CAR_Public/020710.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, July 10, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 135

                              Headlines

2CONNECT EXPRESS: $400T Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 2002
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Multinationals To Be Named In Reparations Suit
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Ed Fagan Reparation Suit To Commence August 9
APARTHEID LITIGATION: New Suit To Be Filed For Female Apartheid Victims
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyers, Archdiocese Ponder Strategy In Abuse Suits

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Plans To Appeal Certification of TX Seat Belt Suit
FLORIDA: Resident Files Suit After Receiving Unsolicited Prozac by Mail
IGEN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
INDONESIA: Consumer Rights Group Fights State's Second Gas Price Raise
MCDONALD'S CORP.: Settlement in Question After More Groups Claim Injury

MONTANA: Helena Sued Over Ordinance Banning Smoking in Public Places
MOTORCAR PARTS: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit
NVIDIA CORP.: CA Federal Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set For March 2003
RAFFLES TOWN: High Court to Examine Issues, Decide If Case Proceeds

RELIANT RESOURCES: Admits To Artificially Inflating $7.9B of Revenues
TALX CORPORATION: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
TORONTO SUN: Model Wins Key Battle In Fight To Bring Misconduct Suit
TRITON NETWORKS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
TRITON NETWORK: Offices, Directors Face Securities Suits in M.D. FL

WORLDCOM INC.: Executives Blame Former Auditors for Accounting Fraud

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CRYOLIFE INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
CRYOLIFE INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
EDISON SCHOOLS: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY

HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in TX
MERCK & CO.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MERCK & CO.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey

MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
MONTANA POWER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Montana
PERKINELMER INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in MA Court
RAYOVAC CORP.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI

TELLABS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
TRITON NETWORK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL
TRITON NETWORK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in M.D. FL

                              
                              *********


2CONNECT EXPRESS: $400T Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama will hold on September
20,2002 a fairness hearing for a US$400T settlement filed on behalf of
purchasers of 2Connect Express Inc. between July 8,1996 and August
30,1996 and/or at any time between May 9,1997 and January 12,1998.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Allwin E. Horn, to
determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the
court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the
application of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

For more details, contact Janine L. Pollack of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP by Phone: 212-594-5300


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Multinationals To Be Named In Reparations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Some 35 multinational companies will be sent a letter calling on them
to pay reparations to the victims of apartheid, in the lead-up to a
Class action lawsuit over alleged human rights violations under the
former South African apartheid regime, the Financial Times reports.

The companies include, among others:

     (1) Barclays,

     (2) Credit Lyonnais,

     (3) Royal Dutch/Shell,

     (4) Westinghouse,

     (5) Ahmdal,

     (6) Unisys,

     (7) Ford and

     (8) General Motors

"I continue to be amazed by the companies' refusal to behave as
responsible and co-operative citizens of the world," said Ed Fagan, the
American lawyer behind the lawsuit.  "Responsible citizens stand
up and say we are sorry."

Mr. Fagan has filed a controversial lawsuit against two of
Switzerland's biggest banks and three other companies, charging them
with supporting the apartheid regime.  Mr. Fagan claims more than 1,000
persons have expressed interest in joining the suit.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Ed Fagan Reparation Suit To Commence August 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against various banks and corporations that
supported South Africa's apartheid regime will commence on August 9, in
a New York federal court, the Daily Mail and Guardian reports.

Lead counsel Ed Fagan, Jr. announced in a briefing to media, that the
suit was based on "unfinished business," and the team wanted to ensure
it was filed in a timely manner under American law.  On August 9, the
team will explain to the judge the "universe of known defendants and
potential claimants."  After that date, the lawyers would still be able
to include new defendants they "discovered", but the judge would "put a
timetable" on it, so it was not an open-ended process, Mr. Fagan said.

The suit names as defendants several banks and business corporations in
the US, Switzerland, Germany, France, Britain and elsewhere, including
Switzerland's Credit Suisse and UBS, US's Citibank and IBM, and German
forms Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank and Commerz Bank.

