CAR_Public/020704.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Thursday, July 4, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 131

                            Headlines

APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: More Lawsuits Filed V. US Companies For Damages
APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Federal Council Distances Itself From Fagan Suit
APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
APPLIED MICRO: Forms Special Committee To Evaluate CA Derivative Suits
AVATEX CORPORATION: TX Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit

dELiA*S INC.: Merits Discovery Commenced in NY Securities Fraud Suit
dELiA*S INC.: Court Grants Final Approval to Securities Suit Settlement
DIGITAL IMPACT: Securities Suit Coordinated With Other Suits in S.D. NY
INDIAN FUNDS: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Disconnect Dept Computers Again
LA LIGHTER: Recalls 1,800 Disposable Cigarette Lighters For Fire Hazard

LOG ON AMERICA: Expects Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit in Rhode Island
MEAT PACKERS: Cattle Ranchers Sue Four Companies for Insider Trading
MESABA HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Northwest Proposal Dismissed
MOBIL-ESSO: High Court Opens Way For Suits Over Longford Explosions
MONTANA RESOURCES: Former Employees Upset Over Suit Settlement Checks

NETSOLVE INC.: $2.7M Suit Settlement Hearing Set For September 2002
NETSOLVE INC.: Securities Suit Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Consolidate Securities Suits in CA
OIL COMPANIES: GA Woman Files Consumer Suit Over "Environmental Fees"
PM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 22T Adapter Plugs Due To Electrocution Hazard

RAFFLES TOWN: Did Not Promise To Limit Memberships, Plaintiffs Concede
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VICINITY CORP.: Court Sets Sept 2002 As Deadline for Dismissal Motions
WHIRLPOOL CORP.: Recalls Washer and Gas Dryer Units For Fire Hazard
WORLDCOM INC.: Bondholders' Suit Likely V. Banks, Lawyers, Accountants

WORLDCOM INC.: Probing New Accounting Problems With Reserve Accounts
XEROX CORPORATION: Employees File Suit Challenging Soundness of Stock

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
360NETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
360NETWORKS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
AMDOCS LTD.: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in S.D. NY

KNIGHT TRADING: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
OMNICOM GROUP: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
VERISIGN INC.: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
                             
                            *********

APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: More Lawsuits Filed V. US Companies For Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apartheid victims are to launch additional lawsuits demanding billions
of dollars in compensation from International Business Machines Corp.,
Deutsche Bank AG, Allianz AG's Dresdner Bank and Commerzbank AG for
allegedly profiteering in white-ruled South Africa, their lawyers said,
according to a recent AFX News report.  This move follows lawsuits
filed in New York against UBS AG, Credit Suisse Group and Citibank on
June 19.

"Claims against IBM and also Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank and
CommerzBank" will be filed," John Ngcebetsha, the lead South African
lawyer acting for the plaintiffs, told Agence France-Presse.  

"As early as 1952, United States computer companies began to supply
apartheid South Africa with computer technology and systems, that
better enabled the system of institutionalized racial discrimination
and repression to function," the claim against IBM says.

It states that IBM, and other United States and European computer
companies yet to be named, knew their technology facilitated "the
violation of human rights and the commission of atrocities."  Mr.
Ngcebetsha said the German banks have been targeted for "extending
loans of $4.5 billion to the apartheid regime."

US attorney Ed Fagan, working with a team of lawyers from South
Africa, the United States and Europe, is spearheading the class
actions, modeled on successful compensation claims by Holocaust
survivors.  The number of initial plaintiffs, who will highlight gross
human rights violations such as torture or murder in their claims, has
risen to five to include Nyameka Goniwe, the wife of slain Eastern Cape
leader, Matthew Goniwe.

The number is expected to soar after a hotline for victims received
more than 1,000 calls in its first week, Mr. Ngcebetsha said the South
African legal team has met Justice Minister Penuell Maduna, who "said
the government would do nothing to stop us and was following the
proceedings with keen interest."

The initial claims have been filed on behalf of:

     (1) Lulu Petersen, younger sister of Hector Petersen, the first
         victim of police shootings during the June 16 student riots of
         1976;

     (2) Sigqibo Mpendulo, the father of two 12-year-old twin brothers
         who were shot dead in a 1993 police raid at a house in Umtata;

     (3) Ntsebeza's brother Lungisile, who was detained and banished
         several times; and

     (4) Themba Maqhubela, a United States citizen who fled South
         Africa after refusing to testify against Ntsebeza in a
         political trial.


APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Federal Council Distances Itself From Fagan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Council issued its first statement recently on the class
action filed in New York against a number of defendants, including the
two large Swiss banks, UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group, with regard to
their business dealings with the government in power during apartheid-
era South Africa, in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung web
site.

Speaking to the media, Vice-Chancellor Achille Casanova said that the
federal executive wants no part of the South Africa class action and
that an initial examination had shown that the charges are summary and
lacking in factual foundation.

The two Swiss banks, said Mr. Casanova, intend to fight the charges in
court.  Mr. Casanova noted that the Federal Council made no comment on
whether the charges were justified.  He added that it was the council's
view that this kind of class action in an American court is not the
appropriate vehicle with which to solve the problem of other countries.  
Nor can such court actions respond to the question of economic
cooperation with countries in which international law and human rights
are violated.

