CAR_Public/020703.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, July 3, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 130

                              Headlines

AURA SYSTEMS: Settles Consumer Suit Over NewCom Computer Products in MI
BATH & BODY: Recalls 1,000 Ice Shavers For Minor Injuries Hazard
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
CHICO'S FAS: Plaintiffs File Amended Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
EOTT ENERGY: Faces Antitrust Suit over Lee County Oil in Texas Court

EOTT ENERGY: Lea County Property Owners Sue for Alleged Contamination
EOTT ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Release of Crude Oil From Pipeline in OK
EOTT ENERGY: Sued For Securities Violations, Common Law Fraud in Ohio
FTD.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suits Over IOS Merger in DE Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: AIDS Foundation Files Antitrust Lawsuit in CA Court

GOODYEAR TIRE: Questioned About Memo Directing Document Shredding
HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY: Suit Alleges Fraud in Doctors' Reimbursements
HOLOCAUST REPARATIONS: Belgian Jews, Government Sign Agreement
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
INTUIT INC.: Agrees To Settle Several Consumer Privacy Suits In CA

JACK IN THE BOX: CA Court To Rule on Class Certification in July 2002
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in NY
PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Awards $25T In Suit Against Pittsburgh Police
RAFFLES TOWN: Club Members Commence Suit Over "Exclusivity" Matters
TOPPS COMPANY: Appeals Court Yet To Decide on Dismissal of CA RICO Suit

TOPPS COMPANY: Court Yet To Decide On Dismissal of CLRA Claims in Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Restates Five-Year Reports, Reclassifies $6B Revenue

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMDOCS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
APPLIED DIGITAL: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APPLIED DIGITAL: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
DUKE ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DUKE ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Suit in NY
GREAT ATLANTIC: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
KNIGHT TRADING: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
KNIGHT TRADING: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

MERRILL LYNCH: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in CA
VERISIGN INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

WORLDCOM INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in S.D. MS
WORLDCOM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MS
WORLDCOM INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Commences Securities Fraud Suit MS


                              
                              *********


AURA SYSTEMS: Settles Consumer Suit Over NewCom Computer Products in MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action against NewCom, Inc. in which Aura Systems,
Inc. was named as a defendant, have reached a suit settlement, which
was subsequently granted final approval by The Circuit Court for the
County of Wayne, Michigan.

The suit was commenced in December 1999 against NewCom, Inc., the
Company and:

     (1) Steven Veen,

     (2) Sultan Khan,

     (3) Asif Khan,

     (4) Zvi Kurtzman,  

     (5) Deutsche Financial Services, Inc.,

     (6) Best Buy Co., Inc.,
     
     (7) Circuit City Stores, Inc. a/k/a Compusa,  

     (8) the Computer Super Store, and

     (9) Staples, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of approximately two hundred
thousand persons who purchased a NewCom, Inc., a/k/a Atlas Peripherals
computer product from Best Buy Co., Circuit City Stores, Computer City
and/or Staples.  The suit alleged that plaintiffs did not receive a
rebate of between twenty to fifty dollars on NewCom products, as
advertised and promoted by the above mass retailers.  Plaintiffs
further alleged that the mass retailers, without any justification,
failed to pay NewCom for product received and sold.  

Circuit City and Deutsche Financial Services have filed cross
complaints.  In August 2001, all litigants entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which limited the total Company defendants' portion to
$400,000, payable in monthly installments of $10,000 to the plaintiffs.  
The parties have since entered into a definitive settlement agreement
incorporating the terms of the memorandum.



BATH & BODY: Recalls 1,000 Ice Shavers For Minor Injuries Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bath & Body Works, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 1,000 ice shavers.  
The stainless steel blade on the shaver can cut consumers and cause
injury.  The Company has received five reports of incidents, detailing
minor injuries to consumers' hands and fingers.  These incidents
occurred at various Bath & Body Works stores.
        
The recalled ice shavers are orange and blue, come with two ice maker
cups, and have a palm tree design on the sides of the machine.  On the
front of the ice shaver are the words, "Bath and Body Works Art Stuff."  
The ice shaver has a silver and blue handle, which when turned,
compresses the ice onto a stainless steel blade.  On the bottom are the
ice shaver are the words, "Made in Taiwan."
        
Bath & Body Works retail stores sold the ice shavers nationwide
throughout May 2002 for about $20.
        
For more details contact the Company by Phone: 800-395-1001 between
8:30 to 5:30 pm ET Monday through Friday.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities suit pending against Brocade
Communications, Inc. filed an amended suit, after the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the
original suit without prejudice.

Several suits were commenced in July 2001 against the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters in the
Company's initial public offering.  Those cases were later
consolidated.  The complaints generally alleged that various investment
bank underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public
offering.

On March 1, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice all claims against the Company and its officers and directors
named in the consolidated proceeding.  On April 19, 2002, a
consolidated amended suit was filed reinstating those claims.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and
intends to defend the action vigorously.


CHICO'S FAS: Plaintiffs File Amended Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Chico's FAS, Inc. filed an
amended suit in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange.  

The suit was originally filed on behalf of all other Company assistant
store managers, sales associates and hourly employees in California
from September 21, 1997 to the present.  The amended suit differs in a
number of material respects from the original complaint.  The amended
complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime wages and
failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods.

The Company is actively investigating the merits of this action and
believes that the merits of this action do not warrant class action
status and that it has certain defenses to the claims.  Discovery has
only recently begun and is proceeding.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend the action, including contesting the certification of
the action as a class action.


EOTT ENERGY: Faces Antitrust Suit over Lee County Oil in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EOTT Energy Partners, LP faces a class action pending since 1995 in the
District Court in Lee County, Texas.  The suits also name several other
major and independent oil companies and marketers as defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants acted in concert to buy oil owned
by members of the plaintiff class in Lee County, Texas, and elsewhere
in Texas, at "posted" prices, which the plaintiffs allege were lower
than true market prices.  

The Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) that there is not sufficient information in the
petition to fully quantify the allegations set forth in the petition.  
The Company, however, believes any such claims against it will prove to
be without merit.


EOTT ENERGY: Lea County Property Owners Sue for Alleged Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EOTT Energy Pipeline Limited Partnership faces a class action pending
in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,
filed on behalf of surface interest owners of certain property located
in Lea County, New Mexico.  The suit also names as defendants Texas-New
Mexico Pipe Line Company, and Amerada Hess Corporation.