According to the Daily Mail and Guardian, Mr. Fagan said he expected
the case to be finalized fairly quickly, and estimated it would last
between two and five years.  He added that the suit had been endorsed
by public representatives at the highest level, in the US, South
Africa, and Germany.

He also said assurance had been given "at the highest level" that the
South African government would remain neutral on the matter, which was
"precisely where they need to be."


APARTHEID LITIGATION: New Suit To Be Filed For Female Apartheid Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maverick US attorney Ed Fagan and a team of South African lawyers have
lodged a new class action that categorizes women and children as
specific complainants in a multibillion-rand lawsuit against companies
thought to have benefited during the apartheid era.

South African attorney Kelibone Molema said that in a four-day meeting
with Mr. Fagan it had been agreed that women would be looked at as a
specific category since they were targeted by the apartheid system to
pay for the political activities of their children and friends.

"The whole system was orchestrated against them.  They were targeted as
individuals, as opponents of the system and as a strategy to get to
their activist boyfriends, husbands and children," said Mr. Molema.

He said the litigations hotline had already received more than 2 000
calls from people who wanted to lodge claims against powerful  
multinational companies and banks that are said to have ignored
international sanctions against the apartheid government in the 1980s.

Mr. Molema said the lawyers had approached people such as World Bank
director Mamphela Ramphele and ANC Women's League president Winnie
Madikizela-Mandela to top up their clientele.  So far, only Veronica
Sobukwe, widow of the late Robert Sobukwe, founding president of the
Pan-Africanist Congress, and Gabrielle Lubowski, the widow of
assassinated anti-apartheid lawyer Anton Lubowski, have supported the
new class action.

The suit, which is expected to take up to five years to conclude, will
start in New York on August 9, which is ironically National Women's Day
in South Africa.

The South African lawyers will spend this month consulting potential
plaintiffs and seeking detail from those who have approached the
Apartheid Claims Taskforce, which is made up of attorneys from the US,
South Africa and Switzerland, as well as others such as historians.

Mr. Molema said a number of women who were raped, maimed and humiliated
by apartheid security agents were ready to go public.  

Mr. Fagan, who flew into SA quietly on Tuesday, shot to fame in the
1990s for helping to push powerful Swiss Banks into a R12.5-billion
settlement for victims of the Holocaust.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyers, Archdiocese Ponder Strategy In Abuse Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As plaintiffs continue to file lawsuits against the Archdiocese of
Louisville, in Kentucky, claiming the church was aware of sexual abuse,
attorneys for both sides are trying to determine the best plan of
action, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Lawyers for the 154 plaintiffs who have filed suit in Jefferson Circuit
Court are faced with proving the church covered-up abuse with victims
who have no visible scars and no eyewitnesses.  In fact, most of the
alleged incidents occurred more than 30 years ago.

Attorneys for the archdiocese are faced with disproving those claims
while adhering to a pledge made by Catholic bishops in a national
meeting in Dallas last month to reach out and apologize to victims of
sexually abusive priests.  Lawyers who have both brought and defended
such cases against the Catholic Church in the United States, say it is
unlikely that either will happen in a courtroom.  They expect most of
the cases to be settled.

"Nobody wants to try 150 cases, least of all the judge," said Patrick
Schiltz, who defended hundreds of abuse cases for the Catholic Church
until 1995, when he became a law professor at the University of Notre
Dame.  "It would take years."

There is no official tally, but one expert estimates as many as 3,000
abuse claims have been made against Catholic priests and dioceses in
the United States since the 1980s.  Yet a review by The Courier-Journal
of news accounts and legal data bases shows only 14 cases that have
gone to trial since then, including one in northern Kentucky.

The Church rarely opts to go to trial because it realizes that "it is
almost unheard of for a jury to find a plaintiff was lying," said Mr.
Schiltz and others, including Jeff Anderson, an attorney who said he
has handled more than 600 such cases.  Specialists in such litigation
agree that the Archdiocese of Louisville would face a more daunting
task in court than the plaintiffs.

