CAR_Public/020705.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Friday, July 5, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 132

                            Headlines


AT&T CORPORATION: Customers File Suit Over Post-Ma Bell Leasing Program
AUSTRALIA: Source Of Hepatitis-C Tainted Blood Traced To New Zealand
BIG FOOD: Staff To File Breach of Contract Suit Over Pensions Scheme
BIOPURE CORPORATION: MA Court To Rule on Dismissal of Securities Suit
BLUE CROSS: Agrees To Settle For $26M Suit Over Medical Fees in NY

CANADA NATIONAL: Break In Tracks Likely Cause Of Michigan Train Wreck
CITIBANK NA: Lloyd's Investors May Reject $20 Million Suit Settlement
DE COSTER: Agrees To Settle For $3.2M Race Discrimination Lawsuit
ENGAGE INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ENGAGE INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in DE Court

EUROPA CRUISES: NV Court Refuses To Certify Racketeering, Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: TX Officials Sue Over Defective Crown Victoria Cruisers
HAYES LEMMERZ: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in E.D. MI
HMO LITIGATION: Louisiana Medical Society To Join Unfair Practices Suit
HOTEL INDUSTRY: Provides $10 Discount To Settle Energy Surcharges Suit

JD EDWARDS: CO Court Approves Settlement of Securities Violations Suit
KMART CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in E.D. MI
KMART CORPORATION: To Defend V. Suit Over ERISA Violations in E.D. MI
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MEDI-HUT CORPORATION: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suits in NJ

NAVARRE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
OREGON HEALTH: Students, Parents Sue Over "Compulsory" Drug-Testing
PORTAL SOFTWARE: NY Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
RAFFLES TOWN: Defense Asserts Rules State No Limit on Memberships
RAIL COMPANIES: Victims File Suit Over April 23 CA Head-On Collision

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Dismisses Environmental, Property Damages Suit
SPECTRIAN CORPORATION: Faces CA Suit Over Planned Merger With REMEC
STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set Sept 2002
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TELLABS INC.: Vigorously Defending Against Securities Suit in N.D. IL

TIVO INC.: Building Vigorous Defense V. Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
TRINITY MEDICAL: Migrant Workers Sue For Medical Fees Reimbursement
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over $5 Million Promissory Note in FL
VERSANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
VERSATA INC.: Court Partially Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit

*Reconciliation Or Justice? South Africa's Dilemma in Apartheid Suits

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ALCATEL SA: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
APPLIED DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LANTRONIX INC.: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

MERCK & CO.: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in MN
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

OMNICOM GROUP: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Scott + Scott Expands Class Period in Suit in CA
TELLABS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
TELLABS INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
WORLDCOM INC.: Keller Rohrback Commences 401(k) Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit

                              *********

AT&T CORPORATION: Customers File Suit Over Post-Ma Bell Leasing Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corporation faces a US$10 billion class action relating to the
post-Ma Bell leasing program, which it administered from 1984 to 1996.
The suit also names Lucent Technologies, Inc., its consumer-products
spin-off, which runs the program today, according to a report by Time
Magazine (July 8, 2002).  The suit is set for trial on August 5, in
Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that after the Bell breakup, the Company failed to
adequately inform customers of their options to lease, purchase or
return their old telephones.  Customers who took no action continued to
be charged for renting their phones, fee recorded on their bill in
vague line items like TRAD ROT DSK MISC, which means (traditional
desktop rotary).  Several former AT&T and Lucent employees say the
companies pressured them to keep people leasing.

The Company says the suit has no merit and promises to defend itself
"vigorously."  Recently, the Federal Communications Commission issued a
call for public comment, which could delay the trial.

Whatever the outcome, there are still Company customers who have not
gotten the message.  Some 860,000 households still lease nearly one
million rotary telephones.


AUSTRALIA: Source Of Hepatitis-C Tainted Blood Traced To New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mackenzie, a spokesman for the Tainted Blood Product Action
Group, said Australian victims of medically acquired hepatitis C are
now strongly considering a class action against the Federal Government
following recent revelations that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories
is claimed to have processed blood from New Zealand blood donors
between 1987 and 1993, which may have carried the deadly virus, the
Sydney Morning Herald reports.

This information was revealed in the course of a legal action in New
Zealand by people infected with hepatitis C.  The New Zealand legal
action, which relates to a period before the laboratories were
privatized, is primarily directed against the New Zealand Prime
Minister, Helen Clark.  The time period between 1987 and 1993 has added
significance to Australians because it falls within the reference of a
Federal Government inquiry into the blood system announced recently.

The Australian inquiry will examine how blood plasma collected from
donors who were suspected of carrying the hepatitis C virus continued
to be used even after donor screening was introduced in February 1990
in Australia.  The Sydney Morning Herald revealed that the suspect
plasma was processed in the belief that the virus would be killed by
the heat treatment.

The Red Cross said that decisions made in early 1990 in Australia were
made by experts after national consultation and in accordance with
international guidelines.  The agency said it was unfair to judge those
decisions on the basis of scientific knowledge unavailable at the time.

Charles Mackenzie said further, after the revelation of the probable
source of the contaminated blood that "We have got to get to the bottom
of what happened here.  It is becoming clear now that the protocols
have not always worked and that the decisions taken by government
authorities have not always been good ones."

"We want a royal commission into this matter and if we have to force
through protracted legal action then that is something we will do," he
added.


BIG FOOD: Staff To File Breach of Contract Suit Over Pensions Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One thousand employees of The Big Food Group, the new name for the
Iceland Frozen food retailer, are threatening to sue the Company for
the breach of contract over its decision to abandon the final salary
pension scheme, The Independent-London reports.

The Company announced in February that it would end the final salary
scheme for existing members as well as new entrants.  Salans Herztfeld
& Heilbronn, the law firm, is now acting for almost 1,000 of the 4,000
staff affected by the changes, and has written to the Company,
threatening to go to court with a class action if the decision is not
reversed by the end of the week.

"Our claim is for breach of contract on two counts," said Barry
Mordsley, head of Salans' employment team.  "First, for a substantive
change in their terms and conditions of employment, and second, for the
Company's failure to consult on whether or not to make the change."

The affected employees, he said, face lower pension benefits as a
result of being moved into a defined contribution scheme that will
fluctuate depending on stock market performance.  They also will face
higher contributions, whereas, most had enjoyed a non-contributory
arrangement under the old scheme.  "It's like getting a pay cut," Mr.
Mordsley said.

The Company rejected the claims and its lawyers, Herbert Smith, had
advised that there was no case to answer.  The Company said that the
pension changes are regrettable, but that it had no other choice.  "We
had to act to secure the future of the business plus the jobs of our
30,000 colleagues, because we simply could not afford the unpredictable
rising cost of the existing defined pension benefit scheme for 4,000
members."

Many companies, such as Marks & Spencer, Dixon's and Nationwide, have
closed their final salary pension schemes to new entrants due to
falling stock markets.  However, the Company and Ernst & Young are the
only major firms to close the funds for existing members too.

The Company case could provide a precedent on whether such actions are
lawful.  If successful, it would also open the floodgates to similar
legal action from disgruntled employees of other companies.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: MA Court To Rule on Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on the renewed motion to dismiss filed by Biopure
Corporation, relating to the consolidated securities suits pending
against it, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The complaints claim that the Company violated the federal securities
laws by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated time of a biologic license
application the Company expected to make to the US Food and Drug
Administration, resulting in the artificial inflation of the Company's
common stock price during the purported class period.

On May 15, 2002, the court held a hearing on the defendants' pending
motions to dismiss the suits, but the court declined to rule on the
motions to dismiss at the present time.  Instead, the court
consolidated the suits, granted the plaintiffs leave to file a
consolidated, amended complaint and granted the defendants leave to
file a renewed motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days after the
filing of any amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, which sets forth a class
period of May 8, 2001 through March 21, 2002, and the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the suit.  Oral argument on the renewed motion to
dismiss was heard by the court on June 20, 2002.

The defendants believe that the complaints are without merit and intend
to defend the actions vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot
estimate what impact, if any, these cases may have on the financial
statements.