The plaintiffs allege that aquifers underlying their property and water
wells located on their property have been contaminated as a result of
spills and leaks from a pipeline running across their property that is
or was owned by Tex-New Mex and the Company.  The plaintiffs also
allege that oil and gas operations conducted by Amerada Hess
Corporation resulted in leaks or spills of pollutants that ultimately
contaminated the plaintiffs' aquifers and water wells.

The Company's initial investigation of this matter indicated that the
alleged contamination of the aquifers underlying the plaintiffs'
property was not caused by leaks from the pipeline it now owned that
traverses the plaintiffs' property.  Although no assurance can be made
that the Company will successfully defend this lawsuit, it believes
that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will not have a materially
adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations.


EOTT ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Release of Crude Oil From Pipeline in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EOTT Energy Corporation and subsidiary EOTT Energy Pipeline Limited
Partnership faces a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma by landowners, seeking
damages allegedly arising from a release of crude oil from a Company-
owned pipeline.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not properly re-mediate the
crude oil release and claim causes of action for negligence, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, and nuisance.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it undertook extensive remediation efforts with respect
to the crude oil release that is the subject of the suit.  Due to the
early stages of the proceeding it is not possible for the Company to
speculate on the possible outcome of this matter.  The Company believes
that the ultimate resolution of this matter, however, will not have a
materially adverse impact on its financial position or results of
operations.


EOTT ENERGY: Sued For Securities Violations, Common Law Fraud in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EOTT Energy Partners LP faces a securities class action pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division.  The suit alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and common law fraud.  

The suit was brought by three of our former unitholders who claim that
Enron, the Company's general partner EOTT Energy Corporation, certain
of the officers and directors of Enron and of its general partner and
the Company's independent accountants were aware of material
misstatements or omissions of information within various press
releases, SEC filings and other public statements, and failed to
correct the alleged material misstatements or omissions.

Plaintiffs maintain that they were misled by the Company's press
releases, SEC filings and other public statements when purchasing the
Company's common units and were financially damaged thereby.

The Company is presently unable to thoroughly investigate the validity
of the allegations, but based on management's current knowledge, the
Company believes the allegations are without merit.  However, it can
provide no assurances regarding the outcome of the suit, but will
continue to gather and analyze new information as it becomes available.


FTD.COM: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suits Over IOS Merger in DE Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FTD.COM, Inc. faces five class actions filed in the Court of Chancery
for New Castle County in Wilmington, Delaware by individual
stockholders of the Company on behalf of all its public stockholders,
relating to its proposed merger with IOS Brands, Inc.  The suits also
name Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc. and IOS Brands as defendants.

These lawsuits were filed beginning March 2002, after the press release
announcing the merger was released. The complaints generally make
essentially the same allegations, that:

     (1) the offer by IOS to exchange 0.26 shares of IOS Class A common
         stock for each share of FTD.COM common stock is inadequate;

     (2) the individual defendants breached the fiduciary duties they
         owed in their capacity as directors by, among other things,
         failing to conduct an auction or otherwise check the market
         value of FTD.COM before voting to accept the merger proposal;

     (3) its board of directors prevented the FTD.COM board of
         directors from conducting a meaningful review of the
         transaction; and

     (4) IOS, FTD.COM and certain individual defendants timed the
         merger to deny public stockholders the full potential increase
         in FTD.COM's stock price following the merger.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against the suits.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: AIDS Foundation Files Antitrust Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline faces a lawsuit filed by the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, the nation's largest AIDS organization, in a Los Angeles
Federal court, charging the Company with antitrust violations and
overcharging for its medicines, Reuters reports.  The suit alleges that
the Company charged excessive prices for its top-selling antiviral
drugs AZT, 3TC and Ziagen "exorbitantly exceed its costs of licensing,
manufacturing and distributing," the lawsuit said.

The Company expressed disappointment that the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation was pursuing its argument in court.  "GlaxoSmithKline does
not believe that litigation is the appropriate pathway to resolve
matters such as these," a spokesman said.

Facing international pressure, the Company and other makers of AIDS
drugs have already cut prices to many poor nations, according to a
Reuters report. Glaxo also supplies AIDS drugs at cost to needy groups,
such as the elderly, in the United States.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Questioned About Memo Directing Document Shredding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. finds itself in the position of explaining a
memo directing some managers to shred some items in the Company's
personnel records, the Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio) reports.

The memo recently came into the possession of Cleveland lawyer Steven
D. Bell, who is mounting an age discrimination class action against the
Company.  Mr. Bell says the note, written by a Goodyear midlevel
manager, indicates the Ohio-based company is "attempting to destroy
evidence in a lawsuit they know is coming."

The Company says Mr. Bell is making much ado about nothing.  The memo
simply states its long-term policy on record keeping, that human
resource experts say destroying these types of documents after a few
years is standard practice.

The memo was written by Doreen Kuster, the Company's manager of
customer accounting and operations.  "Please clean out the personnel
files to only include these items," the memo, which was sent to an
unknown number of other managers, states.  An attached sheet itemized
the personnel records to be kept, including job history files,
evaluation reports, disciplinary documents and similar items.  The
sheet said the company managers should keep only the current year's
documents, plus the two previous years.  The memo continued, "Also,
this is all an associate should receive if asked to see their files.  
Jamie Kidd has a shredder, if needed."

The situation was made ticklish for the Company, because the memo was
distributed less than a week after Mr. Bell met with dozens of unhappy
Goodyear employees to discuss a possible class action in which such
records could be a central issue.  The workers are unhappy over the
Company's two-year-old system of grading employees, which they say
targets older workers for dismissal.

Ms. Kuster did not return a telephone call to the Akron Beacon Journal.  
However, Company spokesman Fred Haymond, said the Company is not
rushing to shred documents to protect itself from a possible lawsuit,
as Mr. Bell suggested.  He said Company managers routinely clean out
old documents every spring to make room for new records.  It is a
policy that has been in effect since the 1980s.  "There is no systemic
change in Goodyear's handling of records," he said.

The Company's record policy does seem to be in line with standard
corporate practice and federal law.  Kristin Bowl, of the Society for
Human Resource Management, a professional association based in
Alexandria, Virginia, says that the law requires companies to keep
personnel records for only two years.  However, the association does
not track how many of its members keep records longer than that.