Because the alleged damage to each plaintiff is different, the cases
cannot be tried together as a class action.  Even the 63 suits that
name one priest probably cannot be consolidated, lawyers say.  However,
to get a sense of damages, a judge may direct the parties to try a few
sample cases in which different levels of abuse are alleged, Mr.
Schiltz said.   Then the court would encourage them to settle the rest
of the suits, using those tried cases as benchmarks.  A judge could
also order mediation.

The sheer number of suits against the archdiocese could aid the
plaintiffs' cause, lawyers say.  Even if the cases are tried
separately, lawyer William McMurry, who represents most of the
plaintiffs, said he will call to the witness stand all the plaintiffs
who allege they were abused by the same priest.

The archdiocese's trial lawyer, Edward Stopher, said he might use the
volume of cases to suggest that some plaintiffs were not injured and
were simply seeking money.  For its part, the Archdiocese of
Louisville, first will explore whether claims made against it are
barred by the statute of limitations or on other legal grounds, said
Brian Reynolds, its chief administrative officer.

No priests are named as defendants.  All of the lawsuits hold the
archdiocese liable, claiming it knew about the alleged abuse and did
nothing.  Mr. Reynolds said the archdiocese's approach will reflect
"concern for victims and their need to be encouraged and supported in
their healing," as demanded in the bishops' Charter for the Protection
of Children and Young People.

However, said Mr. Reynolds, the archdiocese is in many ways like any
other defendant.  As the steward of the gifts given by the Catholic
people to carry out the mission and ministry of the church, he said,
"We will defend our rights."

Mr. Stopher said he will take depositions from every plaintiff.  The
archdiocese is expected to defend itself based on the fact that the
bulk of the lawsuits cite allegations stemming from the 1950s, `60s and
`70s, a period of time when, the archdiocese will allege, based on what
was known about pedophilia, church officials acted reasonably by
sending the priests accused of child sexual abuse for treatment and
then reassigning them to new parishes when the doctors said they no
longer posed a danger.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Plans To Appeal Certification of TX Seat Belt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG plans to appeal a Texas judge's decision granting
class action certification to a lawsuit on behalf of as many as 14
million owners of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles.

The lawsuit accuses the Company's Chrysler Group of negligence and
deceptive trade practices surrounding seat-belt buckles it installed in
the majority of its vehicles beginning in 1993.  The lawsuit charges
the buckle is defective and prone to unlatch in a crash.  At least
three deaths have been blamed on the buckle, and at least four other
deaths are under investigation, according to plaintiffs' attorney Billy
Edwards, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

"Plaintiffs' allegations, if true, describe a consumer crisis with
safety implications that should be addressed expediently,"  County
Judge Hector De Pena, in Nueces County, Texas, wrote in his order.  
Judge De Pena added that individuals couldn't afford to sue on their
own, noting that the auto maker has "vigorously contested many issues,
including having twice unsuccessfully removed this case to federal
court, twice unsuccessfully sought transfer of venue and unsuccessfully
moved for summary judgment."

The Company said in a statement that it will appeal the decision,
noting that an Arizona court already has dismissed a similar lawsuit.
It added that Judge DePena's order was one-sided, "without any
discussion of the evidence presented by Chrysler Group, which makes it
clear that class certification is inappropriate."

Company spokeswoman Ann Smith said in an interview that the people who
filed the lawsuit have not been injured, and "you cannot have a class
action about the potential for class members to get injured."  State
laws vary for proving product defects, Ms. Smith added, so this case
should not be certified as a national class action.

The lawsuit seeks replacement of the so-called Gen 3 buckles, plus
reimbursement for inconvenience caused to vehicle owners.  The buckles
are still in use on many vehicles, including 2002 models of the Dodge
Caravan, Intrepid, Viper and Ram Van, Chrysler Concorde, Voyager, 300M
and Town and Country and Jeep Wrangler and Grand Cherokee.  In some
vehicles, including the minivans, different buckles are used in the
front seat.