BLUE CROSS: Agrees To Settle For $26M Suit Over Medical Fees in NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to settle for US$21.6 million a
class action filed in the United States District Court in Central
Islip, New York on behalf of 52,000 subscribers, Newsday reports.  The
suit charges the Company with setting artificially low physician
payment schedules between 1989 and 1995, knocking down reimbursements
and leaving patients to pay the difference.

An investigation carried out by lead attorney David Peirez and other
lawyers found that the Company appeared to have deliberately shaved the
"usual and customary charge" rate for physicians, to which
reimbursement is linked under some plans, such as a traditional fee-
for-service policy, even though the rates are supposed to be determined
by reviewing actual charges in specific geographic areas, Newsday
reports.

"This is an old case, that predates the current management at Empire,"
Empire spokeswoman Deb Bohren told Newsday.  "The calculation of the
usual and customary rate was subject to a very complex process that is
no longer being used at Empire and has not been used since 1995."

"The state Department of Insurance had written a report that said, 'We
believe they are manipulating the reimbursement rate schedules,'" said
Mr. Peirez. "After we got into it . we established to our own
satisfaction that it was very broad, very widespread and ongoing from
year to year. They were doing it in virtually every plan."

The Company has mailed postcards to 52,000 subscribers and their
families, who are members of the lawsuit's class, to tell them they may
be eligible for payments under the settlement, Bohren said. The
payments will be paid out based on an individual's out-of-pocket
expenses.


CANADA NATIONAL: Break In Tracks Likely Cause Of Michigan Train Wreck
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A horizontal break in railroad tracks running through Potterville,
Michigan was the likely cause of a Memorial Day derailment that forced
the evacuation of the town's 2,200 residents, Canadian National
railroad officials said recently, according to a report by the Detroit
Free Press.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Eaton County Circuit Court, at least
50 resident charged Canadian National with negligence.  Attorney Bryan
Waldman of Lansing has asked the court to certify the case a class
action.

Mr. Waldman said that his clients allege that Canadian National's
failure to maintain its tracks and locomotive resulted in the
derailment, causing property values to decline, damaging some house
foundations and triggering respiratory ailments due to the leakage of
liquid propane from two of the derailed cars.

Thirty-five cars of the 58-car Canadian National freight train left the
tracks.  Nine cars contained liquid propane, two of which leaked the
gas.  Two cars contained sulfuric acid, which did not leak.  There were
no physical injuries.

Jack Burke, a Canadian National spokesman, said that at least 2,147
residents have been reimbursed for evacuation-related expenses.  Also,
more than 500 additional claims were paid to families who hosted
evacuees, people who lost wages and to some businesses.  Mr. Burke said
amicable and reasonable settlements were reached with most residents.
"I think we were more than fair," he added.

Turning to the cause of the accident, Mr. Burke said, "It was an
undetected fissure or fault in the rail; it's a very rare occurrence."
Mr. Burke said the rail section had been inspected by Federal Railroad
Administration officials a few days earlier, and 31 trains had run over
the tracks in the 24 hours before the May 27 derailment.  The
inspection would not necessarily have detected the potential fissure.

Sheriff Rick Jones of Eaton County said that anything said by the
company about the cause of the accident is speculation.  "The federal
government has to make the final decision."


CITIBANK NA: Lloyd's Investors May Reject $20 Million Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of wealthy investors at Lloyd's of London, the insurance
market, have indicated they may reject a proposed US$20 million
settlement from Citibank, the US bank, in a long-running legal dispute,
the Financial Times reports.

Up to 1,400 names, who underwrote the heavily loss-making North
American business in the early 1990s, have been pursuing a class action
against the bank, alleging that Citibank, which acts as a trustee of
the late Lloyd's American Trust Fund, breached its fiduciary duties.

The Company, which denies all allegations of wrongdoing, has proposed a
US$20 million settlement, which consists of US$8.5 million in cash and
credit notes with a value of US$11.5 million.

Names in the UK, however, recently expressed concern at the size of the
settlement, which might result in their receiving a payment of a few
thousand dollars.  Christopher Stockwell of the Association of Lloyd's
Names, said he had already written to the US Court to reject the
settlement.  "I know of others who also plan to reject it," Mr.
Stockwell said.  "I believe the Names gets nothing much out of it, and
it means they have to waive their rights to sue Lloyd's."

The Names involved are mainly those who have not settled with Lloyd's
of London under its 1996 Reconstruction and Renewal package, which
attempted to draw a line under losses incurred by the market in the
early 1990s.

In legal documents detailing the proposed settlement, Citibank strongly
denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability.  The bank said, "In
view of the uncertainties, risks and expense of litigation, Citibank
has agreed to settle and terminate all existing and potential claims
against it . in agreeing to settle this action, Citibank in no way
acknowledges any fault or liability."  The proposed settlement has been
scheduled for a fairness hearing in New York on September 10.

Lloyd's would only say that the settlement proposed by Citibank to the
Names was a sensible commercial resolution to the matter.


DE COSTER: Agrees To Settle For $3.2M Race Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeCoster Egg Farms, the third-largest egg producer in the United
States, agreed to pay US$3.2 million in compensation to hundreds of
Mexican migrant workers who alleged race discrimination practices, the
Mexican Embassy in Washington announced Monday.

The settlement, a response to a class action by 13 Mexican workers and
the Mexican government, could benefit around 1,700 Hispanics that
worked on farms owned by the Company in the state of Maine from between
1988 and June 2002.

The out-of-court settlement was reached after four years of litigation
in a federal court.  It establishes a national model for other cases,
the parties involved said.

The plaintiffs proved that Hispanic, mostly Mexican workers had been
receiving lower salaries and worse living and working conditions than
their white counterparts.

Carlos Rico, former Mexican consul in Boston, Massachusetts, and
political advisor to the Mexican Embassy, said this was the first time
the Mexican government had acted as a co-plaintiff in a class action in
the United States.   "We decided to get involved in this case on
account of the migrants' poor working and living conditions," Mr. Rico
said, adding that "clear evidence of discrimination against Mexican
workers" existed.

According to Mr. Rico, the case will have national implications in the
United States because it provides an example of a constructive
agreement being reached before a case was brought to trial.

In addition to the cash settlement, the Company, which also operates
farms in Iowa, will have to continue improving working and living
conditions for its migrant workforce. The company began implementing
improvements after the suit was filed.

The agreement reached also establishes mechanisms to improve
communications between workers and management and gives Mexican
government representatives the right to periodically inspect the
Company's farms to check on employees.

All Hispanics who worked for the company during the specified time
frame will benefit from the settlement, regardless of their immigration
status, Mr. Rico said.  Plaintiffs' attorney Karen Wolf said the case
sends the message that all migrant workers, regardless of their
language or skin color, should be treated with dignity and respect.

In addition to concrete improvements in working conditions, Ms. Wolf
said one of the suit's greatest achievements is that it will change the
company's attitude for the better with regard to respect for human and
civil rights.  The case also sends a message to all US employers that
Hispanic workers are not powerless as either individuals or a group,
she said.


ENGAGE INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Engage,
Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Several suits were commenced in September 2001 against the Company,
several of its present and former officers and directors and the
underwriters for its July 20, 1999 initial public offering, on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between July 19,
1999 and December 6, 2000.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaints each
allege that the defendants failed to disclose "excessive commissions"
purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in
exchange for allocating shares of the Company's stock to preferred
customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter defendants and
preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO shares to agreements to
make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose these alleged
arrangements made the Company's prospectus incorporated in the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July
1999 materially false and misleading.

In January 2002, the court consolidated the suits, and in April 2002,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended suit.  As the litigation is
in an initial stage, the Company is not able at this time to estimate
the possibility of loss or range of loss, if any, that might result.


ENGAGE INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Engage, Inc. filed an
amended suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New
Castle County.  The suit names the Company, each member of its board of
directors and CMGI, the Company's majority stockholder, as defendants.

The suit alleges that CMGI manipulated the Company to enter into
transactions that unfairly favor CMGI and that CMGI and the Company's
directors have breached their respective fiduciary duties to the
Company and its minority stockholders by:

     (1) approving and entering into certain secured convertible notes
         that the Company issued to CMGI in October 2001 on terms that
         were unfair to the Company and its minority stockholders;

     (2) approving and recommending to the Company stockholders the
         approval of a proposal in the Company's Proxy Statement dated
         February 20, 2002 relating to the potential issuance of
         the Company's common stock in connection with conversion of
         these notes; and

     (3) approving and soliciting the approval of Company stockholders
         of the proposals in the Proxy Statement relating to three
         proposed reverse stock splits of the Company's common stock in
         order to avoid delisting from Nasdaq.