Mr. Haymond said that Ms. Kuster distributed the memo as a follow-up to
a recent staff meeting held by John Richardson, vice president of
finance for Goodyear's largest division, North American Tire.  During
the meeting a human resources representative remarked that she had been
asked by employees, with increasing frequency, to see their personnel
files.  She said employees have a right to see certain records in their
files, and went on to remind managers what documents should be kept in
those files, Mr. Haymond added.

Mr. Haymond said Ms. Kuster's memo was quickly written and contained
"clumsy wording" on the subject of shredders.  "A hastily handwritten
note from a middle manager should not be construed to be sinister," he
said.

Mr. Bell disagreed.  "This company is bent on the destruction of
documents in an attempt to make it more difficult for their employees
to sue them," he said.

At issue is the Company's new system of grading employees, instituted
in 2000.  Under the new system, all salaried employees are graded each
spring on how well they perform compared to other workers in their
departments or work groups.  The system forces supervisors to hand out
A's to roughly the top 10 percent of their workers, B's to the middle
80 percent and C's to the bottom 10 percent.  Workers in the A and B
groups get raises, while workers in the C group get no raises and are
warned that another C could result in demotion or firing.

Several workers who have received C's say they had earned high marks
under the previous evaluation system.  However, some say they don't
have those records anymore and are asking the Company to see them in
their personnel records.  The Company acknowledges that it has received
many requests in recent weeks to see those old records.

"It is my experience that employees are not very good about keeping
copies of those kinds of records," said Mr. Bell, who said his firm,
Simon Law Firm of Cleveland, has wide experience in handling age-
discrimination cases.

Some workers are dismayed, on learning about the memo, that their
records may be destroyed.  Marvin Tipton, 60, a senior chemical
technician who said he was fired last month after receiving his second
C.  "I guess if Goodyear kept those records on hand, it would be
detrimental to them if a lawsuit was filed."  Mr. Tipton had worked for
Goodyear for 36 years and said his previous evaluations rated his work
as "very good" and "outstanding."

The Company's grading system has upset countless workers, many of whom
have talked to lawyers or have contacted the Akron Beacon Journal to
complain that the system is unfair and is destroying morale.  Earlier
this month, the Company hired an outside consultant to survey employees
about how well the system is working.  Executives have defended the
system as a way to drive individual and team performance.

Mr. Bell said he plans to file a class action against the Company, but
is still interviewing workers and gathering evidence.  The Akron Beacon
Journal has written twice about Mr. Bell's possible lawsuit.

"Knowing all that, Goodyear has put out this handwritten memorandum,
directing people as to the precise location of the shredding machine,
to make sure that they accomplish today what they are not going to be
able to legally accomplish several weeks from now, when we file the
suit," Mr. Bell said.


HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY: Suit Alleges Fraud in Doctors' Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care insurers face two recently filed lawsuits charging them
with illegally conspiring to reduce the reimbursements they pay to
doctors in the Cincinnati region and, as a result, undermining health
care in the area.  According to the Associated Press Newswires, the
plaintiffs' lawyers are asking that the courts approve the suits as
class actions representing all doctors victimized by the alleged
conspiracy.

Lawyers for the Cincinnati Academy of Medicine and at least five
physicians in southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky filed the two
lawsuits in state courts against Indianapolis-based Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, Aetna Health Inc., Humana Inc. and United Health Care
Inc.

The lawsuits allege that the insurers entered into illegal agreements
to reduce the reimbursement rates that the insurers paid to doctors in
the region.  As a result, there are fewer hospitals in the Cincinnati
area - doctors are leaving and medical practices are having trouble
recruiting new physicians, the suits alleged.  Their lawyers filed the
lawsuits on their behalf in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, in
Cincinnati and the Boone County Circuit Court in Burlington, Kentucky.

The lawsuits contend that the alleged collusion allowed the insurers to
control a major share of the Cincinnati region's insurance market so
that the companies could dictate the rates of reimbursement they pay to
hospitals and doctors.  Doctor pay in the region has decreased and the
numbers of specialists in some categories have declined, the suits
allege.  For example, according to the lawsuits, the number of
orthopedic surgeons practicing in the Cincinnati area has declined to
74 today from 160 in 1990.

The lawsuits ask the courts to end the alleged collusion and order
payment of reimbursement rates comparable to those in other regional
markets including Dayton, Toledo, Louisville, Indianapolis, Columbus
and Cleveland.  The lawsuits also ask for unspecified money damages.


HOLOCAUST REPARATIONS: Belgian Jews, Government Sign Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holocaust survivors recently signed an agreement with the Belgian
government, insurers and the central bank for compensation on assets
seized during World War II, Reuters English News Service reports.  
Belgium passed a law last year allowing assets to be returned to
families of Jewish victims.

However, the Jewish community has failed to reach an accord over the
amount to be paid to concentration camp survivors by the banks, which
are set to pay the lion's share of the claim.  During the Nazi
occupation, there were 70,000 Jews in Belgium.  Almost half were
deported and their property plundered.

Jewish community leader David Susskind signed the agreement, as far as
it went, with Finance Minister Didier Reyenders, National Bank of
Belgium Governor Guy Quaden and representatives from Belgium's union of
insurance companies.  The Jews are claiming - based on 1945 prices -
74.2 million Belgian francs from the state, 10.9 million francs from
insurers and 88.5 million francs from banks.

The argument with the banks boils down to the total amount to be paid,
based on how much money one franc from 1945 would be worth now.  The
Belgian state already has said it would pay out 45.6 million euros
($44.88 million), but the banks and insurers might not use the same
formulae to work out how much they will pay in today's money.  The
legal adviser to the Jewish community said it was now up to the
government to mediate between the deadlocked sides.  A spokeswoman for
the Belgian Association of Banks said that further meetings had been
planned.

"It is not about figures or sums of money.  It is about the Belgian
state recognizing its responsibility to repay," Finance Minister
Reyenders told a news conference.

Since Swiss banks agreed in 1998 to pay $1.25 billion to settle
unreturned Jewish assets or face huge damage claims and economic
boycotts by several states, other countries including Germany, Austria
and France also have established restitution funds.  Last year,
Hungarian Holocaust survivors sued the US government in a class action
for compensation after gold, jewelry and other property stolen by the
Nazis was seized by the US Army at the end of World War II.


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
InterVoice-Brite, Inc. asked the United States District Court, Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from October 12, 1999 through June 6,
2000.

The suit asserts claims under Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 against the Company as well as certain named current and former
officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the alleged class
members.

