bad debts;

    (iii) failed to write off worthless intangible assets; and

     (iv) failed to recognize a provision for loss and inventory
          purchase commitments.

During the class period Company stock experienced a free fall --
plummeting from a high of over $40 per share in July of 2000 to less
than $0.60 per share on August 14, 2001.  On August 21, 2001, it was
reported that the Company decided to close the company and sell its
assets, pending shareholder approval.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-
551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com


TRITON NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Triton
Network Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TNSIE.OB) (Formerly Nasdaq:
TNSIE) from July 13, 2000 through August 14, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violating Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
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 July 13, 2000 and
August 14, 2001.

According to the suit, the Company's July 13, 2000 Prospectus contained
false and misleading statements regarding its sales and revenue.  The
prospectus also touted a three year supply agreement with a customer
called Advanced Radio Telecom (ART) representing that this agreement
would account for a significant amount of revenue.

However, defendants revealed on November 14, 2000, that "a key
customer" that had previously been represented in the offering as
having a issued "firm purchase orders," had requested that the Company
"postpone delivery" of the orders until after it (ART) obtains
additional financing."  ART filed for bankruptcy on March 30, 2001.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants disseminated
materially false financial statements for each of the Company's interim
quarters during the class period and for the year ended December 31,
2000, which materially overstated the Company's revenues and its net
income.

Defendants also made a series of other materially false and misleading
statements about the Company and its financial condition and
performance.  The complaint further alleges that during the class
period, defendants:

      (1) failed to include in its financial statements, all
          adjustments, necessary for a "fair presentation" of the
          financial results in violation of GAAP;

      (2) applied a non-GAAP accounting method which resulted in a
          material $2.7 million under-provision for bad debts;

      (3) failed to write off worthless intangible assets; and

      (4) failed to recognize a provision for loss and inventory
          purchase commitments.

During the class period Company stock experienced a free fall--
plummeting from a high of over $40 per share in July of 2000 to less
than $0.60 per share on August 14, 2001.  On August 21, 2001, it was
reported that the Company decided to close the company and sell its
assets, pending shareholder approval.

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: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in MD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of USinternetworking, Inc. (USIQE:OB)
between February 17, 2000 and January 7, 2002, inclusive against the
Company and certain of its senior officers and directors.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1934 in connection with illegally misleading investors about the
Bain Capital Partners, L.L.C. transaction and related bankruptcy.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, subsequent to the Company's
Secondary Offering, it began to disseminate false and misleading press
releases concerning its dire financial position which led to its
transaction with Bain Capital Partners, L.L.C. and complete dilution of
shareholders' equity.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com


VERISIGN INC.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of VeriSign Inc. (NYSE:VRSN) common stock during the
period between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

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 January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants sought to artificially increase
the Company's revenue and margins and to create the perception that its
deferred revenue growth was derived organically. In fact, approximately
10% of the Company's revenue was derived from sales to small companies
in which the Company had invested and from dubious "barter
transactions."

The Company's revenues and earnings derived from related parties were
dubious at best.  Specifically, whenever a two-way set of transactions
occurs in which a company acts as both the lender and service provider,
an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would
have made similar decisions regarding purchases in the absence of
financing from that company.

Accordingly, despite the Company's claims that such transactions were
separately negotiated and recorded at terms the Company considered to
be at arm's length and fair value, the revenue and earnings that the
Company recognized from its relationship with these customers was not
an accurate measure of the "real" demand for its products.  Equally
dubious was the quality of the non-monetary portion of revenue recorded
from reciprocal agreements.

As part of their effort to boost the price of Company stock, defendants
misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal the
Company's improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26
million worth of their own stock and use Company shares to acquire
companies in stock-for-stock transactions.

In order to overstate revenues and assets, the Company violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules by, among other
things, engaging in improper barter transactions and affiliate sales.
These transactions had the effect of dramatically overstating the
Company's margins and financial statements.

On the Company's partial disclosures on April 25, 2002, the Company's
shares plummeted by more than 50%.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Mail: 519 Allegheny
Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 by Phone: 800/391-
5164 by Fax: 412-471-1033 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

                             ***********

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  * * *