The suit also alleges that certain disclosures in the Proxy Statement
with respect to the foregoing proposals were materially misleading and
incomplete.

The plaintiffs requested for a preliminary injunction hearing and
permission to allow expedited discovery in the suit, but the court
refused the request on February 28, 2002.

On May 22, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reiterating the
claims previously alleged and adding an additional allegation that a
merger proposal announced on May 21, 2002 whereby CMGI would acquire
all outstanding shares of the Company common stock not already owned by
CMGI is a coercive transaction that allegedly does not satisfy the
entire fairness standard under Delaware law.

On May 21, 2002, two related class action suits were filed in the Court
of Chancery for the State of Delaware, challenging the fairness of the
CMGI-Engage merger proposal announced on May 21, 2002.  The suits seek
injunctive relief and/or rescission, disgorgement of any profits
received by defendants, attorneys' fees and other unspecified damages.

As these claims are in initial stages, the Company is not able at this
time to estimate the possibility of loss or range of loss, if any, that
might result.


EUROPA CRUISES: NV Court Refuses To Certify Racketeering, Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District Court of Nevada
refused to certify as a class action the lawsuit filed against Europa
Cruises Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: KRUZ), two of its subsidiaries
and other defendants.

William H. Poulos filed the suit in 1994, initially in the US District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging claims under the
civil enforcement provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and under state common law theories of fraud
and deceit.  In December 1994, the action was transferred to the US
District Court for the District of Nevada.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint against manufacturers,
distributors, operators and owners of electronic slot machines and
video poker machines and owners and operators of casinos and cruise
ships where such machines are played.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants defrauded them and other
potential class members by creating and operating electronic slot and
video poker machines which lead players to believe that they operate in
the same manner as table poker and mechanical reel slots.

The plaintiffs further alleged, among other things, that the
manufacturers of the electronic gambling machines, in concert with the
owners and operators of casinos and cruise ships, created false
perceptions about the nature of the electronic gambling devices through
the labeling of the devices themselves and perpetuated these false
perceptions through advertising and promotions and by concealing
information from the public.

On March 18, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

In denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification, the court
found that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements for class certification.  The plaintiffs can
seek leave to appeal the ruling and can still pursue individual cases.

Deborah A. Vitale, President and Chairman of the Board, said in a press
statement, "The Company and/or one of its subsidiaries is currently a
defendant in only three remaining lawsuits. (This does not include two
lawsuits filed against the Company in Delaware recently by Messrs.
Illius and Duber, two former directors of the Company.) The Nevada
Court's ruling is a favorable one for the Company in this case.
Assuming an appeal of the Court's ruling is not successful, this ruling
requires each plaintiff claiming damages to file a separate lawsuit and
prove his damages in a separate trial. As most people know, lawsuits
are filed as class actions to avoid the expenses inherent in trying
numerous cases with smaller damages separately. The failure to obtain
class certification in such cases is seen as a major blow for the
plaintiffs and often spells an end to such cases. Therefore, while this
development may not be a material event for the larger casinos, for a
small company such as ours, this ruling is very welcome news."


FORD MOTOR: TX Officials Sue Over Defective Crown Victoria Cruisers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces a class action filed by Nueces County, Texas
Officials, over the more than 20,000 Crown Victoria cruisers that the
county's police department uses.  The suit alleges that the designs for
the vehicles' gas tanks were defective.

According to the Naples Daily News, the defects caused the the deaths
of at least 11 police officers nationwide in the last two decades, all
of whom survived rear-end impacts to the vehicle but were killed when
the vehicle's gas tank exploded. None of the deaths occurred in Texas,
but two Texas officers survived fiery crashes.

"It's a nationwide problem because all of the vehicles nationwide are
the same," David Perry, an attorney who represented four officers in
lawsuits settled by Ford and who is now representing the county, told
the Naples Daily News.

In November, a federal investigation was launched.  Just last week,
Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano met with Ford engineers and
officials at the automaker's headquarters to discuss that state's
concern about the cars after that state's third officer death in three
years in a Crown Victoria fire.  The Company agreed to investigate the
cars' safety, but safety groups called the agreement "woefully
inadequate" and that a recall should have been demanded.

A judge has set for July 22 a hearing to consider a temporary
injunction to get the Company to begin notifying police agencies of
alterations it has been offering to make the tanks more puncture
resistant.

Company spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said the Company had not seen the
complaint.  "The record on the Crown Vic shows it's a safe vehicle,"
Tatchio told the Naples Daily News.  "In this case, it's used in a very
high-risk situations frequently, and we're going to take a look to see
how we can make it safer for those police officers."


HAYES LEMMERZ: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Hayes Lemmerz
International, Inc. filed a consolidated suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The suit was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from June
3,1999 to December 13,2001.

The suit chares the Company, its present or former directors and
officers and its auditor KPMG LLP of violations of securities laws.
The defendants allegedly released materially false and misleading
financial statements.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the consolidated suit.


HMO LITIGATION: Louisiana Medical Society To Join Unfair Practices Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana State Medical Society (LSMS), on behalf of its 6,800
members, will join in four class actions filed in Louisiana state court
against four of the largest health plans in Louisiana, namely:

     (1) CIGNA Healthcare of Louisiana Inc.,

     (2) United Healthcare of Louisiana Inc.,

     (3) Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc., and

     (4) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana

The state court suits will include allegations that the named health
plans have continuously and regularly breached their contracts with
physicians and have engaged in various business practices intended to
deny, delay and/or diminish lawful reimbursement to physicians who
provide medical services to the enrollees of these plans.  The result
of these egregious and unlawful practices is to impede access to and
the delivery of healthcare to the patients of Louisiana.

"Our members have been continuously thwarted in their efforts to
require the health plans to honor their contracts, so we now look to
the courts to force the health plans to fulfill their contractual
obligations," said LSMS President K. Barton Farris, MD.  "This is a
drastic step for our organization, but one that we must take to meet
our responsibilities to our members and the patients they serve. Our
patients select these health plans expecting that necessary medical
care will be covered and that their physician will be allowed to make
decisions about their medical care. However, the health plans make
medical necessity decisions with the intended purpose of reducing their
costs and increasing their profits. They employ various practices to
delay or deny reimbursement to the physicians that care for their
enrollees."

The LSMS has received countless complaints over the last several years
about managed care.  Due to the one-sided, non-negotiable nature of the
contracts and the "take it or leave it" response of the health plans,
efforts to educate physicians on how to recognize problematic
provisions in managed care contracts and how to request changes from
the health plans were unsuccessful.

"The decision to enter into these lawsuits was one that was carefully
considered and made after exhausting all of our options. Communication,
negotiation, education and legislation have failed to solve the
problems our members have with managed care," said LSMS General Counsel
Amy W. Phillips, JD.  "The LSMS is requesting injunctive relief for its
members so that the health plans have no other options except to
fulfill the promises they have made to patients and their physicians."

Specifically, the cases will allege that the health plans employ
various systematic practices to:

     (1) Disregard "medical necessity" criteria in making coverage and
         treatment decisions, instead the health plans utilize cost-
         based criteria to approve or deny benefit claims;

     (2) violate Louisiana contract and prompt payment laws by failing
         to pay physicians in a timely manner and for failing to pay
         interest on delayed or unpaid claims as required by law;

     (3) refuse to provide physicians with adequate or complete fee
         schedules, as referenced in their contracts, and information
         on how reimbursement is calculated;

     (4) utilize computer software specifically created to manipulate
         and/or change CPT procedure codes submitted by physicians to
         down-code, bundle, and deny the use of modifiers on valid
         claims in an effort to reduce payments to physicians; and

     (5) deliberately delay payments to benefit financially from the
         "float" created by the retention of payments lawfully owed to
         physicians.

The LSMS also announced it will join the California, Texas and Georgia
medical associations in a federal class action lawsuit against Coventry
now pending in federal district court for the Southern District of
Florida in Miami.

In the federal suit, the LSMS will join the other medical associations
in alleging that the health plan enriched itself at the expense of
patients, violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), and unilaterally breached its contracts with
physicians.