The suit asserts that the Company and the named current and former
officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during
the class period concerning the financial condition of the Company, the
results of the Company's merger with Brite and the alleged future
business projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted that
these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock
prices.

The Company believes that it and its officers complied with their
obligations under the securities laws, and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.  The Company has asserted that the complaint lacks
the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.  

On this basis, the Company has requested that the court dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiffs have responded to the Company's
request for dismissal, and the Company is preparing to file a
supplemental brief while awaiting a ruling by the court.  All discovery
and other pleadings not related to the dismissal have been stayed
pending resolution of the Company's request to dismiss the complaint.


INTUIT INC.: Agrees To Settle Several Consumer Privacy Suits In CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit, Inc. agreed to settle several class actions pending in
California federal and state courts.  Two consolidated securities suits
are pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division and another is pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Bernardino County,
Rancho Cucamonga Division.

These purported class actions alleged violations of various federal and
California statutes and common law claims for invasion of privacy based
upon the alleged intentional disclosure to third parties of personal
and private customer information entered at the Company's Quicken.com
Website.

The Company and the plaintiffs' counsel in all of the cases except one
of the suits in California federal court reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the cases, subject to court approval, based on
terms that are not material to the Company.  The remaining suit was
later dismissed.


JACK IN THE BOX: CA Court To Rule on Class Certification in July 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County will
hear on July 12,2002 the motion for class certification of a lawsuit
filed against restaurant chain Jack in the Box, Inc.

The suit alleges violations of California wage and hour laws.  
Specifically, the suit asserts that salaried restaurant management
personnel in California were improperly classified as exempt from
California overtime laws, thereby depriving them of overtime pay.

Trial in the suit is also set for January 17, 2003.  The Company
believes its employee classifications are appropriate and are
vigorously defending this action.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The suits name as defendants the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.  

The lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws
including, among other things, that the registration statement related
to the Company's August 2001 public offering and its periodic SEC
filings misrepresented or omitted material facts and that certain of
its officers made false or misleading statements of material fact.  

The Company is currently in the process of responding to the claims
made in the suits.  The Company intends to defend the foregoing
lawsuits vigorously, but cannot predict the outcome and is not
currently able to evaluate the likelihood of its success in each case
or the range of potential loss, if any.  


PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Awards $25T In Suit Against Pittsburgh Police
----------------------------------------------------------------
City officials and the police could well view the recent federal jury
verdict of $25,000 to a man that sued accusing two detectives on the
Pittsburgh police force of violating his rights to due process, as a
step backward in the progress that must be made in order to have its
1997 federal consent decree lifted.

In 1996, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had accused the
city, its highest officials and 75 officers, in a class action, of
condoning a pervasive pattern of abuse by the Pittsburgh police.  The
Department of Justice intervened when the allegations were forwarded to
the department, and the city consented to federal oversight a year
later.

The police department has instituted a series of changes in the conduct
of arrests, reporting arrests and conducting other police duties.  The
officers also have had to attend sensitivity training, and a division
was set up to receive complaints against the police and follow through
with hearings, and whatever steps might be necessary, legal or
otherwise.

The city now wants the oversight lifted earlier than the five-years
that was imposed.  Toward this end, the city has agreed to settle the
32 cases remaining from the ACLU's 1996 lawsuit for a total of
$275,000.  The city would not admit any wrongdoing by settlement of the
cases.  Its chief aim was to have the consent decree lifted and thereby
restore the police department's reputation, and resolve the old
misconduct allegations.

The recent case for which the federal jury rendered an award of
$25,000, was not one of the 1996 cases.  It was a case alleging
violation of civil rights, a federal charge, and the city had been
discharged as defendant, leaving as defendants two Pittsburgh police
detectives, whom the jury found had detained the a man for 12 hours
without food, water or access to a bathroom.  The complainant had been
arrested on suspicion of a woman's murder, but then another man
admitted to the killing and was convicted and sentenced.

One of the detectives standing outside the courtroom after the verdict
came in was visibly angry, and he said, "When you have a guy like him
getting money out of people just doing their job, the system is falling
apart."

There will be more hearings before the federal court agrees to lift the
consent decree by which the oversight was imposed.  Groups like the
ACLU and others may very well question the adequacy of training and
other changes that have taken place in the police department, changes
that would still be so meager that a man promoted to the position of
detective would feel he could shout out in public that the abuse
wreaked on Mr. Manns, the complainant, was "just doing [his] job."


RAFFLES TOWN: Club Members Commence Suit Over "Exclusivity" Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Although class actions, or representative actions as they are known,
are not new in Singapore, what makes the Raffles Town Club (RTC)
members' suit against the club unique is the number of plaintiffs
involved - close to 5,000, The Straits Times (Singapore) reports.

Most class actions here involve estate matters, in which plaintiffs, at
most 20 or thereabouts, oppose a will together.  The RTC suit is
unusual, also, because the 4,895 members have agreed and chosen to have
10 members, among them, take the witness stand on their behalf.  The
eventual ruling will bind all of them.  Nine people were elected by the
4,895 members to form Raffles 5000, the committee which oversees the
class action.  Alan Lee was then elected as committee chairman.  Other
members also played a vital role in soliciting support from club
members.

In the lawsuit, which was filed last November, the plaintiffs claim
that they were misled into joining what they thought was an exclusive
club for between 5,000 and 7,000 members.  They are seeking to recover
the $28,000 they each paid as joining fees, and are seeking, as well,
to rescind the contractual agreement they signed with the club, in
addition to other damages or remedies.  If they succeed, they stand to
recover a total of $137 million in membership fees.

Club owners Lin Jian Wei and Margaret Tung have lined up about 20
witnesses to rebut the claim of misrepresentation. The club,
represented by Senior Counsel K. Shanmugam, denies the plaintiffs'
allegations that it breached a contract or misled members about the
club's exclusivity.

The trial, which has been scheduled for a 20-day hearing, before
Justice S. Rajendran, started Monday, July 1.  Throughout the trial,
the committee will update its website daily to keep members informed of
the proceedings.

The action was brought after the members found out, in March last year,
through a High Court trial, in which they played no part that the club
had over 19,000 members.  In that trial, the proprietary club's former
shareholders were suing each other to gain control of the club.


TOPPS COMPANY: Appeals Court Yet To Decide on Dismissal of CA RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to
decide on the appeal of a California federal court's dismissing several
of the claims in the class action against the Topps Company, Inc.