Mr. Casanova underscored the close ties between Switzerland and South
Africa and noted that the federal council would do everything possible
to further strengthen them.


APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action pending
against Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and certain of its executive
officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
is brought as a purported shareholder class action under Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act.
In general, the suit alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants misrepresented the Company's financial prospects for
the quarter ending March 31, 2001 to inflate the value of the Company's
stock.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the suit in March 2002.  On
May 9, 2002, the court granted the motion dismissing the complaint but
giving plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint. No discovery
has been conducted in this lawsuit.

The Company labeled the allegations "without merit" and intends to
vigorously defend against any amended suits that might be filed.


APPLIED MICRO: Forms Special Committee To Evaluate CA Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuit Corporation formed a special litigation committee
to evaluate the claims in a consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its directors and executive
officers, in the Superior Court of California in the County of San
Diego.

The suit alleges:

     (1) overstatement of the financial prospects of the Company,

     (2) mismanagement,

     (3) inflation of stock value and

     (4) sale of stock at inflated prices for personal gain during the
         period from November 2000 through February 2001

Defendants demurred to the consolidated suit, which demurrer was
partially granted and partially overruled in February 2002.  Defendants
took a writ of mandate seeking review of the court's order by the Court
of Appeal of California, which writ was dismissed in March 2002.  
Defendants have petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review
of the denied portion of the demurrer.  The petition has not yet been
granted or dismissed.

In February 2002, the Company's Board of Directors formed a special
litigation committee to evaluate the claims in the consolidated suit.  
The special litigation committee has retained independent legal
counsel.  The San Diego Superior Court has stayed discovery against the
Company until July 2002 when the special litigation committee is
currently scheduled to deliver its report to the court.  Limited
discovery against the individual defendants in this lawsuit and third
parties has commenced.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suit are without merit
and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  The Company cannot
predict the likely outcome of the suit, and an adverse result in either
lawsuit could have a material, adverse effect on the Company.


AVATEX CORPORATION: TX Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division granted class certification to a consolidated
securities class action against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common and
former Series A and convertible preferred stock during the period July
19, 1995 through August 27, 1996, alleges that the Company and the
defendant officers and directors made misrepresentations of material
facts in public statements or omitted material facts from public
statements, including the failure to disclose purportedly negative
information concerning FoxMeyer's National Distribution Center and
Delta computer systems and the resulting impact on the Company's
existing and future business and financial condition.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the amended the suit, but the
court denied the motion.  In January 2002, the court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify a class of purchasers of common
stock as to federal claims, and reserved judgment on all other class
certification issues.  

Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit, and the Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.


dELiA*S INC.: Merits Discovery Commenced in NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Merit discovery in the securities class action against dELiA*S, Inc.
has been concluded in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Two securities suits were commenced in 1999 against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, and one former officer of a
subsidiary.  The suits were later consolidated and an amended and
consolidated complaint was filed.  

The suit, filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's securities
during the period January 20, 1998 through September 10, 1998,
generally alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making
material misstatements and by failing to disclose allegedly material
information regarding trends in our business.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants are liable
for those violations under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the court
denied the motion.  In December 2001, the court certified the class.
The Company filed its answer to the suit in February 2002.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action, and does not expect the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit to
have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flow.


dELiA*S INC.: Court Grants Final Approval to Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court granted final approval to a settlement for
a consolidated securities class action against dELiA*S, Inc. relating
to its merger with iTURF, Inc.

Three suits were commenced in August 2000 on behalf of stockholders of
iTurf, alleging that the Company and iTurf's Board of Directors members
breached their fiduciary duties to iTurf's public stockholders and that
the merger exchange ratio was unfair to iTurf's public stockholders.

The Company earlier moved to dismiss the suit.  On January 15, 2002,
all parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of compromise,
settlement and release, which became final in May 2002.  

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company issued one million shares of
its Class A common stock, of which 300,000 have been distributed and
the remaining 700,000 shares will be distributed upon the completion of
the claims administration process.  


DIGITAL IMPACT: Securities Suit Coordinated With Other Suits in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action pending against Digital
Impact, Inc. has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with other
similar class actions against other companies under Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York

In June 2001, a series of securities suits were filed against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and certain investment
bank underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO).  The
suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares, in violation of
the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the period from
November 22, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against
it and will defend itself vigorously.  In the opinion of management,
after consultation with legal counsel and based on currently available
information, the ultimate disposition of these matters is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition
or results of operations, and hence no amounts have been accrued for
these cases.


INDIAN FUNDS: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Disconnect Dept Computers Again
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against the Department of Interiors over
Indian royalties have asked US District Judge Royce Lamberth to
disconnect the Office of Surface Mining from the Internet for the
second time, USA Today reports.

Judge Lamberth asked the Department to disconnect its websites from the
internet last December 2001, after it was discovered that hackers could
easily access the its Trust Asset and Accounting Management System.  
The OSM Web site went back online nearly two months later with many
more Interior agencies, including the National Park Service, following
suit.