Archie Lamb, co-lead counsel of the national class action lawsuit,
welcomed Louisiana physicians and the LSMS to the federal case.

"The courage of the LSMS and the medical associations that have
previously joined sends a strong message to the managed care industry
that physicians will no longer tolerate health plan abuses affecting
them and their patients," Mr. Lamb said.  "The LSMS will join this
federal class action to give Louisiana physicians a voice in the
national solution."

For more details, contact Archie Lamb by Phone: 800-324-4425 or by E-
mail: alamb@archielamb.com


HOTEL INDUSTRY: Provides $10 Discount To Settle Energy Surcharges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four of the nation's top hotel companies agreed to settle a class
action filed by its customers over "energy surcharges" they imposed
during last year's power crisis, Reuters reports.  The settling
defendants include:

     (1) Marriott International, Inc.,

     (2) Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,

     (3) Hilton Hotels Corporation, and

     (4) Hyatt Corporation

Under the settlement, each person who stayed at a hotel run by any of
these companies starting February or March 2001 until ten months later
will be entitled to a US$10 discount on a future stay.  The agreement
could cost the companies over US$60 million in future discounts.  The
terms of the tentative settlement await court approval.


JD EDWARDS: CO Court Approves Settlement of Securities Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado approved
the settlement proposed by JD Edwards, Inc. to settle a consolidated
securities suit filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period between January 22, 1998, and December 3,
1998.

The suit alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through a series
of false and misleading statements.

The Company reached a settlement in the suit in the second quarter of
2002, and the court approved it in March 2002.  In settling the suit,
neither the Company nor any of the named officers or directors admitted
any liability or wrongdoing.  The terms of the settlement did not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows.


KMART CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in E.D. MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corporation's chief executive officer Charles Conway faces
several securities class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between May 17, 2001 and January 22, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.

The suits allege that Mr. Conaway made material misstatements or
omissions during the alleged class period that inflated the trading
prices of the Company's common stock and seek, among other things,
damages under Section 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company is not named as a defendant.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suits.  As a result of the
Company's bankruptcy filing, the suits have been stayed.


KMART CORPORATION: To Defend V. Suit Over ERISA Violations in E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Kmart Corporation's officers and directors face a purported
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of participants or beneficiaries
of the Kmart Corporation Retirement Savings Plan.  The suit alleges:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for excessive investment
         in company stock;

     (2) failure to provide complete and accurate information about the
         Company's common stock; and

     (3) failure to provide accurate information regarding the
         Company's financial condition

The suit does not name the Company as a defendant, due to its
bankruptcy filing.  If the suit was determined adversely to the
Company, the resulting damages would have a material adverse impact on
its results of operations and financial condition.  The Company
believes it has numerous defenses to the claims in the suit.


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Loudcloud, Inc.
filed a consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by providing materially false and misleading information in its
prospectus.  These suits were brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock from March 8, 2001 to May 1, 2001 and seek
damages in unspecified amounts.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will defend itself
vigorously.  However, the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, and there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail
in the suit.


MEDI-HUT CORPORATION: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suits in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Medi-Hut Corporation faces eleven securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between
April 4, 2000 and February 4, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

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

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against and/or attempt to dismiss these class actions
lawsuits.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Minnesota federal court's
decision dismissing the securities class action pending against Navarre
Corporation.  The suit was filed in December 1999 relating to the spin-
off of the Company's subsidiary NetRadio.

Shareholders filed the suit in the United States District Court in
Minnesota, alleging the Company released false and misleading
statements regarding the spin-off.  The suit further alleged that
Company insiders sold off shares in 1999 at inflated prices based on
the promise of a quick sale of NetRadio.  The sale was later postponed,
causing share prices to decline.

The court dismissed the suit with prejudice in May 2001, and the
plaintiffs promptly appealed the decision.


OREGON HEALTH: Students, Parents Sue Over "Compulsory" Drug-Testing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Health & Science University and 14 school districts around
the state faces a class action filed in the United States District
Court in Oregon, over a study of drug testing for high school students,
the Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that the university and the districts coerced students
to take part in the drug-testing experiment, violating legal and
ethical requirements for voluntary participation in human research and
inflicting "psychological, social and economic harm" on thousands of
students and their parents.  The suit further alleges that students who
refused to go along with the tests were barred from playing sports and
subjected to harassment and intimidation.

"That's hardly voluntary," lead attorney Alan Milstein of Pennsauken,
NJ told AP.  "Everybody knows, after Nuremberg, informed consent must
be voluntary," he said, referring to the code of research ethics
established after German experiments during World War II.

The University has denied any wrongdoing.  A spokesman said the study,
known as Saturn, complies with all state and federal regulations.  An
institutional review board, comprising OHSU researchers and lawyers
responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of research
volunteers, approved the study before it began, spokesman Martin
Munguia told AP.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: NY Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions against Portal Software, Inc. have been
ordered consolidated, but a consolidated suit has not been filed yet at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suits were commenced in July 2001, against the Company, certain of
its officers and several underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO).  The suit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, arising from alleged improprieties by the
underwriters in connection with the Company's 1999 IPO and follow-on
public offering, and claims to be on behalf of all persons who
purchased Company shares from May 5, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

Specifically, the complaints allege the underwriters charged certain of
their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in the prospectus and
engaged in certain allegedly improper activities in connection with the
distribution of the IPO shares.  The complaint was subsequently amended
to allege similar claims with respect the Company's secondary public
offering in September 1999.

No date has been set for the Company to respond to the complaints.
These actions are part of the IPO Securities Litigation against over
300 issuers and nearly 40 underwriters alleging claims virtually
identical to those alleged against the Company.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.  In the opinion of
management, resolution of this litigation is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the
Company.


RAFFLES TOWN: Defense Asserts Rules State No Limit on Memberships
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defense for Singapore's Raffles Town Club (RTC) stated that the club's
proprietor can take in any number of members that he decides, with no
limitations, based on the way its rules and by-laws were drafted, the
Business Times (Singapore) reports.

The key issue raised by the almost 5,000 plaintiffs suing RTC in a
class action was that the plaintiffs were misled into believing they
had been invited to join an exclusive club whose membership would range
between 5,000 to 7,000 persons.  The plaintiffs further alleged that
they have discovered that the membership is presently over 19,000
individuals.

Under the club's rules, the proprietor also has absolute discretion to
impose any restrictions on or changes to any of the facilities in the
club, and to invite anyone to become a member, senior counsel K.
Shanmugam said.

"In legal terms, there could not be a limit imposed on membership,
based on the way the rules of the club were drafted.  Every club member
subjected himself or herself to these rules, and the proprietor has the
right to decide on the rules and can change the rules as we go along,"
said Mr. Shanmugam.

The senior counsel also said that the defense has put together several
charts recording the usage of RTC's facilities over the past 26 months,
which indicate that most of the facilities, particularly the
restaurants, were not running at their full capacity for the bulk of
the period under review.

The defense also argued during the trial that the plaintiffs have a
"misconceived" notion of a representative or class action, and that the
cause of action has not been properly constituted.  The people in a
representative action have the same interests in the same proceedings.
In the RTC case, the plaintiff are claiming they were misled into
joining the club based on representations they say the club made in its
invitation materials and brochure.  Therefore, a key issue would be the
state of mind of each of the 4,895 plaintiffs at the time of the
invitation, said Mr. Shanmugam.

The plaintiffs claim they misled into joining the RTC, when they were
told, in 1996, that it was an exclusive club of limited membership.  In
March 2001, they discovered there were 19,000 members.  They seek to
rescind the plaintiffs' contracts, recover the $28,000 joining fees
plus other damages or remedies.


RAIL COMPANIES: Victims File Suit Over April 23 CA Head-On Collision
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten surviving victims of the catastrophic head-on collision of a BNSF
freight train and a Metrolink commuter train on April 23rd in
Placentia, California, filed a class action against the two railroad
companies today alleging that the crash could have been avoided if BNSF
and Metrolink had invested in advanced technology and made sure that
their employees had adequate time off to rest.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a $2.125 million jury award for a
single plaintiff against BNSF last month in San Francisco and only a
few days after National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chairwoman
Marion Blakey told the US House Railroad Subcommittee that an automatic
railroad braking system would have prevented the deadly wreck.  Ms.
Blakey testified that automatic braking has been on the NTSB's "Most
Wanted List" since 1990 and that without the systems, "preventable
collision accidents will continue to occur and will continue to place
railroad employees and the traveling public at risk."