The suit was commenced in November 1998 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the
Company violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) and the California Unfair Business Practices Act (CUBPA), by its
practice of selling sports and entertainment trading cards with
randomly-inserted "insert" cards, allegedly in violation of state and
federal anti-gambling laws.  The suit seeks treble damages and
attorneys' fees on behalf of all individuals who purchased packs of
cards at least in part to obtain an "insert" card over a four-year
period.

The plaintiffs moved to consolidate the suit with similar class actions
pending against several of the Company's principal competitors and
licensors in the same court.  The Company later moved to dismiss the
suit, or, alternatively, to transfer it to the Eastern District of New
York or stay the suit pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment
action pending in the Eastern District of New York.

The court denied the Company's motions to dismiss or transfer the suit
but granted its motion to stay the suit pending the outcome of the
declaratory judgment action.  The court also denied plaintiffs' motion
to consolidate the suit with similar purported class actions.  

In April 2000, the court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the
suit as well as in the other purported suits to show cause why all such
actions should not be dismissed.  The court later vacated its order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss the class, dismissed the RICO
claim in the suit with prejudice and without leave to re-plead, and
dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice.  

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Oral arguments
have been held, but the court has not yet issued a decision.  If the
suit was reinstated on appeal, an adverse outcome in the suit could
materially affect the Company's future plans and results.


TOPPS COMPANY: Court Yet To Decide On Dismissal of CLRA Claims in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
made a tentative ruling dismissing the claims for violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in the class action
pending against Topps Company, Inc. and other manufacturers and
licensors of sports and entertainment trading cards.

The suit was commenced in August 2000, alleging that the defendants
committed unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts under the
California Unfair Business Practices Act (CUBPA) and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by the practice of selling trading
cards with randomly-inserted "insert" cards allegedly in violation of
state and federal anti-gambling laws and state consumer laws.  

The suit asserts three claims for relief and seeks declaratory,
equitable and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of trading card purchasers.  The suit was
later amended to demand compensatory and punitive damages and  
restitution.  

The plaintiffs later moved for summary judgment on one of the CUBPA
claims.  The defendants later filed a motion to dismiss two of the
claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claim and a motion
to strike all allegations of fraudulent or deceptive representations  
and all references to plaintiff's prayer for monetary  relief.  

In March 2001, the court issued a tentative ruling granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the defendant's
practices do not constitute illegal gambling as a matter of law, but
denying the demurrer to the extent that the remaining two claims allege
false or misleading advertising practices unrelated to the gambling
issue.

On March 30, 2001, in accordance with the California State practice,
the court heard oral argument on whether or not its tentative ruling
should stand as a final ruling.  In June 2001, the court denied both
motions.  

In September 2001, plaintiff moved for class certification.  Briefing
and discovery concerning the class certification issue were completed
in January 2002, and oral argument was heard on February 27, 2002.  On
March 7, 2002, Judge Sabraw of the California State Court issued a
ruling denying class certification under the CUBPA and granting class
certification under the CLRA.

On April 2, 2002, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the
CLRA cause of action.  Plaintiff has indicated that he intends to
appeal the ruling denying class certification under the CUBPA.  On
April 18, 2002, the Court issued a tentative ruling dismissing the
CLRA action.  A hearing was scheduled on the matter on April 26, 2002.
The Court has not yet issued a final ruling in the matter.


XEROX CORPORATION: Restates Five-Year Reports, Reclassifies $6B Revenue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another giant corporation is restating its earnings, following the
WorldCom scandal last week.  Xerox Corporation restated five years of
earnings, reclassifying more than US$6 billion in revenues, Reuters
reports.

The Company said that for 1997 through 2001 it reversed $6.4 billion of
previously recorded revenue from equipment sales.  It further added
that $5.1 billion of that total will now be reported as service,
rental, document outsourcing, and financing revenues for that period.  
About $1.9 billion of revenue that was recognized over past years will
be recognized in the future, beginning in 2002.

The Company's restatement is part of a settlement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which had been
investigating the Company for accounting fraud.  Under that pact, the
Company neither accepted nor denied fault, paid a $10 million fine, and
pledged to recalculate its results.

"There's no revenue that is going away," the Company's Christa Carone
told Reuters.  "It's going from one place (in Xerox's books) to
another.  There were no fictitious transactions and the amount of cash
that we are talking about doesn't change in terms of the leases - it is
revenue shifting from one period to another."

Nevertheless, the announcement rattled investors, who were already
shaken by the Enron and Worldcom scandals.  Company shares closed at
$6.97, down 13%, after earlier tumbling almost 24% to $6.10.  Merrill
Lunch has downgraded its Company rating to sell and Standard & Poor's
now rates the shares at "avoid."

The Company's accounting issues stem from a trend whereby customers pay
for copying on a per-page basis instead of buying machines outright,
James Lundy, vice president at the Gartner research group told Reuters.  
As such, they pay for 50-100 million pages a year, "which essentially
is a glorified rental.What Xerox got into trouble for was they got a
little aggressive on how they bucketed that money as far as revenue
recognition," he said.  "So they had to restate and move that money
around."

Analysts reacted differently to the developments, with some seeing
Xerox stumbling yet again in its attempts to right itself financially.
"Given the revelation, we advise placing funds elsewhere," Standard and
Poor's analyst Richard Stice said, according to a Reuters report.

Others called the restatement "old news," and said further review is
needed to find its effect on the Company's fiscal health.  "This is a
zero-sum game over the longer haul," said Salomon Smith Barney analyst
Jonathan Rosenzweig.  "An adjustment downward in one period drives an
adjustment upward at a subsequent time. It remains feasible that the
shift . could benefit Xerox in the quarters ahead."

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMDOCS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Amdocs Limited
(NYSE: DOX) securities between July 24, 2001 and June 20, 2002, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and:

     (1) Bruce K. Anderson,

     (2) Robert A. Minucci,

     (3) Avinoam Naor, and

     (4) Dov Baharav

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 24, 2001 and June 20, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that
the Company's business and operations were being negatively affected by
a host of adverse factors, including, but not limited to, the
following:

     (i) that Amdocs was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by adverse market forces. Throughout the
         class period, defendants repeatedly emphasized that the
         Company was not being affected by the slowdown in the
         communications industry when, in fact, that was not true;

    (ii) throughout the class period, Amdocs artificially inflated its
         financial statements by maintaining inadequate reserves for
         doubtful accounts and failing to disclose that Amdocs' revenue
         growth improperly included revenues from a recent acquisition;
         and

   (iii) defendants lacked a reasonable basis upon which to publish
         and/or affirm the revenue guidance they provided to analysts
         and investors.