Mr. Edwards previously won a $6.7 million judgment against the Company
for the family of a Corpus Christi man who was killed when his Gen 3
seat belt released during a rollover accident in his new 1997 Dodge
Caravan.


FLORIDA: Resident Files Suit After Receiving Unsolicited Prozac by Mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida resident filed a class action in Florida state court, after
she received an unsolicited Prozac sample through mail.  The suit names
as defendants Walgreens drugstore, a local hospital, three doctors and
Eli Lilly, producer of Prozac, the Naples Daily News reports.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old home caregiver, filed the suit after she
received a hand-addressed manila envelope, containing a Prozac sample,
from a Walgreens drugstore not far from her area.  Inside was a "Dear
Patient" form letter, stating "Enclosed you will find a free one month
trial of Prozac Weekly. Congratulations on being one step closer to
full recovery."

The lawsuit charges the defendants with misusing patients' medical
records and invading their privacy, and accused the drugstore and Eli
Lilly of engaging in the unauthorized practice of medicine.  "They're
going after me because I have a problem," the caregiver told AP.  "It
bothers me to think that somebody could get into my medical records and
start sending me dangerous medications."

The form letter was apparently prepared by a sales representative for
Eli Lilly, and was signed by the caregiver's doctor and two other local
doctors.   The letter further states, "We are very excited to be able
to offer you a more convenient way to take your antidepressant
medication. If you wish to try Prozac Weekly, stop your antidepressant
one day before starting Prozac Weekly, then take Prozac Weekly once a
week thereafter."

The plaintiffs' lawyers said they did not know how many people received
the mailings. "It could be anywhere from several dozen to several
thousand," Gary M. Farmer Jr., a lawyer who represents them, told AP.

In a statement, a Lilly spokeswoman said that sending unsolicited drugs
through the mail was against company policy and inappropriate.  "While
Lilly supports informing people about new treatment options and
encouraging them to discuss these options with their doctor, what
occurred in Florida appears to go beyond this," the spokeswoman, Debbie
Davis, said.

The lawsuit says the lead plaintiff, identified only as S.K., has been
diagnosed with depression, "which she maintains in the strictest of
confidence due to potential public embarrassment and employment
repercussions."  It says she did not have a prescription for Prozac.  
The plaintiff agreed to an interview in her lawyer's office here on the
condition that her name be withheld.

"I hadn't been using Prozac for seven years or better," she said.  "It
was a matter of a few months. It didn't agree with me."


IGEN INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota decision dismissing the claims in
the securities class actions against Igen International, Inc.

The suits were commenced in December 1999, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and its
directors.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged, among other things,
violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and violation of
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

In November 2000, the Company and its directors served a motion and
supporting papers to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held
in February 2001, before the Magistrate Judge, who later issued his
report and recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice and
on the merits.  Plaintiffs objected to the report and recommendation,
but, the district court overruled the objection and adopted the report
and recommendation and dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and
on the merits.

On June 20, 2001, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs served and filed their brief
and appendix in August 2001. In addition, the plaintiffs advised the
court of a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision captioned In
re Green Tree Financial Corporation Stock Litigation.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on March 13,
2002.  On July 1, 2002, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the suit.


INDONESIA: Consumer Rights Group Fights State's Second Gas Price Raise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indonesia Consumers Foundation (YLKI) recently accused the state
oil and gas company, Pertamina, with increasing the price of liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), saying the Company had increased the price
unlawfully for the second time, the Jakarta Post reports.

"By increasing the price of LPG, Pertamina has just repeated its
unlawful act of November 2000, when it increased the price of LPG by 40
percent,"  Muhammad Ihsan, coordinator of Kapak I PG of YLKI told the
Jakarta Post.  The Company raised the price of LPG by 15 percent from
Rp2,100 to Rp2,400 per kilogram recently.