The Congressional hearing was conducted at the urging of US
Representative Bob Filner (D-San Diego), California's only member of
the subcommittee.  Mr. Filner is co-sponsoring legislation introduced
in Congress in May that would limit the work hours of train employees
and signal workers and mandate that train workers have clean, quiet
sleeping quarters when they are off duty.

"Chairwoman Blakey's testimony last week before the US House Railroad
Subcommittee was forceful and specific," said Los Angeles attorney R.
Edward Pfiester, Jr., of The Pfiester Law Corporation, of Los Angeles,
who represents the plaintiffs in both the San Francisco case and the
class action.  "Federal investigators are focusing on human error
caused by engineer fatigue as a factor in the BNSF-Metrolink crash, and
the highest ranking transportation safety official in the Nation has
testified that railroads should install automatic braking systems as
safeguards for tired engineers and conductors. This technology has been
around for years, yet the railroads continue to say that more study is
needed, while people are dying and being maimed."

Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the suit alleges that both
BNSF and Metrolink bear responsibility for the crash because they
failed to take adequate steps to protect employees and passengers.

"There are a number of actions that the carriers could have taken to
avoid this horrific crash, had they given as much consideration to
safety as they did to costs," said Mr. Pfiester.  "BNSF's locomotive
engineers, in effect, are being directed to crash into other trains --
in the case determined by a jury last month, it was a 'cut' of
stationary railcars; in this case, unfortunately, it was a commuter
train. It is very unlikely that this crash would have occurred if the
railroads had proven, long-available technology and if their employees
had adequate rest."

The lawsuit alleges claims against both BNSF and Metrolink in a number
of areas.  First, the complaint charges that BNSF was negligent in its
operations and in management's oversight of the railroad's employees.
Specifically, BNSF's "availability policy" allegedly forces engineers
and conductors to work extremely long hours with erratic schedules that
prevent regular sleep cycles and adequate rest.

In addition, the complaint cites management error and gross misconduct
on the part of BNSF, based on the railroad's "availability policy" and
calls into question the railroad's intentional decision to save money
by refusing to install a Positive Train Control (PTC) or automatic
braking system.

The PTC system is long-available satellite technology that uses the
Global Positioning System (GPS) to discern when two trains are on a
collision course and to automatically apply the brakes on both trains
to prevent a crash. An automatic braking system also slows trains that
go past a yellow signal and stops them before they go past a red
(absolute block) signal.

Mr. Pfiester said that BNSF has failed to install PTC technology on all
of its locomotives.  The lawsuit also alleges that Metrolink breached
its obligation to provide the "utmost duty of care" to its passengers
by failing to install the PTC system or the automatic braking system on
its locomotive.

"The Positive Train Control and automatic braking system has been
proven to be reliable and has been available for several years; in
fact, it was used in Southern California by BNSF for a period," said
Mr. Pfiester. "Had the BNSF locomotive been equipped with PTC
technology or with signal-related automatic braking, rather than merely
monitored by the railroad's fallible human engineer and dispatcher, it
is highly likely that this horrific crash would not have occurred."

Mr. Pfiester said he has obtained information in deposition indicating
that another major railroad carrier, which is not involved in the crash
or lawsuit, Union Pacific, has installed the GPS system on about 1,500
of its 7,000 locomotives thus far and is moving forward rapidly to
install it fleet- wide.

"The cost of the system is minor when compared to its potential for
saving lives and preventing human trauma and suffering," Mr. Pfiester
said. At least two persons were killed and nearly 300 injured in the
April 23rd crash.

For years, Mr. Pfiester said, BNSF locomotive engineers and employees
in train service, conductors and those operating switches, have
complained that the railroad's corporate policy effectively prevents
their having regular rest days and consistent full nights of sleep. In
fact, some BNSF employees have said that management requires them to
take off only one weekend per month and be available to work at least
75% of the time, day and night, they must meet both criteria or be
cited for discipline. By contrast, the average American, with a 40-hour
workweek, is available for work 22% of each month.

Under federal work-hour rules, a railroad can force employees to return
to work after they have been off duty for eight hours. The result is
that many employees work two eight-hour shifts in one 24-hour period, a
cycle that often is repeated for many weeks.  Mr. Pfiester said that
forcing employees to work such shifts allows railroads to save huge
amounts of money on health, welfare and vision plans, as well as on
retirement benefits. Although a commercial airline pilot is permitted
to fly only 100 hours per month and a truck driver may be on duty no
more than 260 hours per month, railroad operating crews can and do
operate trains up to 432 hours per month.

For more details, contact R. Edward Pfiester, Jr. or Victor A. Russo by
Phone: 323-662-6400


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Dismisses Environmental, Property Damages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Florida dismissed a class action
filed against Smithfield Foods, Inc., the nation's largest hog
producer, the Associated Press reports.

Around 35 groups representing environmentalists, ranchers, family
farmers and animal rights groups commenced the suit in February 2001,
charging the Company of ignoring environmental regulations and
profiting from it.  The plaintiffs also contended that their businesses
and properties were damaged as a result of the Company's operations.

Federal judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich dismissed the suit, saying the
plaintiffs were not able to establish how the Company's actions damaged
their property.  Judge Kovachevich also ordered the plaintiffs'
attorneys, including prominent environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr.,
to pay the Company's legal expenses, for filing "frivolous motions."
The judge further ordered both sides to reach an agreement on the
appropriate amount within 30 days.

"We knew that this was a frivolous suit from the outset and fully
anticipated (this) outcome," Richard J. M. Poulson, the Company's
executive vice president, said in a statement Tuesday.

Mr. Kennedy compared the impact of the court's decision to losing a
skirmish in a war.  "We think we made a good claim. The judge disagreed
with us, and that happens, too," he told The Associated Press.  "It
will not affect our campaign to try to civilize this industry, which is
doing so much damage to our country right now."

Herb Schwartz, an attorney with the Houston-based law firm of Williams,
Williams and Bailey, one of the firms representing the class, told
Associated Press that the legal team would appeal the ruling and the
decision to sanction the plaintiffs' lawyers.


SPECTRIAN CORPORATION: Faces CA Suit Over Planned Merger With REMEC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrian Corporation faces a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
against six of its directors and its chief executive officer.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties
owed to the Company's stockholders, including their duties of loyalty,
good faith and independence, by engaging in self-dealing in the merger
transaction with REMEC.  This violation allegedly stemmed from the
defendants' failure to properly value the Company in the merger and due
to conflicts of interest.

The Company and the defendant directors and officers believe the
lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously.


STARNET COMMUNICATIONS: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set Sept 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware will
conduct on September 9,2002 a fairness hearing for the settlement of a
securities class action against Starnet Communications International,
Inc.  The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
from March 11,1999 through August 20,1999.

Under the settlement, the Company will distribute one million fifty
thousand (1,050,000) of its American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of
World Gaming PLC, the publicly traded parent of the Company to the
class.  Other benefits have also been proposed.

The hearing will be held to determine whether the proposed settlement
should be court approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to
consider the application of plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

For more information, contact Brad N. Friedman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: 212-594-5300 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement
in the consolidated securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suit alleges claims under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10 (b), and generally alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading public filings, press releases and other statements
regarding the Company's financial condition during a class period
commencing on February 24, 2001 through December 17, 2001 in a scheme
to artificially inflate the value of the Company's common stock.

In June 2002, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the consolidated class action lawsuits for $7,500
in cash.  The settlement agreement is subject to final approval of the
court.


TELLABS INC.: Vigorously Defending Against Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications equipment maker Tellabs Inc. labeled "without merit"
the securities class action filed by New York law firm Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Reuters reports.

The suit charges the Company and its top executives for making
misleading statements regarding the Company's performance, on behalf of
purchasers of Company shares between Dec. 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001.
The suit specifically charges Company Chairman Michael Birck and then
Chief Executive Richard Notebaert, now chairman of telephone company
Qwest Communications International Inc., with issuing a series of
"materially false and misleading statements" in the time period in
question, the law firm said.