"Contemnors again have placed individual Indian trust data at imminent
risk of loss, corruption, deletion or unlawful manipulation because OSM
systems are connected to the Internet and security is inadequate,"
attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in an introduction to an emergency
motion filed June 27, USA Today reports.  OSM officials declined to
comment.

Interior has held American Indian-owned lands in trust for more than
100 years, leasing the properties and processing revenue earned from
farming and drilling.  A group of beneficiaries filed a class action
lawsuit in 1996, claiming that poor bookkeeping has prevented
landowners and their descendants from determining their account
balances. They estimate as much as $10 billion in lost or missing
funds.


LA LIGHTER: Recalls 1,800 Disposable Cigarette Lighters For Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LA Lighter, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,800 disposable
cigarette lighters.  The lighters may have child-resistant mechanisms
that do not meet federal safety standards.  Young children may be able
to operate these lighters, which could pose a fire hazard.  
        
The Company has not received any reports of incidents.  This recall is
being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.
        
The recalled lighters are made of metal, come in different colors, and
have a top that resembles a pencil across a protractor and triangle.  
To open the port and ignite the flame, consumers press on the pencil.  
The lighters, which are about three inches high, 7/8 inches wide and
1/4 inch deep, have a ruler along the side.  A label on the lighter has
the UPC code 7 63052 20108 5 and the words, "MADE IN CHINA" and "SLIDE
PUSH."
        
Retailers and distributors nationwide sold these lighters between
December 2000 and May 2001 for about $5.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-499-4708 between 9
am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday to receive a full refund.   


LOG ON AMERICA: Expects Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit in Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Log On America expects that an amended suit will be filed by plaintiffs
in the securities class actions pending against it and two of its
officers in the United States District Court in Providence Rhode
Island.

The suits, filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 22, 1999 and November 20, 2000, inclusive,
allege that the Company, together with certain officers, conveyed in
its public filings, press releases and other publications false,
misleading and incomplete information pertaining to the Company's
operations and finances.

The plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the complaints and to
appoint "lead counsel" is pending.  The Company anticipates filing a
responsive pleading which it anticipates will be either a motion to
dismiss or an answer denying any liability.  

The Company believes that it has at all times acted completely legally
in connection with the matters at issue and intends to defend the suits
vigorously.  The Company is, however, at this time unable to quantify
its potential exposure or to opine upon the likelihood that the
resolution of the suits will have any material effect on its financial
position.


MEAT PACKERS: Cattle Ranchers Sue Four Companies for Insider Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle ranchers from three states have filed a class action against the
nation's four biggest meatpackers, accusing them of insider trading,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.  Herman Schumacher of South
Dakota, Michael P. Callicrate of Kansas and Roger D. Koch of Nebraska,
recently filed the suit in US District Court in Pierre, South Dakota,
against:

     (1) Excel Corp.,

     (2) ConAgra Beef Co.,

     (3) Farmland National Beef Packing Co. and

     (4) Tyson Foods, which recently bought Dakota Dunes-based IBP.

The suit, filed on behalf of all cattle owners who sold livestock to
the companies in April and May 2001, accuses the packers of not
correcting a US Department of Agriculture mistake on the reported price
of boxed beef.  The meatpackers knew the numbers reported by USDA were
too low during the 29-day period and took advantage of the situation to
get cheaper beef, the suit claims.

"In that space of time there, while the box beef was misreported, the
packers, in my opinion, were buying cattle a lot cheaper," Mr.
Schumacher said in an interview.  Mr. Schumacher likened the situation
to the allegations against Enron and WorldCom, which both have come
under fire for unethical business practices.

James O'Conner, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, estimates meatpackers made
an extra $40 million during the 29-day period the incorrect numbers
were being reported.  Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for defendant IBP,
said he had not seen the lawsuit yet.  Its claims are troubling he
said.

"We can tell you we are disturbed by the claims apparently made in the
suit," Mr. Mickelson said.  "We depend on independent cattle producers
to supply our plants and have no reason to hurt them."

Mark Klein, a spokesman for Excel disputed the lawsuit's claims.  "I
would have to say the lawsuit is without merit, and we will defend
ourselves vigorously.It is ironic that the same people who clamored for
changes in meat pricing are now the ones complaining about it."

Mr. Schumacher said he expected many more cattlemen to join the
lawsuit.  "I will not settle out of court," he said.  "Everybody is
going to be involved."


MESABA HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Over Northwest Proposal Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hennepin County District Court granted Mesaba Holdings, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss without prejudice the securities class action filed
against it, each of its current directors and Northwest Airlines.  The
suit arose out of the proposal by Northwest to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock which Northwest did
not presently own.

The lawsuits alleged that the defendants had breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed
transaction.  Each of the lawsuits sought to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the proposed transaction and, if the transaction was
completed, to rescind the transaction or to compensate the Company's
shareholders for alleged damages.


MOBIL-ESSO: High Court Opens Way For Suits Over Longford Explosions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court in Victoria cleared the way for class actions to proceed
against Mobil-Esso in Victoria over contaminated aircraft fuel and the
Longford gas plant explosion, the AAP News reports.  The Company is
facing two class actions, but had challenged the legal standing of
state legislation sanctioning the civil suits.