On June 4, 2002, the last day of the class period, defendants shocked
the market when they finally revealed that the revenue for the third
quarter and year end 2002 would be significantly lower than investors
had been led to believe.  The Company announced that pro forma earnings
per share for the third quarter of 2002 would likely be only $0.20, a
far cry from the previous guidance of $0.33. The Company also announced
a massive lay-off and the resignation of the Company's Chief Executive
Officer. As a result of the news, the stock plunged over 40% in one day
on unusually large trading volumes.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-
mail: DOX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


APPLIED DIGITAL: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADSXE) publicly
traded securities during the period between February 11, 2000 and May
10, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants were in possession of materially
adverse information concerning the lack of proper accounting controls
and improper revenue recognition practices at certain of the Company's
subsidiaries, but failed to disclose the information to investors for
more than two years.

On April 18, 2002, the Company disclosed that during the year ending
December 31, 2001, one of the Company's subsidiaries had been booking
revenue without "evidence of customer acceptance prior to the
recognition of certain revenue." The Company also disclosed that the
subsidiary "did not have proper restrictions to vendor access within
its accounts payable system."

Additionally, the Company disclosed that during the year ended December
31, 2000, a second subsidiary of Applied Digital "lacked monitoring
controls over its accounts receivable and was unable to provide certain
detailed inventory listings for certain general ledger balances."

The disclosure of improper accounting practices at the Company's
subsidiaries drove Company stock down 40%.  Approximately three weeks
later, on May 9, 2002, defendants claimed that nearly every major
hospital in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area would be equipped with
VeriChip scanners - an indispensable component of the Company's
VeriChip technology. However, not one hospital in West Palm Beach or
anywhere else had accepted or agreed to use a scanner, an essential
device for retrieving the VeriChip's information. One day later, on May
10, 2002, when the truth was disclosed that no hospital had accepted a
scanner, Company stock fell sharply, dropping nearly 30% in one day.

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


APPLIED DIGITAL: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Applied Digital Solutions, Inc.
securities (Nasdaq:ADSXE) between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002,
both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
Richard J. Sullivan, and Mercedes Walton.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants were in possession of materially
adverse information concerning the lack of proper accounting controls
and improper revenue recognition practices at certain of the Company's
subsidiaries, but failed to disclose the information to investors for
more than two years.

On April 18, 2002, the Company disclosed that during the year ending
December 31, 2001, one of the Company's subsidiaries had been booking
revenue without "evidence of customer acceptance prior to the
recognition of certain revenue."  The Company also disclosed that the
subsidiary "did not have proper restrictions to vendor access within
its accounts payable system."

Additionally, the Company disclosed that during the year ended December
31, 2000, a second subsidiary "lacked monitoring controls over its
accounts receivable and was unable to provide certain detailed
inventory listings for certain general ledger balances."  

The disclosure of improper accounting practices at the Company's
subsidiaries drove Company stock down 40%.  Approximately three weeks
later, on May 9, 2002, defendants claimed that nearly every major
hospital in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area would be equipped with
VeriChip scanners - an indispensable component of the Company's
Verichip technology. However, not one hospital in West Palm Beach or
anywhere else had accepted or agreed to use a scanner, an essential
device for retrieving the VeriChip's information. One day later, on May
10, 2002, when the truth was disclosed that no hospital had accepted a
scanner, Company stock fell sharply, dropping nearly 30% in one day.

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


DUKE ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Launches 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 the common stock of Duke Energy
Corporation (NYSE: DUK) between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers.

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

During the class period, defendants released a number of statements and
filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC detailing Duke's
growing revenues and financial performance. The suit alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted to
disclose and possibly distorted several adverse facts, for example, the
Company had engaged in roughly $1 billion of "round-trip" energy trades
that caused no economic advantage to the Company.

The suit further alleges that the Company was deficient in crucial
internal management in order to sufficiently observe the trading of its
power which resulted in the value of the Company's revenues and
financial results being materially overstated at all applicable times.

The Company announced on May 17, 2002, that it had "analyzed its trades
for the three-year period from 1999 through 2001 to identify those
trades which may have some of the characteristics of sell/buy-back
trades."  These trades instantaneously buy and trade power at the same
price and same amount, thereby providing no economic benefit to the
Company, as referred to previously above as "round-trip" energy trades.

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


DUKE ENERGY: 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 common stock of Duke Energy
Corporation, (NYSE: DUK) from July 22, 1999 through May 17, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and certain
individual officers of the Company.

The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading representations concerning the financial results of the
Company throughout the class period.  The statements were false and
misleading because the Company failed to disclose that it had engaged
in $1 billion of worth of energy trades involving simultaneous
purchases and sales of power at the same price (referred to as "round-
trip" trades).  The Company also failed to disclose that it lacked
management controls sufficient to monitor the trading of its power.

On May 17, 2002, defendants disclosed that they were analyzing trades
over a three-year period to identify any "round-trip" trades. On this
news, shares fell $1.18 per share to close at $33.52 per share, after
reaching a split-adjusted class high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000.

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


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Suit in 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 Flextronics International Ltd. (Nasdaq:
FLEX) publicly traded securities during the period between October 2,
2001 and June 4, 2002, inclusive.

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 October 2, 2001 and June 4, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that its
business and operations were being negatively affected by a host of
adverse factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing declining sales as its
         business began to be affected by adverse market forces.
         Throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly emphasized
         that the Company was not being affected by the slowdown in the
         US or global economy, when, in fact, that was not true;

     (2) throughout the class period, many of the Company's customers
         were experiencing severe financial difficulty such that it was
         highly foreseeable that they would be unable to complete
         anticipated sales, thereby causing the Company to suffer a
         decline in its revenues. At all times throughout the class
         period, defendants lacked a reasonable basis upon which to
         publish and/or affirm the revenue guidance they provided to
         analysts and investors; and

     (3) defendants had purposely and/or recklessly under-reported the
         amount of financing needed to complete the Company's
         restructuring and over-stated the status of the completion of
         this reorganization, as well as made false statements
         concerning the Company's financial and operational condition
         because it was critical that defendants raise cash by selling
         more equity during the upcoming months.