The suit alleges that the defendants touted strong demand for the
Company's products, up until June 19, 2001, when the Company warned it
would break even before charges in the second quarter instead of
earning 29 cents a share, while sales would finish at about $500
million instead of the prior guidance of $780 million to $820 million.

The Company said it would defend itself vigorously.  "At the time in
question, the market changed abruptly," Company spokeswoman Jennifer
Stiglic told Reuters.  "As soon as we realized our customers were
scaling back their spending, we revised our revenue forecasts and
informed our shareholders."


TIVO INC.: Building Vigorous Defense V. Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tivo, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from September 30,1999, the
time of the Company's initial public offering (IPO), through December
6,2000.  The suit also names several of the underwriters involved in
the IPO as defendants.

The suit alleges that the underwriters in the IPO solicited and
received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased the Company's common
stock in the initial public offering and the after-market.

The complaint also alleges that the Company defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus
that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed
arrangements.  More than 300 issuers have been named in similar
lawsuits.

The Company's time to respond to the complaint has not yet expired, and
it is likely that this response will not be due for several months,
after certain procedural issues are resolved.  At the appropriate time,
the Company intends to move to dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to state a claim.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses and intends to defend this action vigorously.


TRINITY MEDICAL: Migrant Workers Sue For Medical Fees Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Medical, Inc. faces a class action filed in St. Lucie County
Circuit Civil Court, by five migrant workers, alleging that the Company
charged them with US$800 in fees, even though Medicaid had already paid
the full amount of their medical care, the Palm Beach Post reports.

The workers allegedly went to clinics run by the Company for prenatal
care from 1998 to 2000.  They paid US$800, with the assurance that the
money would be refunded once the women gave birth and enrolled in an
emergency state insurance program, the suit states.  After the women
had been accepted into the Medicaid program, the clinic allegedly
refused to return their money.

The suit asserts claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, which gives special protection for victims who do not
have enough education to read and understand contractual terms.  The
suit seeks reimbursement, along with punitive damages of three times
the actual money they lost, and attorney fees.  The suit also names as
defendants, gynecologist Kenneth Kassin and businessman Peter Feldman,
who founded the Company about 12 years ago.

Two years ago, the State Agency for Health Care Administration wrote a
letter ordering Trinity to promptly return the deposits of eight
Okeechobee County women, all migrant workers, who had their babies
delivered by Trinity doctors, Palm Beach Post reports.

Sylvie Kramer, director of Healthy Start, which pays for prenatal care
in St. Lucie County, said at that time that she had supplied AHCA with
80 to 100 more names of poor pregnant women who had not been reimbursed
for payments ranging from $200 to $1,300 at Trinity's Fort Pierce
clinic.



UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit Over $5 Million Promissory Note in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniroyal Technology Corporation (Nasdaq: UTCI) faces a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against it, concerning the timing of the recording
of certain impairment charges relating to a $5 million unsecured
promissory note received from RBX, Inc. in the sale of the Company's
Ensolite division to Rubatex Corporation (a division of RBX) in June
1996.

The complaint also contains allegations concerning the timing of the
write-down of goodwill of Sterling Semiconductor, Inc. and concerning
fees paid to an investment banking firm and a law firm each having
related parties to the Company's Board of Directors.

The Company believes its accounting methods adhere to the requirements
and regulations set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission and
all its public filings are approved by its independent auditing firm
prior to their release. The fees in both instances were at or below
market level for the services performed and were approved by
disinterested members of the Board. The Company believes that it has
adequate defenses to all the allegations contained in the complaint.


VERSANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action against Versant Corporation with the United
States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Several suits were initially commenced in the first quarter of 1998, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its present and former
officers and directors.  The suits were later consolidated.

Plaintiffs filed several amended suits, which the Company repeatedly
asked the court to dismiss.  In May 2001, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended suit, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, in connection with
public statements about the Company and its financial performance.

On December 4, 2001, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the third
amended suit.  On December 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On May 2, 2002, the
plaintiffs, now as appellants, filed an opening brief alleging the
dismissal was in error and should be reversed.  The Company's answering
brief is presently due on July 12, 2002.

The Company denies the allegations in the suit and intends to
vigorously defend the court's judgment on appeal.  Securities
litigation can be expensive to defend, consume significant amounts of
management time and result in adverse judgments or settlements that
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations and financial condition.


VERSATA INC.: Court Partially Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part Versata, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.

The consolidated suit alleges claims under section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under section
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The suit seeks an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who  purchased the Company's
stock during the class period.

On May 23, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the consolidated suit by dismissing the section 10(b)
and section 20(a) claims in its entirety,  and  dismissing  all but a
portion of the  section 11 and section 15 claims.

In June 2001, shareholders filed derivative actions ostensibly on
behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and
directors in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.  The suits
also name the Company as a nominal defendant.

The suits allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
abused their control of the corporation, and engaged in gross
mismanagement of the corporation, by allegedly making or permitting the
Company to make false financial statements and seek, among other
things, compensatory damages.

On November 7, 2001, the state court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to stay proceedings in the consolidated derivative
action until the earlier of the filing of an answer by the Company in
the federal action or dismissal of that action.  An additional
derivative complaint filed May 2002 will be consolidated with the
earlier actions, and thus is subject to the November 7, 2002 stay of
proceedings.

The private securities suits and state derivative actions against the
Company could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
conditions and results of operations.  The Company intends to
vigorously oppose the suits.


*Reconciliation Or Justice? South Africa's Dilemma in Apartheid Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic South Africa's determination to look forward rather than
dwell on its painful past is being sorely tried, as discussed in a
report by the Financial Times.

In the United States, a class action is being brought against the Swiss
and American banks that financed the apartheid regime.  More recently,
another lawsuit has been brought against IBM, which allegedly supplied
the computer expertise to institutionalize apartheid and some German
banks that also helped finance the apartheid regime.

In South Africa, the government's failure to pay compensation to
apartheid victims is targeted in still another lawsuit brought by
Khulumani, a victims' support group.  The group filed a lawsuit against
Desmond Tutu and President Thabo Mbeki seeking a copy of the
government's draft reparations policy.

All these lawsuits are likely to reopen old wounds.  Some maintain
justice must be done in order to achieve true reconciliation.  Others
point to the so-called South African "miracle," the peaceful transition
from white minority regime to multi-racial democracy.  They fear the
lawsuits will open the door to a multitude of other claims which risk
tearing apart the delicate fabric of South African Society.

Those who wish to avoid lawsuits that seek reparations or retribution
realize that today's stable government, achieved by peaceful transition
was a process  achieved at a price, however.  It was based on a
difficult compromise that excluded retribution, and, some would say,
justice, in favor of reconciliation and the need to move the country
forward.  It worked. For there is little doubt that if apartheid
leaders had had to fear a Nuremberg-style trial, the transition would
not have been peaceful and South Africa would not be the nation it is
today.

However, the compromise left a bitter aftertaste, the feeling that
justice was not done.  To achieve true reconciliation, some say, there
must be reparations.  "We see it as a healing process for South
Africa," says Neville Gabriel, convener of the Apartheid debt and
reparations campaign.  "The wounds are there," he says.  "Without
reparations they will get deeper."

The demand for reparations taps into a deep well of resentment.
Ultimately, say some, it threatens to undermine the foundations on
which the new South Africa rests. The imperative of reconciliation had
its greatest proponents in Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

It also rekindles the debate about the perceived failings of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission(TRC), chaired by Archbishop Tutu, which
worked for years with the aims of giving victims a voice, establishing
the truth, dispensing amnesties in exchange for reparations and
ultimately promoting reconciliation.

It proved a cathartic experience.  For many victims, disclosure brought
forgiveness; they hugged their former tormentors and embraced the
generous spirit of the new Africa.  However, many more victims cannot
reconcile themselves to the fact that self-confessed murderers are free
while their victims' relatives have received nothing.

That is the main accusation against the TRC, that by focusing on truth
and reconciliation, it did not bring about reparation or justice.  More
than 1,100 people were granted amnesty, while the victims received
nothing.  The main focus of the domestic lawsuit by Khulumani is the
African National Congress government, and its failure to pay
compensation at least to the 21,000 victims of apartheid identified by
the TRC.