Victorian businesses and residents affected by the 1998 Longford gas
plant explosion, which severed gas supplies to the state for a
fortnight, have mounted one suit against the Company.  A second suit
was lodged in 2000 over the 1999 avgas aviation fuel contamination
crisis, which grounded thousands of small piston engined aircraft which
used Mobil avgas from the Company's Altona refinery in Victoria between
November 21 and December 23.

Both suits have been stalled pending the outcome of the High Court
case.  The full bench of the High Court today dismissed the Company's
claim that Victorian government legislation enabling class actions was
invalid.

The Company had argued that an amendment to the Victorian Supreme Court
Act was beyond the legislative power of the state government and
incompatible with the judicial power of the Victorian Supreme Court.  
If upheld, this argument would have stopped the suits from being
brought in Victoria.  However, five of the six judges totally rejected
the Company's claim.

Justice Ian Callinan agreed the legislation was valid, but sought
provisions on the legislation that would have limited all suit claims
to Victorian residents and businesses.  The ruling now enables the
suits underway in the Victorian Supreme Court to proceed.

Company spokesman Alan Bailey told AAP that the Company was obviously
disappointed at the decision, but the result would give greater
certainty to the legal issues related to the class actions.  "What
happens now is up to the Supreme Court," Mr. Bailey said.

Law firm Slater and Gordon was involved in the launching of both suits.  
Slater and Gordon partner Lisa Nichols said the decision validated the
Victorian Supreme Court provisions, which were similar to those of the
Federal Court.

"Class actions provide a cost-effective way to treat large-scale
claims, allowing individuals to take on large corporations with
equality," Ms. Nichols said.  "Importantly, that legal mechanism now
remains available to Victorians.  Similarly, it is unlikely that the
Supreme Court of Victoria will face a flood of class actions."


MONTANA RESOURCES: Former Employees Upset Over Suit Settlement Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes, payroll costs and attorney's fees took as much as 87 percent of
settlement checks received by former Montana Resources employees, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The employees had filed a class action after the Company closed two
years ago with just a week's notice, violating the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).  The settlement for the
estimated 315 was US$1.7 million.  However, when individual employees
received their checks, there were fewer zeros than expected.

For example, one worker's wages were calculated at $5,357 but his net
check was $730.  The deductions were; $1,445 in federal withholding
tax, $348 in state withholding tax, about $400 for FICA, $566 in
payroll costs, and $1,856 in attorney fees.

Many of the former employees called the McCarthy Law Office and the
Corette law firm, which represented the plaintiffs, to complain.  Much
of the anger apparently stems from a misunderstanding between the
workers and their lawyers.  Workers told The Montana Standard they
believed attorneys fees would be paid on top of the settlement, or they
said they did not know they would be responsible for the payroll tax,
which is usually paid by the employers.

Lori Armstrong of the McCarthy Law Firm said workers were aware of the
attorney fees, which were set at $566,666 plus costs.  They may not
have known about the payroll taxes, which pay for unemployment
insurance and other costs.


NETSOLVE INC.: $2.7M Suit Settlement Hearing Set For September 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The fairness hearing for US$2.7 million settlement of the consolidated
securities class action pending against Netsolve, Inc. has been set for
September 13, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division.

The suit commenced in February 2001 against the Company and certain of
its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between April 18, 2000 and August 18, 2000.  The suit alleged that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme by issuing false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
during class period.

The Company moved to dismiss the suit for failing to state a claim
under which relief could be granted and for failing to comply with the
pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, 15 U.S.C. (S) 78u-4 et seq.  The court granted this motion in
part and denied it in part, dismissing claims against one officer of
the Company and certain of the theories under which plaintiffs alleged
liability against the Company.  However, the court let stand certain of
the stated claims against the Company and certain of its officers.

In December 2001, the Company and individual defendants reached a
settlement of this action.  The plaintiff class will receive $2,750,000
in connection with the settlement, all of which will be funded by the
Company's insurance carrier.  This settlement is subject to court
approval.  


NETSOLVE INC.: Securities Suit Coordinated With Similar Suits in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Netsolve, Inc. has been
coordinated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the Company's officers and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges that the
defendants failed to properly disclose certain commissions, discounts
and purported tie-in arrangements related to the Company's initial
public offering.

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act against the Company, and the plaintiffs allege claims under Section
11 and 12 of Securities Act, and Section 10 (b) of the Exchange Act,
against the Company's underwriters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.  It stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, however,
that it is not yet feasible to predict or determine the final outcome
of the suit, and if the outcome were to be unfavorable, the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flow and results of operations
could be materially adversely affected.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Consolidate Securities Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against NVIDIA Corporation
intend to file a consolidated suit in August 2002 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The suits were commenced in February 2002 against the Company and
certain of its officers, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising out of the Company's announcement on February 14, 2002 of
an internal investigation of certain accounting matters.  

As of April 30, 2002, approximately 13 similar actions were filed in
the Northern District, along with three related derivative actions
against the Company, certain of its executive officers, directors and
its independent auditors, KPMG LLP, in California Superior Court and in
Delaware Chancery Court.

The suits allege claims in connection with various alleged statements
and omissions to the public and to the securities markets and seek
damages together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of the litigation.  The derivative actions also seek disgorgement of
alleged profits from insider trading by officers and directors.