On June 4, 2002, the last day of the class period, defendants shocked
the market when they finally revealed that the restructuring, which was
purportedly paid for in October 2001 and substantially completed
thereafter, was still far from complete.

Defendants now admitted that there were at least an additional $150
million in restructuring charges that must be recorded. In addition,
defendants also stated that they could not possibly meet the Company's
previous earnings and revenue forecasts for its first fiscal quarter
2003.

In response to this negative announcement, the price of the Company's
common stock dropped precipitously, falling from $12.32 per share to as
low as $9.50 per share, a decline of almost 23%, on tremendous volume
of 47 million Company shares traded.

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


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

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

During the class period, defendants released statements concerning the
Company's quarterly and annual financial performance and filed reports
validating such performance with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).  

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because the Company was utilizing inadequate accounting
procedures concerning the identification of vendor allowances as well
as the accounting of inventory in certain of its sections for fiscal
year 2001, violating Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The suit
further alleges that the Company's operating outcomes were materially
distorted and overstated.

Defendants' declarations regarding the projections of the Company were
unreasonable at all applicable times.

The Company issued a press release explaining that it would postpone
the filing of its annual report with the SEC while an accounting
review, most likely to result in a charge to earnings, is carried out.
The accounting review will concentrate on the suitable timing for the
recognition of vendor allowances as well as the accounting of inventory
in some of the Company's regions for fiscal year 2001.  

The Company additionally stated that a considerable segment of any
charge the Company may take will repeal credits which were accepted
prematurely as diminutions of cost of merchandise sold, thereby
recognizing that segment in periods successive to fiscal 2001 as
reductions of cost of merchandise sold.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


KNIGHT TRADING: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Knight
Trading Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:NITE), and former Knight Trading Chief
Executive Officer Kenneth D. Pasternak alleging that defendants made
materially false and misleading public statements concerning the
Company's business, trading practices, and financial performance, in
the United States District Court in New York.

The suit alleges that defendants were aware of but failed to disclose
that in the period starting February 29, 2000 to June 3, 2002.  Company
traders routinely engaged in improper trading practices known as
"front-running," wherein the traders delayed execution of the Company's
customer stock purchase orders until the traders themselves made
purchases in those same stocks.

The complaint alleges that this practice forced Company customers to
pay higher stock prices and generated undeserved windfall profits for
the Company and Company traders. The complaint has been filed on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February
29,2000 to June 3,2002.

On June 3, 2002, the fraudulent scheme of improper trading practices
was exposed when it was announced that the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD) and the SEC were investigating the Company's
trading practices.  The following day, June 4, 2002, as the market
absorbed the revelations of the Company's illegal trading practices and
the SEC and NASD investigations, the market price of Company stock
plunged from its closing price of $5.92 per share on June 3, 2002, to
close at $4.65 per share on June 4, 2002, on unusually high trading
volume.  During the class period, Company shares traded as high as
$60.06 per share.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9620 or 877-370-7703 by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com  


KNIGHT TRADING: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased Knight Trading Group, Inc. securities
(Nasdaq:NITE) between February 29, 2000 and June 3, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The Company and Kenneth D. Pasternak, are named as
defendants in the action.

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 February 29, 2000 and June 3, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
trading practices.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented, among other things:

     (1) that Company traders were engaging in an elaborate system of
         trading-rule violations known as "front-running," in which
         customer orders were delayed while defendants' traders made
         purchases in the same stocks ordered by customers, thereby
         benefiting themselves at the expense of the customer; and

     (2) that the Company's front-running practices subjected the
         Company to the heightened risk that it would be sanctioned by
         the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD).

On June 3, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
disclosed that its trading practices were being investigated by both
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASD.  Following this
announcement, on June 4, 2002, when the market opened for trading,
shares of the Company plummeted 28% from the previous day's close.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Henry Blodget
and Virginia Syer Genereux in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Aether Systems (Nasdaq: AETH) securities between September
27, 2000 and February 7, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially misleading research
reports to the market between September 27, 2000 and February 7, 2001,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Aether securities.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, throughout the class
period defendants issued "buy" recommendations to the public written by
analysts who privately considered Aether to be a poor investment.  
Further, while defendants were urging the public to purchase Aether
stock, Merrill Lynch was selling over 660,000 shares of Aether, over
85% of its holdings as of September 30, 2000.

Plaintiff's allegations are based on the investigation of his counsel
and information made public by the New York Attorney General. Other
cases have previously been filed against the defendants relating to
Aether recommendations. However, they are brought on behalf of
purchasers during a much broader class period and do not allege any
Merrill Lynch stock sales.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Whinston or Kimberly A. Walker by
Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 or by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net


MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased B2B Internet HOLDRS depository
receipts (AMEX:BHH) between February 24, 2000 through April 8, 2002,
both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, the Trust, and the
signatories of the Registration Statement (which included a prospectus)
issued on behalf of the Trust, are named as defendants in the action.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements, and omissions of material fact contained in the
Prospectus filed with the SEC on February 24, 2000, for the issuance
and initial public offering (IPO) of B2B Internet HOLDRS depository
receipts, through which defendants raised over $950 million.

In particular, it is alleged that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose that defendants:

     (1) recommended the purchase of and set price targets for stocks
         of certain of the companies that were included as assets of
         the Trust without any reasonable factual basis therefore;

     (2) failed to disclose significant material conflicts of interest
         to obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch; and

     (3) failed to disclose material, non-public, adverse information
         which they possessed about such companies, as well as their
         true opinion about such companies.

It is further alleged that the Prospectus failed to disclose that,
consequently, stocks of the Underlying Securities covered by Merrill
Lynch traded at artificially inflated prices, which in turn
artificially inflated the price of the B2B Internet HOLDRS throughout
the class period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class
to suffer damages.

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


MIRANT CORPORATION: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Mirant Corporation, Inc.
securities (NYSE:MIR) between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002, both
dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) S. Marce Fuller,

     (2) Raymond D. Hill,

     (3) Richard J. Pershing, and

     (4) James A. Ward

The suit alleges that a material portion of the revenue and earnings
defendants caused the Company to report during the class period were
derived from the improper transactions and tactics the Company employed
in the California energy market.  As a result, the revenue and earnings
associated with these transactions were allegedly reported in violation
of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants manipulated
the supply and price of electrical power, especially in California's
deregulated market.  The Company's alleged participation in a scheme to
inflate the price of wholesale power in California resulted in the
Company overcharging California energy providers on contracts which
produced over $2 billion in revenue. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the Attorney General of California are both
investigating the propriety of the Company's sale of electrical power
in California.