Critics of the current lawsuits filed by Ed Fagan's legal group is that
they may raise false hopes among victims frustrated by long-delayed
government reparations.  Some people think if they call the hotline and
wait one or two months, the money will come.  Thandi Shezi, a program
coordinator for the Khulumani victims' rights group, says "we have
told them it could take five or six years."

Ms Shezi said, "People are confused."  Some believe that Mr. Fagan's
suits have replaced the state compensation recommended by the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.  Khulumani has been holding community
meetings in Soweto township and other areas to explain the implications
of Mr. Fagan's lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the TRC recommended, in 1998, that the state pay more than
three billion rand ($300 million) to more than 21,000 victims of
apartheid.  Not much seems to be happening, except that some victims
received interim payment.  The wait has created much anger and
resentment against the government and Desmond Tutu.

Khulumani filed its lawsuit, which asked for a copy of the government's
draft reparations policy.  Pretoria says it will be released only after
the TRC gives its final recommendations to President Mbeki in August.

Standard Bank Chief Economist Iraj Abedian told the Cape Town Press
Club recently that apartheid reparations were crucial to maintaining
social and macro-economic stability.  "Unless you deal with this
redress, the issues will come back and haunt you very unexpectedly," he
said, estimating the cost to the government at up to five billion rand,
with a worst-case economic scenario of 15 billion rand over three
years.

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of investors who purchased the securities of 360Networks, Inc.
(OTC:TSIXQ.PK and TSE:TSX.TO) in the period from November 8, 2000 to
June 28, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names certain officers and
directors of the Company and the accounting firm of
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in New York,
alleges that the defendants engaged in a massive accounting fraud and
made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts
concerning the Company's financial condition and business performance
during the relevant time.

According to the complaint, the defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company was overstating revenues and assets by a
vast amount during the class period.  As a result, investors have
suffered substantial losses.

For more details, contact Ralph M. Stone by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue,
Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018 by Phone: 212-239-4340 by E-mail:
rstone@lawssb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.lawssb.com


ALCATEL SA: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Alcatel SA relating to the Company's Class O common shares
(Nasdaq:ALAO), claiming that the company misled investors about its
business and financial condition,

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who bought Alcatel SA securities between the
Company's Class A common shares (NYSE:ALA) and Class O common shares in
the form of ADSs between October 20, 2000 and May 29, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company issued a prospectus for the sale of
Class O stock in the form of American Depositary Shares (ADSs) that
purportedly would track the performance of the Company's Optronics
Division.

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequently, on May 29, 2001, the Company issued an unexpected and
severe profit warning and separately announced that it expected to
report a second-quarter loss of approximately $2.6 billion.  Following
this announcement, the price of the Company's Class O common shares, in
the form of ADSs, declined by 11% from a closing price of $21.26 on May
29, 2001 to a closing price of $18.92 on May 30, 2001.  Similarly, the
Company's Class A common shares, in the form of ADSs declined by 8.8%
from $27.14 to 24.74.

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



APPLIED DIGITAL: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities 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
Florida, West Palm Beach Division on behalf of purchasers of Applied
Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSXE) common stock between February
20, 2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and Richard
J. Sullivan.

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

The suit alleges that defendants were aware of materially adverse
information regarding the inability of proper accounting controls to
stymie improper revenue recognition practices at some of the Company's
subsidiaries, and failed to reveal the information to investors for
over two years.

The Company divulged that throughout the year ending December 31, 2001,
one of its subsidiaries had been reporting revenue without "evidence of
customer acceptance prior to the recognition of certain revenue," on
April 18, 2002.  The Company additionally revealed that the subsidiary
"did not have proper restrictions to vendor access within its accounts
payable system."

Furthermore, 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 revelation of improper accounting practices at the Company's
subsidiaries caused its stock to fall 40%.  Roughly three weeks later,
on May 9, 2002, defendants asserted that virtually every major hospital
in the vicinity of West Palm Beach, Florida, would be outfitted with
VeriChip scanners, an crucial element of the Company's Verichip
technology. Yet no hospitals, including those in West Palm Beach had
consented or approved use of a scanner, an indispensable device for the
retrieval of the VeriChip's information.

On May 10, 2002, the truth that no hospital had accepted a scanner was
divulged, subsequently causing Company stock to fall, dropping almost
30%.

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, 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. E-mail should refer to Applied
Digital.


EDISON SCHOOLS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities 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 all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged
or otherwise acquired Edison Schools, Inc. securities (Nasdaq: EDSN)
between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 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.

Throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented and manipulated
the Company's revenues by counting teacher salaries and expenses for
school districts as income even though the Company never received the
monies.  The Company also attempted to deflect attention from its
ongoing losses by touting the artificially inflated revenue figures by
over $100 million a year.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the price
of Company securities was artificially inflated.  Company insiders
engaged in this course of conduct in order to sell over 12 million
shares of artificially inflated common stock worth over $290 million.
Shareholders who bought Company common stock at prices as high as
$32.00 per share during the class period suffered substantial damage
when defendants disclosed the truth at the end of the class period.
Company stock plummeted to $12 per share on 4.1 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Jeffrey G. Smith,
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 Edison.


LANTRONIX INC.: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP expanded the class period in the
securities lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Lantronix, Inc. (Nasdaq: LTRXE)
to include purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
during the period between November 2, 2000 and May 30, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company designs, develops and markets network device servers.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.

As a result of this inflation, the Company was able to complete a
secondary offering of eight million shares, raising proceeds of $64
million on July 17, 2001.

The defendants' alleged wrongful course of business:

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

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

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

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

The Company has now restated its results for F01 and the first two
quarters of F02.  Once the Company announced it would restate its
results, its stock dropped to below $1.00.

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


MERCK & CO.: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Merck & Co., Inc.
(NYSE: MRK) between July 23, 1999 and June 20, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit is pending in the United States District Court, District of New
Jersey against the Company and:

     (1) Kenneth C. Frazier,

     (2) Richard C. Henriques,

     (3) Raymond V. Gilmartin,

     (4) Judy C. Lewent and

     (5) Mary M. McDonald

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 July 23, 1999 and June 20, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company had materially overstated its revenues (by
         roughly $4.6 billion in year 2001 alone) by improperly
         including as revenue the value of co-payments made by
         consumers to their pharmacies (since the entire amount of the
         co-payment is paid directly to, and retained by, the
         pharmacy);

    (ii) that the financial statements prepared and filed by defendants
         during the class period were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because
         neither Merck nor its Medco unit ever received any revenue
         from the co-payments that were made to pharmacies; and

   (iii) that as a result, defendants' statements concerning the size
         of the Company's revenues and financial results were lacking
         in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On June 21, 2002, The Wall Street Journal published an article which
revealed that the Company had boosted its reported revenues by billions
of dollars (by roughly $4.6 billion in year 2001 alone) by improperly
including as revenue the value of co-payments made by consumers with a
prescription-drug card to their pharmacy to cover their portion of the
cost of a prescription under an insurance plan.

Following this report, shares of the Company fell $2.22 per share to
close at $49.98 per share, after reaching a class period high of
$94.875 on November 29, 2000, on volume of more than 15.2 million
shares traded, or more than twice the average daily volume.

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: Merckcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and the head of its Internet group,
Henry Blodget, on behalf of purchasers of Aether Systems Inc. (Nasdaq:
AETH) securities between November 15, 1999 and February 20, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleges that Merrill Lynch and its well-known Internet stock
analyst Henry Blodget violated the federal securities laws by knowingly
issuing false and misleading analyst reports regarding these "new
economy" companies during the class period.

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

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Henry Blodget and other
Merrill Lynch analysts issued very favorable analyst reports regarding
these "new economy" companies to the public when they allegedly knew
that the positive recommendations were unwarranted and false.

The Complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to the investing
public, Merrill Lynch's buy recommendations and price targets for these
"new economy" companies were driven by its efforts to attract lucrative
investment banking business from these "new economy" companies rather
than by the companies' fundamental merits.