The suits are in the preliminary stages.  No discovery has been
conducted.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these suits, but
is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the suits.


OIL COMPANIES: GA Woman Files Consumer Suit Over "Environmental Fees"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Cherokee County woman filed a class action in Georgia district court
against Pennzoil-Quaker State Co. and Jiffy Lube International, Inc.,
over "environmental fees" that consumers have to pay each time an oil
change is performed at Jiffy Lube Stores.

Stephani Bayhille filed the suit alleging that, for many years, the two
Companies charged and engaged in the improper practice of requiring
that consumers to pay generically entitled "environmental fee,"
environmental service fee or "environmental/GF 3 fee" each time an oil
change is performed at one of the wholly-owned or franchised Jiffy Lube
stores, the Tahlequah Daily Press reports.  

The suit further alleges customers are not told they will be charged
such a fee prior to the service being rendered.  The fees charged to
customers purport to be a legitimate governmental and or regulatory
charge when, in fact, there is no such lawful regulatory charge.  The
suit further states, if there is such a governmental charge, the fee
charged bears no correlation or reasonable relationship to any
legitimate governmental charge.

The suit alleges the defendants internally refer to the fees as "profit
enhancers."  The practice of charging the fees has dramatically
increased the profits of the defendants nationwide and allegedly
cheated numerous customers who make up membership of the class.


PM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 22T Adapter Plugs Due To Electrocution Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PM International, Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 22,000
international 2-prong adapter plugs.  The Company imported the adapter
plugs from a manufacturer in China.  The adapter plug can separate when
the plug is removed, exposing live electrical conductors, posing an
electric shock or electrocution hazard to consumers.
        
The Company received one report of a consumer who received an electric
shock when he contacted the exposed conductors when he removed the
plug.
        
The 2-prong, slip-on adapter plugs are used to connect American 2-
pronged electrical plugs into various foreign outlets.  The adapter
plugs are plastic with a white matte finish.  The only marking on the
plug is "6A250V," which is molded on the bottom surface between the
prongs of the adapter.  No other writing appears on the adapters.

The Company sold the adapter plugs individually and as part of a
traveling kit with voltage converters.  Only adapter plugs sold
individually are included in the recall.  Catalogs and electronic
stores nationwide sold the adapter plugs from November 2000 through
March 2002 for about $3.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-377-6332 between 9
am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


RAFFLES TOWN: Did Not Promise To Limit Memberships, Plaintiffs Concede
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Singapore club Raffles Town Club
conceded that the club did not explicitly promise to limit its
membership to 5,000 to 7,000, the Singapore Business Times reports.  

Several members of the club recently filed the suit on behalf of 4,885
club members, alleging the Company misled them into joining by telling
them that the club was an exclusive and limited club in November 1996.  
Club members allegedly discovered that long queues and crowds when the
club opened in March 2000.  The plaintiffs primarily assert that
membership in the club totaled 19,000.

However, in the opening day of the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs
Molly Lim told Justice S. Rajendran "We concede that there was no
explicit mention of 5,000 to 7,000 members, but when we are promised
things like space and comfort, by no measure is 19,000 `limited.'"

In the months leading up to the hearing, the figures `5,000 to 7,000'
were mentioned many times by aggrieved members as what they believed
the clubs total membership to be, before they found out in March last
year that it was actually over 19,000, The Singapore Business Times
reports.

Ms. Lim also revealed in her opening statement that the club's former
director and shareholder Dennis Foo told the media in 1996 as saying
the club hoped to recruit 5,000 to 6,000 members.  Mr. Foo was also
quoted as saying this figure would include founding members who were
offered a special joining rate of $28,000, and members recruited from
the public at $40,000 a head.

Club attorney K. Shanmugam, denied the allegations, saying the reports
were hearsay and that neither the reporters who wrote the articles nor
Mr. Foo would be testifying.  He said, in his opening statement, that
the representations were statements of future intention and not
misrepresentations of facts, and added said such statements of
intention are not actionable in law unless they can be shown to be part
of a contract or the party that made them had no intention of
fulfilling them, the Singapore Business Times reports.

"They are no more than advertising statements which cannot give rise to
any cause of action, and further, the club has been built in an opulent
and luxurious manner," Mr. Shanmugam said.

The plaintiffs aim to show that representations in the club's
prospectus, including statements that members would enjoy `unparalleled
privileges and facilities,' that memberships would be `exclusive and
limited' and that the club would be `without peer in terms of size,
facilities and opulence' were misleading.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Sycamore Networks,
Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The amended suit names as defendants
the Company, several of its officers and directors and the underwriters
for the Company's initial public offering on October 21, 1999.

The amended complaint, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on the
assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and the
other named defendants made material false and misleading statements in
the Company's Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the
SEC in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with
         the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors
         in the Company's public offerings and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into
         agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to
         allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the
         investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of
its officers and directors and the underwriters under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act.  It also alleges claims against the Company,
the individual defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with over three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  
No date has been set for a response to the amended complaint.  

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend against the complaints vigorously.  The Company is
not currently able to estimate the possibility of loss or range of
loss, if any, relating to these claims.