Mr. Ihsan criticized the Company's move to hike the price without prior
information and for arrogantly ignoring the rights of the consumers.  
"The action also belittled the legal proceeding which is still underway
in the courts," said Mr. Ihsan.

The Central Jakarta District Court ruled earlier last year in favor of
a class action filed by Kapak LPG against Pertamina for arbitrarily
raising the price of LPG in November 2000.  The court ordered Pertamina
to revoke last November's decision to raise LPG prices, and Pertaimina
was also required to compensate class members and other consumers who
could prove they were LPG consumers in Greater Jakarta.  The court's
decision will not be executed immediately since Pertamina is filing for
appeal.

Mr. Ihsan said that YLKI planned to enclose its complaint about the
latest move of Pertamina in the documents filed with the Jakarta High
Court to counter Pertamina's appeal.


MCDONALD'S CORP.: Settlement in Question After More Groups Claim Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient religions, beef-polluted french fries and McDonald's carefully
crafted settlement will tangle in a Chicago courtroom this week, the
Aberdeen American News reports.

At stake is more than $12 million that McDonald's has agreed to pay for
not telling people for more than a decade that a "natural flavoring" in
their potatoes owes more to cows than potatoes.  The class actions
filed last year included Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and vegetarians, groups
with clear reasons for wanting beef-free fries, and the settlement
seemed to pacify these groups.

However, last week, American Muslims started an e-mail campaign, saying
that the Islamic food code called "halal" means they were just as
injured by McDonald's as the other plaintiffs, and that they, too,
should be included in the settlement.  

Muslims who follow halal are supposed to avoid eating beef that was not
slaughtered according to specific ritual requirements.  Muslims who ate
McDonald's fries assuming that the potatoes were halal will submit
their motion for inclusion to the Chicago judge presiding over the
class action.

That only a smidgen of beef was included in the fries did not make it
acceptable to the Muslims, said Cherie Travis, a Chicago-area
vegetarian, who has been active in the legal fight.  She is working
with a lawyer who is trying to gain formal recognition for Muslims in
the settlement.

Some Hindus in Texas, including those whose names are on the lawsuit
filed in the state, agree that the settlement needs to be reworked.  
The Hindu lawyer who filed the first lawsuit on the subject of the
fries in Seattle, filed a long protest two weeks ago, stating the
preliminary payout plan is the legal equivalent of junk food.

However, lawyers in Texas, California, Illinois and New Jersey are
struggling to keep the settlement, which includes a provision for more
than $2.5 million in legal fees, from unraveling.  

The agreement is a good deal, said Cory Fein, a lawyer in the Houston
law firm of Caddell & Chapman.  The settlement gets McDonald's to
change its policy about hiding the origin of its flavorings, it gets
them to apologize for its misdeeds and provides considerable money to
support causes of those who were injured, he said.  Inevitably, added
Mr. Fein, an agreement like this is not going to satisfy everyone.

Muslims aren't named in the settlement, simply because Muslims were not
part of the original lawsuits.  Their interests will be served, said
Mr. Fein, by money that is earmarked for support of vegetarian causes.

The settlement can be derailed in at least two ways.  If enough people
who are part of a group covered by the class action file strong enough
objections, the judge can decide to throw out the agreement.  If more
than 200 people who can prove they are all members of one of the
classes covered by the lawsuit tell the court they want to "opt-out" of
the settlement and preserve their rights to file a separate suit,
McDonald's has the right to back out.

The genesis of this dispute goes back to the earliest days of
McDonald's.  Beef tallow was added to the cooking oil to create the
tastes of fast-food fries.  However, in 1990, the company issued a
statement about the oil. Beef fat would be replaced with heart-
healthier "100 percent vegetable oil."  The Company did not say that it
tried to resurrect the old good taste by adding a hint of beef essence
as a "natural flavoring."