Beginning in March of 2002, the Company announced a string of
investigations into its energy trading and energy sales practices.  
This string of bad news culminated on May 7, 2002, when an article in
The New York Times reported that documents uncovered in the
investigation of Enron Corp. revealed that the Company might have
engaged in fraudulent practices similar to those employed by Enron.

The financial market's reaction to this news caused the price of the
Company's stock to lose 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.

For more detail, 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 or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: SP)
from December 8, 2000 through April 10, 2002 inclusive.  The action is
pending in the United States District Court, Central District of
California.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.  The Company is a research-based clinical
laboratory company that develops and performs esoteric clinical
laboratory tests.  It went public in December of 2000, selling five
million shares at $16.00 per share.

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 the Company. The inspections resulted in the State of
California citing the Company with 20 deficiencies.  Matters became
worse, however, and in a separate statement in February 2002, the CMS
cited the Company with 12 overlapping deficiencies.

Although the Company was notified of the deficiencies, defendants
sought to avoid compliance with California's laboratory requirements in
order to inflate the Company's revenue and EPS.  The Company took no
corrective action, despite being notified that if it failed to correct
six of the deficiencies, 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.

On April 11, 2002, before the market opened, the Company issued a press
release, which detailed the Company's 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 Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800-404-7770 by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or drscott@scott-scott.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.scott-scott.com


VERISIGN INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN) from
January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and financial condition, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These statements artificially
inflated the price of the Company's securities. Specifically, as
alleged in the complaint, plaintiff and the Class were injured as a
result of defendants' misrepresentations, omissions and other
fraudulent conduct.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, 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 VeriSign had invested
and from questionable "barter transactions."

Although the Company claimed that these barter 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 VeriSign's products.  Also
suspect was the quality of the non- monetary portion of revenue
recorded from these barter transactions.

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

On April 25, 2002, VeriSign admitted it 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%. As a result of
defendants' misconduct, alleged, plaintiff and the class have suffered
substantial damages.

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


WORLDCOM INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in S.D. MS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, on behalf of all open market purchasers of the common
stock of WorldCom Inc. during the period of April 26, 2001 to June 25,
2002 inclusive.  The named defendants are the Company and:

     (1) Bernard J. Ebbers,

     (2) Scott D. Sullivan and

     (3) Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company's then auditor

The suit charges Defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants misled
plaintiff and all other investors in the Company by issuing press
releases and filing documents with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) that included inflated earnings and profit figures for
the Company.

The misleading press releases and SEC filings artificially inflated the
value of Company stock during the class period.  On June 25, 2002, the
Company publicly admitted that it had improperly booked $3.85 billion
in ordinary expenses as long-term capital expenditures and that if the
expenses had been accurately accounted for the Company would have
recorded a net loss during the class period.

In response to the Company's admission, Arthur Andersen acknowledged
that its audited financial statements for the class period could not be
relied upon. In addition, Mr. Sullivan was dismissed from the Company.

When news of defendant's fraudulent behavior became public, the SEC
immediately launched an investigation into the Company and filed fraud
charges against the Company.  Congress has announced it will subpoena
defendants Mr. Ebbers and Mr. Sullivan to testify at a hearing in July.
Trading in Company stock has been halted.

For more details, contact Emily C. Komlossy or Henry J. Young by Mail:
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
212-907-0700 by E-mail: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com or hyoung@glrslaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
bonds of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOME) between April 26, 2001 and June
25, 2002, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Bernard J. Ebbers,

     (2) Scott D. Sullivan,

     (3) the Company's Audit Committee members, and

     (4) its auditor, Arthur Anderson, LLP

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Mississippi at Jackson.  The complaint is based on an
overstatement, by $3.8 billion, of the Company's earnings during the
class period.

As detailed in the complaint, instead of the $1.4 billion in profits
the Company reported in 2001 and $130 million in the first quarter of
2002, the Company admits it lost money during those periods.  As
further detailed in the complaint, the Company, under the guidance of
Mr. Ebbers and Mr. Sullivan, booked basic operating costs as capital
expenditures, a practice that reduced expenses, and allowed the Company
to report falsely profits instead of losses in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

The Company's Audit Committee and Arthur Andersen also knew that this
type of accounting practice was improper yet knowingly condoned or
recklessly failed to correct the subject financial statements.  
According to published reports, Andersen's audit reports "could not be
relied upon for at least the five quarters in question."

As an experienced auditor charged with the responsibility of preparing
disclosures to be filed with the SEC, Andersen knew the alleged conduct
did not comport with GAAP, but either intentionally or recklessly
disregarded this pervasive fraud to the detriment of the class.  
Andersen, however, issued a March 7, 2002, "Report Of Independent
Public Accountants," included in the Company's improperly prepared 2001
Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 13, 2002.  Anderson's opinion
letter falsely stated that it had properly audited the Company's 2001
balance sheet and that in Anderson's opinion "(w)e believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.  In our opinion, the
financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of WorldCom, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the results of their operations and
their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States."

For more details, contact Samuel K. Rosen or Craig Lowther by Mail: 488
Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
877-935-7400 by E-mail: srosen@whhf.com or clowther@whhf.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Commences Securities Fraud Suit MS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed a securities class action in the US District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of all
acquirers of Worldcom, Inc. (NASDAQ: WCOM) common stock during the
period from April 26, 2001 through June 25, 2002.

The Complaint asserts claims against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failure to
disclose material adverse information and artificially inflating the
Company's reported results on its financial statements published during
the Class Period, thereby causing plaintiff and other members of the
Class to purchase or acquire Company common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
the Company's capital expenditure accounting was false and misleading
in that certain transfers from line cost expenses to capital accounts
during this period were not made in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP). The amount of these transfers was $3.055
billion for 2001 and $797 million for first quarter 2002. Without these
transfers, the company's reported EBITDA would be reduced to $6.339
billion for 2001 and $1.368 billion for the first quarter of 2002, and
the company would have reported a net loss for 2001 and for the first
quarter of 2002.

The Complaint alleges that, as a consequence of these accounting
manipulations and the misrepresentations, the price for the Company's
common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period,
resulting in damages the putative Class.

For more details, contact Dennis J. Johnson or Jacob B. Perkinson by
Phone: 866-276-5446 or by E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net


                              *********

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  * * *