VICINITY CORP.: Court Sets Sept 2002 As Deadline for Dismissal Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave Vicinity Corporation until September 2002 to file motions for
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action pending against
it and certain of its former officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of individuals who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between February 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
alleges that the Company, certain of its former officers and directors,
and its securities underwriters violated various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
related rules, including Rule 10b-5, by reason of alleged false
statements and omissions relating to underwriting discounts and market
stabilization transactions.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit is one of a large number of such actions
brought against numerous securities underwriters and issuers of
securities that appear to be related to an investigation currently
being conducted by the SEC of the conduct of certain securities
underwriters.

These lawsuits, including the suit against the Company, have been
transferred to a consolidated docket for coordination and decision of
pre-trial motions, discovery and related matters other than trial.
Certain underwriter defendants have brought a motion to recuse the
judge charged with managing the consolidated docket. The judge has
denied the motion and the Second Circuit Court's has denied a petition
for a writ of mandamus ordering the recusal.

The Court recently set a schedule for defendants to make motions to
dismiss, such that the motions should be submitted to the Court by the
end of September 2002.  At present, discovery has not commenced and the
Company has not responded to any of the complaints in the consolidated
action.

The Company believes that the claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors are without merit and the Company
intends to vigorously defend against them.


WHIRLPOOL CORP.: Recalls Washer and Gas Dryer Units For Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 17,000
combination washer and gas dryer units.  The gas dryer can overheat,
posing a fire hazard.  The Company has received two reports of the unit
overheating.  No injuries or property damage have been reported.
        
The recalled 24-inch washer and gas dryer units were sold under the
Whirlpool, Kenmore and General Electric brand names, which is written
on the control panel of the units.  They are white or light tan.  The
model and serial number are located behind the dryer door at the top of
the opening.  Model and serial numbers of units covered by this recall
are as follows:

     (1) Whirlpool Compact Thin Twin - Model Numbers: LTG5243DZ2,
         LTG5243DT2, LTG5243DQ2, LTG5243DQ3, LTG5243DT3; Serial Number:  
         Begins with MM, ML or MK;

     (2) Kenmore Laundry Center - Model Numbers: 110.98752792,
         110.98752793; Serial Number: Begins with MM, ML or MK;

     (3) General Electric Unitized Spacemaker - Model Numbers:
         WSM2480TBAWW, WSM2480TCAWW; Serial Number:  Has Z, A or D as
         the second character

Home improvement and department stores, new construction builders and
remodelers sold these units nationwide from January 2000 through May
2002 for between $800 and $960.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 866-251-1607 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.repair.whirlpool.com.


WORLDCOM INC.: Bondholders' Suit Likely V. Banks, Lawyers, Accountants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldCom, Inc. bondholders plan to sue the disgraced company's banks,
lawyers, accountants and directors for millions of dollars as early as
this week, for endorsing an $11.9 billion bond issue last May, The
Daily Telegraph reports.

Pension funds that bought into the offering claim to have done so under
false pretenses, because they were unaware of the $3.8 billion "black
hole," since found in the accounts.  The Company, which has been
charged with fraud by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), used
the proceeds from the $11.9 billion offering to write down debts.

Lawyers negotiating with the pension funds over representation claimed
the banks should have unearthed the error during due diligence.  JP
Morgan and Salomon Smith Barney were the lead underwriters.  Deutsche
Bank Alex Brown, ABN Amro and Bank of America Securities also will be
targeted for compensation.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, a US law firm best known for its
class action litigation, plans to take a lead role in this litigation.  
It already is representing plaintiffs in similar suits against Enron.

Public sector bodies exposed to the collapse in the bond price are
already heavily involved.  The New York State Common Retirement Fund is
seeking lead plaintiff status in one lawsuit, and the Florida State
Board of Administration, which has lost $60 million since Company bonds
collapsed to levels suggesting imminent bankruptcy, also plans to take
action.  Other victims include Calpers, the largest US pension fund,
which has $235 million in WorldCom shares and $330 million in its
bonds.

JP Morgan said it was aware of the impending action, but claimed to
have been duped just like the bondholders.  "We did thorough due
diligence," a spokesman said.  "But the kind of fraud that WorldCom has
revealed is not the kind of irregularity that could have been picked up
by standard due diligence."

The auditors, Andersen, and legal experts who undertook the due
diligence, are also likely to be named in the lawsuit alongside Company
directors.  Salomon Smith Barney was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The extent of the Company's accounting irregularity could yet prove to
be bigger than that already reported.  US investigators are seeking
evidence that the deception was wider and larger.


WORLDCOM INC.: Probing New Accounting Problems With Reserve Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that beleaguered communications giant WorldCom, Inc.'s
troubles will still escalate after it revealed that it is investigating
possible new accounting problems with its reserve accounts, the
Associated Press reports.  

Securities and Exchange Commission head Harvey Pitt criticized the
report, saying it was "wholly inadequate and incomplete."  He added
that it "demonstrates a lack of commitment to full disclosure to
investors and less than full cooperation with the SEC."

The Company's troubles began when it revealed last week the discovery
that questionable accounting had caused it to misrepresent US$3.8
billion in expenses.  The announcement lead to a 90% plunge in the
Company's stock price to 6 cents a share this week from a high of
US$64.