However, last year, the secret was revealed by India West, a newspaper
that serves Indian immigrants in the United States.  For Hindus and
Sikhs, the cow is holy and beef is never to be eaten.  Jews don't eat
beef unless it has been slaughtered according to ritual.  Of course,
the vegetarians don't eat beef for health reasons.  Thus, the class
action was born.


MONTANA: Helena Sued Over Ordinance Banning Smoking in Public Places
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Helena faces a purported class action filed by a number of
its businesses, after it recently enacted an ordinance banning smoking
in all workplaces and buildings open to the public, the Montana Forum
reports.  The plaintiffs include the proprietors of, or corporations
that own:

     (1) the Best Bet Casino on Euclid Avenue,

     (2) the Flyaway Cafe on Airport Road,

     (3) Miller's Crossing on Park Avenue,

     (4) Nickels Gaming Parlour on Last Chance Gulch,

     (5) Village Inn Pizza on Prospect Avenue,

     (6) the Suds Hut on Montana Avenue and

     (7) the Rialto on Last Chance Gulch

The suit was filed by Bozeman attorney Arthur Wittich, who is expected
to file a motion to make the case a class action, which means it would
be filed on behalf of all "hospitality providers" in Helena.  The suit
makes basically two claims; the city doesn't have the legal authority
to enact and enforce such a law, and people's property rights are
violated and economic hardship has ensued as a result of the ordinance.  
The suit also names as defendants the Lewis and Clark County Board of
Health, and the Lewis and Clark City/County Health Department.

The suit was served on the city Wednesday afternoon, but City Attorney
David Nielsen declined comment until he's had a chance to review it.
Health department official Joan Miles was unavailable for comment
Wednesday, according to the Montana Forum. The city has 20 days to file
a response to the complaint.

"We believed ourselves to be on firm legal ground every step of the
way," Mayor Jim Smith of the lengthy process that resulted in the
ordinance told the Forum. "The city, by virtue of its charter, is free
to do anything not specifically prohibited by the state or federal
government."


MOTORCAR PARTS: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division granted final approval to the settlement
of a securities class action against Motorcar Parts & Accessories, Inc.  
The suit alleged that, over a four-year period during 1996 to 1999, the
Company misstated earnings in violation of securities laws.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive
$7,500,000.  All parties have exchanged releases in connection with
this settlement.  To finance the Company's portion of the settlement,
the Company and Mel Marks, the Company's founder and a board member,
entered into a stock purchase agreement.  


NVIDIA CORP.: CA Federal Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions pending
against NVIDIA Corporation, and certain of its officers.

The suits, filed on behalf of a class of Company stockholders, alleges
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's
announcement on February 14, 2002 of an internal investigation of
certain accounting matters.  As of April 30, 2002, approximately 13
similar actions were filed in the court, along with three related
derivative actions against the Company, certain of its executive
officers, directors and its independent auditors, KPMG LLP, in
California Superior Court and in Delaware Chancery Court.

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

The suits are in the preliminary stages, and no discovery has been
conducted.  The consolidated amended complaint should be filed by
August 5, 2002.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these suits.  
The Company is unable, however, to predict the ultimate outcome of the
suits and there can be no assurance the Company will be successful in
defending the suits and if the Company is unsuccessful the Company may
be subject to significant damages.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set For March 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in consolidated securities class action against Quality Systems,
Inc. is set for March 24,2003 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Sheldon Razin,

     (2) Robert J. Beck,

     (3) Gregory S. Flynn,

     (4) Abe C. LaLande,

     (5) Donn Neufeld,

     (6) Irma G. Carmona,

     (7) John A. Bowers,

     (8) Graeme H. Frehner, and

     (9) Gordon L. Setran

The suit, filed on behalf of all who purchased the Company's common
stock between June 26, 1995 and July 3, 1996, alleges that the
defendants violated:

     (1) California Corporations Code Sections 25400 and 25500,

     (2) California Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710, and

     (3) California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et.
         seq.