For more details, contact Adam T. Savett by Phone: 202-337-8000 or by
E-mail: ats@ftllaw.com


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

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

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First Vice
President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Pets.com, Inc. (OTC: IPET) between March 7, 2000 and November
7, 2000 inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Inc. and Henry Blodget in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Merrill Lynch securities between July 3, 1999 through
April 8, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
employing improper business practices which artificially inflated the
prices of Merrill Lynch common stock and other securities during the
class period.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants' improper
business practices included:

     (1) issuing a series of false, inflated and/or biased securities
         analyst research reports concerning the common stocks of
         several Internet companies for whom Merrill Lynch provided or
         sought to provide investment banking services, in complete
         derogation of the "Chinese Wall" that was supposed to separate
         the firm's research analysts from its investment bankers;

     (2) failing to adhere to the published securities ratings criteria
         Merrill Lynch distributed to its clients and other investors;
         and

     (3) publicly recommending certain Internet stocks to investors in
         their research reports despite private misgivings and negative
         opinions about those stocks as reflected in internal e-mails
         and communications.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants manipulated their
securities research as part of a larger scheme whereby Merrill Lynch
wrongfully linked the compensation of Mr. Blodget and other Merrill
Lynch securities analysts, to the amount of investment banking business
the analysts generated.

The complaint also alleges that Merrill Lynch issued several
misstatements to investors concerning, inter alia, the integrity of the
firm's securities research and analyst practices in reports the firm
filed with the SEC and in other public statements.

For more details, contact Lane L. Vines, Karen Markert by Mail: 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 800-424-6690 or
215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-4604 by E-mail: mercase@bm.net or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.InvestorProtect.net.


OMNICOM GROUP: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Omnicom Group, Inc. (NYSE: OMC) and certain of its principal officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the Company's securities between April 25, 2000 and June 11, 2002.

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.

Prior to and throughout the class period, defendants reported that the
Company was continuing to experience growth in its revenues and
earnings, despite the overall economic slowdown and the worst decline
in advertising revenue that the industry had ever experienced.  The
Company's growth was attributed, for the most part, to the numerous
acquisitions which it made, which favorably impacted the Company's
earnings.

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

     (1) the Company created a materially misleading impression of its
         performance by immediately including revenue and earnings from
         recent acquisitions in its reported financial results, in
         contrast to its competitors which excluded the results for the
         first year after a company was acquired;

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

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

The Wall Street Journal article also described Omnicom's transfer of
its Internet investments to Seneca Investments LLC, which had been
jointly created with Pegasus Capital LLP in May 2001.  According to the
article, Seneca had been created as a vehicle for the Company to avoid
writing down the loss on its investments in Internet companies which
had declined in value.

In response to The Wall Street Journal article, the price of Company
common stock dropped precipitously, falling almost 20% to close at
$62.28, on volume of more than 31 million shares traded. On June 27,
2002, Moody's Investors Service said that it may downgrade the
Company's credit ratings and, as a result, the price of Company stock
dropped 23% to a four-year low of $37.60.

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Scott + Scott Expands Class Period in Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC amended the class in the securities class action it
filed against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRGN) to include
purchasers of the Company's securities from July 21, 1999 through May
22, 2002, inclusive.   The class period has been extended due to new
facts that have come to light since the previous complaint was filed.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California.  The complaint charges the Company and certain
of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning Peregrine's business and financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.  The
Company's former outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, is also named as
a defendant.

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff and the class
were injured as a result of defendants' misrepresentations, omissions
and other fraudulent conduct alleged.  Company stock began its decline
on May 1, 2002 following its April 30, 2002 announcement that the
release of the its fiscal fourth quarter and year end financial results
would be delayed pending the completion of an audit by new outside
auditor KPMG. Upon this announcement Company stock fell nearly 50% to
close at $3.45.

On May 6, 2002 the true facts regarding the Company's financial
condition, which were previously concealed or hidden, were revealed to
the public.  On this date, the Company shocked the market by announcing
that its board of directors had authorized an internal investigation
into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much as $100 million, which
KPMG had brought to the attention of the audit committee.

Simultaneously, the board of directors announced that the Company's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer had both resigned all of their positions with the
Company.  Following this announcement Company stock fell an additional
61% to close at $1.01. 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 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com


TELLABS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Tellabs, Inc. (NASDAQ:TLAB) between
December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001, inclusive against the Company and
its principal officers and directors Michael J. Birck and Richard C.
Notebaert.

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 December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements which were materially false and misleading when made
as they misrepresented and/or omitted one or more of the following
adverse facts which then existed and disclosure of which was necessary
to make the statements not false and/or misleading, including, but not
limited to:

     (1) that Company customers were overinventoried with the Titan
         5500 such that they would be decreasing their orders in the
         future, thereby causing Tellabs to report declining earnings.
         Given the declining telecommunications market, defendants were
         aware, or recklessly disregarded, that Tellabs' customers
         would not require additional Titan 5500s as they would be able
         to utilize their respective inventories;

     (2) that Tellabs optical networking line of products were not
         being well-received by customers as the products were not
         comparable with competitors' products. For example, the Titan
         6100 (now referred to as the Titan 7100) is twice the size of
         competing products, is uni-directional (as opposed to
         competitors' products which are bidirectional) and can only
         carry 32 channels while the closest competitors has twice the
         capacity;

     (3) that the SALIX acquisition was a complete failure as sales of
         the product line that the Company acquired in connection with
         that acquisition were declining. Indeed, Tellabs eliminated
         the SALIX line of switching products just 14 months are
         Tellabs' acquisition of that company; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' lacked a reasonable
         basis for their statements concerning Tellabs' earnings,
         growth, prospects and value.

The class period ends on June 19, 2001. Just five weeks after Mr.
Vaughn assured investors that, "We are on track and we are confident
that we can deliver $1.65 this year," Tellabs issued a press release
announcing revised second quarter guidance, reducing revenues from $780
million to $820 million to $500 million, or a decline of more than 35%,
and breakeven earnings per share (as compared to consensus earnings
projections of $.29 per share) before restructuring and other charges.

In response to the Company's announcement, Company common stock fell
from a high of $23.01 per share on June 19, 2001 to a low of $15.87 per
share, or a decline of more than 31%, and a decline of more than 75%
from the class period high of $67.125.

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


TELLABS INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tellabs,
Inc. (NASDAQ: TLAB) between December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the
Company, Richard C. Notebaert (CEO, President, Director) and Michael J.
Birck (Chairman).

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 December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001.

According to the complaint, the Company had represented to the public,
in press releases issued throughout the class period, that its new
products were enjoying strong demand, that the seeming slowdown in its
business was due to "component-parts shortages which have been
corrected" and that its business was strong fundamentally and the
Company would meet earnings and revenues expectations.

The complaint alleges that these, and other, statements were materially
false and misleading because, as alleged in the complaint, its new
optical networking line of products were inferior to the competition
and their products were not well-received or in high demand.  The
complaint further alleges that, contrary to its statements to the
investing public, the Company's highly-touted acquisition of SALIX was
a failure as sales of the product line it gained in the acquisition
were falling.

On June 19, 2002, the Company issued a press release revealing that
second quarter of 2001 revenues would be 35% less than guidance
reiterated only weeks before, and that the company's earnings would be
breakeven instead of the consensus $0.29 per share.

In reaction to the announcement, the price of Company stock fell by
31%, from $23 per share on June 19 to $15.87 on June 20, representing a
75% decline from the class period high.  During the class period, Mr.
Birck sold a total of 80,000 shares of Company stock at prices between
$64.25 to $65.38 per share, grossing proceeds of more than $5.18
million.

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: tellabscase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Keller Rohrback Commences 401(k) Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP initiated a 401(k) breach of fiduciary duty class
action against WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:WCOME) on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Company's 401(k) retirement plans from January
3, 2000 through the present.

The suit alleges that the Company, and its plan administrators,
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence.  These
breaches are alleged to have occurred when material information was
withheld or concealed from the plan participants and beneficiaries with
respect to the Company's business, financial results and operations,
thereby encouraging participants and beneficiaries to continue to make
and maintain substantial investments in company stock and the Plans.

The Company has been under investigation by the Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC) since March 2002.  Following the Company's disclosure
that it had overstated its cash flow by $3.8 billion, the SEC filed
federal fraud charges against the Company.

The SEC court filing alleges that the Company created an accounting
scheme intended to manipulate earnings.  The SEC said that under this
scheme the Company improperly booked so-called line costs, or the fees
it paid to other communications companies to use their networks, as
capital investments, which had the effect of masking losses.

For more information, contact Jennifer Tuato'o by Phone: 800-776-6044
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.erisafraud.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  * * *