As a result, shareholders, investors and other stakeholders filed
securities suits alleging that the Company failed to disclose
significant adverse information in its financial reports which resulted
in the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price.

One Company reserve account that appeared to shrink substantially
during 1999 and 2000 was the one it used to cover liabilities it would
assume from the many companies it was buying up.  The Company added
$2.81 billion to that accounting line from 1998 to 2000, its annual
filings with the SEC show, according to an Associated Press report.

It did not appear from the filings the company had paid off most of the
liabilities. If money had been moved from the reserve account to the
company's revenue line, it would make WorldCom's business look much
healthier but would probably be a violation of accounting rules,
according to Wayne Shaw, an accounting professor at Southern Methodist
University in Dallas.  Mr. Shaw told AP such accounts can easily be set
up during an acquisition and then be used to quietly, and improperly,
cover regular business costs, inflating the company's bottom line.

In its statement to the SEC, the Company said its audit committee was
reviewing financial records for 1999 through 2001 because questions
were raised about significant changes in reserves against potential
financial losses.  "No conclusion has been reached regarding these
entries," said the statement.

The SEC is continuing its civil investigation of the company, and Mr.
Pitt said, "Criminal charges may be too good for the people who brought
about this mess."

"Today's filing is consistent with our pledge to be forthright and open
and to cooperate fully with both internal and external investigations,"
Company President and Chief Executive Officer, John Sidgmore, said in a
statement.


XEROX CORPORATION: Employees File Suit Challenging Soundness of Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees of Xerox Corporation have filed a class action, alleging the
Company misled employees about the soundness of its stock, Ananova.com
reports.  The suit was filed on behalf of former employee Thomas Patti
on behalf of more than 50,000 participants in the Company's retirement
plan.

The Company had earlier announced that it would restate billions of
dollars in revenue from 1997 through 2001.  The suit states the
Company's false statements caused staff to lose millions of dollars in
their retirement plans.

Bill McKee, a Xerox spokesman, says company officials have not seen the
lawsuit and cannot comment, Ananova.com reports.  The company will
vigorously defend its actions in court, he says.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the shares of 360Networks Inc.
(NASDAQ: TSIXQ.PK) between November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York against:

     (1) Gregory B. Maffei,

     (2) Jimmy D. Byrd,

     (3) Larry Olsen,

     (4) Ron Stevenson,

     (5) Vanessa Wittman and

     (6) Steve Baker

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 November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company shares.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company
reported strong year-over-year revenue growth.  Unbeknownst to
investors, however, as alleged in the complaint, the Company was
experiencing diminishing revenue growth.

The complaint alleges that in order to create the impression that the
Company was continuing to experience growth, the Company engaged in a
series of reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the
purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable -- the so-called dark fiber
swap.  The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions,
the Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: 360Networkscase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com   


360NETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities 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 360Networks Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets:
TSIXQ) publicly traded securities during the period between November 8,
2000 and June 28, 2001, inclusive, against:

     (1) Gregory B. Maffei,

     (2) Jimmy D. Byrd,

     (3) Larry Olsen,

     (4) Ron Stevenson,

     (5) Vanessa Wittman and

     (6) Steve Baker

The defendants allegedly 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 November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company shares.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company
reported strong year-over-year revenue growth.  Unbeknownst to
investors, however, as alleged in the complaint, the Company was
experiencing diminishing revenue growth.  The suit alleges that in
order to create the impression that the Company was continuing to
experience growth, the Company engaged in a series of reciprocal
transactions with certain competitors for the purchase and sale of dark
fiber optic cable -- the so-called dark fiber swap.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions, the
Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.

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



360NETWORKS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in 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 360networks Inc. (OTC
Pink Sheets: TSIXQ) from November 8, 2000 through June 28, 2001,
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.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
throughout the class period, the Company reported strong year-over-year
revenue growth.  Unbeknownst to investors, however, as alleged in the
complaint, the Company was experiencing diminishing revenue growth.

The complaint alleges that in order to create the impression that the
Company was continuing to experience growth, the Company engaged in a
series of reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the
purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable, the so-called dark fiber
swap.  The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions,
the Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.

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


AMDOCS LTD.: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Amdocs Limited
(NYSE:DOX) between July 18, 2000 and June 20, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that these statements 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:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by adverse market forces; and

     (2) the Company artificially inflated its financial statements by
         maintaining inadequate reserves for doubtful accounts and
         failing to disclose that its revenue growth improperly
         included revenues from a recent acquisition. Furthermore,
         defendants lacked a reasonable basis upon which to publish
         and/or affirm the revenue guidance they provided to analysts
         and investors.

For more details, contact Marc M. Umeda by Mail: 1010 Second Ave.,
Suite 2360 San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-350-6003 or by E-mail:  
info@ruflaw.com


CMS ENERGY: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of CMS Energy Corporation (NYSE: CMS)
between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002 inclusive.  The suit is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against the Company and:

     (1) William T. McCormick Jr. (Chairman and CEO),

     (2) David W. Joos (President and Chief Operating Officer) and

     (3) Alan M. Wright (Chief Financial and Administrative Officer)

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 August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

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

On May 10, 2002, the Company announced that the SEC was investigating
the propriety of its "round-trip" trading practices.  In response to
the announcement, its common stock price collapsed, falling from a high
of $20.06 on May 10, 2002 to a low of $15.72 on May 13, 2002, a drop of
more than 21% on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact 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


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files 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 Flextronics
International Ltd. (Nasdaq: FLEX) publicly traded securities from
October 2, 2001 through June 4, 2002, 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.  Specifically, 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.