The defendants allegedly issued positive statements about the Company
that allegedly were knowingly false, in part, in order to assist the
Company and the individual defendants in selling common stock at an
inflated price in the Company's March 1996 public offering and at other
points during the class period.

The Company and the other named defendants successfully demurred to the
plaintiffs' claim under California Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710,
and that claim, which served as the only basis for plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages, has been dismissed from the suit.

In January 1999, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class representative and class legal counsel.  Plaintiffs appealed that
decision as to class legal counsel, and in February 2000, the Fourth
District Court of Appeals affirmed the order disqualifying the class
legal counsel.  In May 2000, the appeals court issued its Remittur
certifying its decision as final.

In May 2000, plaintiffs associated in additional class legal counsel,
and moved for approval by the court.  Upon defendants' objection, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion, and ordered plaintiffs to retain new
class counsel.

At the end of November 2000, the plaintiffs retained new class counsel
who substituted in for plaintiffs' previous class counsel.  The Company
and the other named defendants did not oppose plaintiffs' motion for
approval of the new class counsel.  On January 24, 2001, the court
granted the motion to certify class legal counsel.

Merits-related discovery in the action, which had been stayed pending
the appointment of class counsel, is now ongoing.  In March 2002,
defendant Graeme H. Frehner and certain other defendants not affiliated
with the Company were dismissed from the action with prejudice by
stipulated order.  The parties are scheduled to appear in court for the
next status conference on October 22, 2002.

In management's opinion the outcome of this case is uncertain, and
therefore no accrual has been made to the financial statements.


RAFFLES TOWN: High Court to Examine Issues, Decide If Case Proceeds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court will examine two issues, which Raffles Town Club lawyers
say could quickly dispose of a class action brought against the club by
4,895 members and obviate the need to call witnesses, the Business
Times (Singapore) reports.

Justice S. Rajendran ruled that the issues, for which applications
were made by defense counsel K. Shanmugam, will be tried as preliminary
matters.

The first issue is whether the plaintiffs' claim of misrepresentation
by the club fails because certain statements made by the club are not
actionable in law.  In other words, the issue is whether statements the
club made in its invitation material, sent out in 1996, before the club
was built, were representations of intent or fact.  The second issue is
whether the statements can legally be considered an actual or implied
part of the membership contracts the plaintiffs entered into with the
club.

"If you agree with me on these two points of law, there would be no
need for the rest of the evidence because based on what is in their
(the plaintiffs') statement of claim, you would say that this case is a
non-starter," Mr. Shanmugam told the judge during a hearing on his
application.

The plaintiffs are suing the club for alleged misrepresentations they
claim it made in its invitation prospectus, including a statement made
that the club would be "limited and exclusive."  They later found out
that the club took in more than 19,000 members.

The plaintiffs' statement of claim also says that the representations
became terms of their membership contracts.  Their lawyer, senior
counsel Molly Lim, questioned why the two issues now pleaded by the
defense were not pleaded in the defendants' statement of claim.  She
also said her case was based in what the plaintiffs took the
representations made by the club to mean, and that because of this,
various witnesses, including the 10 named plaintiffs, would have to
give evidence.

The question before the court is whether the plaintiffs' construction
of those representations was reasonable, Ms. Lim argued.  Ms. Lim also
asked the judge to make a ruling on whether the whole case is a valid
representative or class action.

In an opening statement, the defense said the plaintiffs' notion of a
class action was misconceived.  Mr. Shanmugam said a key issue was what
each of the 4,895 members involved in the case thought at the time they
joined the club.  He said it would be hard to ascertain whether each of
them relied on the club's invitation material in the same way.

Justice Rajendran declined to give a ruling immediately, saying, "There
is no reason to assume at this stage that it is not a representative
action."