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


KNIGHT TRADING: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action against in
Knight Trading Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NITE ) and its former Chief
Executive Officer Kenneth D. Pasternak, alleging that the defendants
made materially false and misleading public statements that wrongfully
inflated the price of Knight securities, thereby damaging investors.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in Newark, New Jersey.

The suit alleges that during the class period (February 29, 2000 to
June 3, 2002, inclusive) Company traders routinely engaged in the
improper trading practice known as "front-running".  The traders
delayed execution of the Company's customer stock purchase orders so
that the traders could first purchase those same stocks and then
benefit from an increase in the stock price as a result of the customer
orders.

The complaint alleges that this practice forced the Company's 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, inclusive.

On June 3, 2002, the improper trading practices were 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, the market price of Company stock dropped from its
closing price of $5.92 per share on June 3, 2002, to close at $4.65 per
share on June 4, 2002.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro or Liz Hutton by Mail:
75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-287-8119 by Fax:
617-439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.  


MERCK & CO.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK)
and several top officers, claiming the company improperly inflated
revenues by billions of dollars.  The complaint was filed in the US
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all
investors who bought the Company's common stock from July 1, 1999
through June 21, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company overstated revenues by billions
of dollars from its subsidiary Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC by
including consumer co-payments for prescription drugs in its revenues.
During the class period, Merk-Medco's revenues made up over 50% of
Merck's total revenues.

The lawsuit claims that the Company violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices because neither company bills for the co-payments,
gets billed for them, or otherwise comes into contact with co-payment
money. Patients make co-payments directly to pharmacies when they
purchase medicine.

On June 21, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported on the Company's
accounting practices and estimated that Merck and Merck-Medco may have
pumped up their 2001 revenues by as much as $4.6 billion. Similar
overstatements may have occurred for 1999 and 2000, the complaint says.
That same day, according to the complaint, a Company spokesman admitted
that the Company had been recording prescription drug co-payments as
revenue since it acquired Merk-Medco in 1993.

In the wake of these revelations, Company stock immediately dropped
4.25% from its closing price of $52.20 on June 20, 2002 to a closing
price of $49.98 on June 21, 2002, its lowest closing price since late
1997.

For more details, contact Steve D. Morris or Michael G. Lange by Mail:
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bermanesq.com.   


OMNICOM GROUP: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against
Omnicom Group, Inc. (NYSE: OMC) and certain of its officers and
directors, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. This suit is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between
April 25, 2000 and June 11, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants reported
that Omnicom was experiencing growth in its revenues and earnings,
despite the overall economic slowdown and the worst decline in
advertising revenue that the industry had ever experienced.  Defendants
attributed the Company's growth to, for the most part, the numerous
acquisitions made by the Company.

During 2000 and 2001, the Company acquired 73 companies.  It, however,
failed to reveal that it strung out the payments on its acquisitions
for years to come, yet immediately accounted for the revenue from the
acquired companies, thereby pumping up the its organic growth rate.

During the class period, the Company failed to disclose $250 to $350
million in liabilities created by having to make future payments on its
acquisitions.  Moreover, the Company accounted for "earn-out payments"
(payments to the acquired companies) as acquisition expenses, rather
than compensation, so that the amounts were not subtracted from the
Company's net income.

The complaint further alleges that during the class period, the Company
failed to disclose that under certain circumstances, it would be
obligated to purchase certain companies in which it had invested.
Thereby, the Company misrepresented its liabilities.  The Company also
failed to disclose that it transferred its holdings in several troubled
internet companies to Seneca, a company it created, so that it would
avoid writing down the losses on the investments. Its consideration for
the transfers was $280 million in Seneca stock, which constituted an
overstatement of the value of the investments.

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements, investors
were damaged, by purchasing Omnicom securities at artificially inflated
levels during the Class Period.

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


VERISIGN INC.: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of VeriSign, Inc.
(Nasdaq:VRSN) between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.  
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors.

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 material misrepresentations to the
market between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company provides digital trust
services to businesses engaged in securing digital commerce and
communications.  Plaintiff alleges that during the class period,
defendants artificially increased the Company's revenue and margins
thereby created the false perception that its deferred revenue growth
was derived organically.

As part of their effort to boost Company stock price, defendants
misrepresented its true prospects and concealed improper accounting
activities until they could effect the sale of at least $26 million
worth of their own Company stock and use Company shares to acquire
other companies in stock-for-stock transactions.

The truth began to materialize on April 25, 2002, as the Company
reported substantial employee lay-offs and revenue well below
previously represented forecasts. By market closing the following day,
Company stock had fallen $8.35 to close at $9.89, wiping out roughly $2
billion of the Company's market value. As a result of defendant's
alleged misconduct, plaintiff and the class have suffered substantial
damages.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Phone:
888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.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  * * *