RELIANT RESOURCES: Admits To Artificially Inflating $7.9B of Revenues
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, the Houston-based energy trading and generating
company with offices in London, admitted recently that it has
artificially inflated its revenues by more than $7.9 billion over the
past three years, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

In May and June of this year, as a result of the Company's trading and
accounting practices, 10 class actions were filed on behalf of
investors in Reliant Resources and its parent Reliant Energy, and a
further lawsuit was filed last week.  As well as the Company and its
directors, the banks that underwrote its IPO last year are named as
defendants as are their auditors.

The Company filed restated accounts with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in response to "certain investigations, litigation and
governmental proceedings."  The submission shows energy trades during
1999, 2000 and 2001, added $6.4 billion to the company's income during
those years.  The deals are so-called "round-trip" trades where the
same amount of energy is bought and sold for the same price in order to
increase trading volumes.

As well as the round-trip trades, the Company annexed $1.5 billion to
its income because of the way it accounted for four other energy
contracts, which Reliant describes as swaps.  It said these deals were
legitimate and were expected to increase future cash flows.   However,
it has banned its staff from further round-trip trading.

In May, the Company claimed that it had not been involved in Enron-
style dealing.  "Reliant denies that the company engaged in trading
practices comparable to the practices detailed in the Enron memos," the
Company told investigators.  Earlier that month the company cancelled a
$500 million debt placing and admitted the round trip trades.  The
announcement wiped away further 25 percent off its already battered
share price.

Its latest filing admits that the company is now involved in numerous
lawsuits and regulatory proceedings relating to its trading activities.   
It is also being investigated for other transactions it inaccurately
accounted for and its "activities in the California wholesale market."  
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has subpoenaed documents and
requested information on the Company's natural gas and power trading,
while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has asked for
cooperation into its inquiry into energy price manipulation in
California.


TALX CORPORATION: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Talx Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) William W. Canfield,

     (2) Craig N. Cohen and

     (3) Richard F. Ford,

     (4) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and

     (5) A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 18, 2001 and
October 1, 2001, including as part of the Company's secondary offering,
alleges, among other things, that certain statements in the
registration statement and prospectus for the secondary Offering, as
well as other statements made by the Company and/or the individual
defendants during the class period, were materially false and
misleading because they allegedly did not properly account for certain
software and inventory, did not reflect certain write-offs, and did not
accurately disclose certain business prospects.  The complaint alleges:

     (i) violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
         against the Company and the individual defendants;

    (ii) violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
         the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters;
         and

   (iii) violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
         Mr. Canfield

On May 20, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the suits, and the underwriter defendants filed a
separate motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motions to dismiss on June 19, 2002.  The defendants' reply
memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss are due on July 9, 2002.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to defend vigorously against them.  However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.


TORONTO SUN: Model Wins Key Battle In Fight To Bring Misconduct Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A former bikini model, who alleges sexual misconduct by a Toronto Sun
photographer, has won a key battle in her fight to bring a $20 million
class action against the newspaper, the National Post reports.  

An Ontario appeals court ruling in favor of model Vanessa Fehringer
opens up the possibility of a class action claim by former models
against the Toronto tabloid.  The appeals court judge threw out the
earlier lower court ruling that there was no legal relationship of
trust between photographers and models.

Norman Betts photographed Ms. Fehringer for the paper's Sunshine Girl
feature.  She is heading a class action against the Sun and Mr. Betts
on behalf of at least 60 models who allege the photographer acted
improperly in photo shoots as far back as the 1970s.

"It's everything from improper touching, to exposing himself, to
walking in while they are changing, to threats like, `OK, if you want
to make it into the paper, we are going to be taking some nude pictures
now,'" Ms. Fehringer's lawyer, Jeffrey Raphael, said recently.  "Here
are women who relax their normal standards of care, basically in
various stages of undress, on the understanding that they would be
treated in a professional manner, and that is not what happened."

Ms. Fehringer, whose picture was never published, filed a claim in
February 2002, alleging inappropriate conduct and remarks by Mr. Betts.  
Since then, dozens of other former models have come forward with
similar complaints, Mr. Raphael said.

The lawsuit has not yet been approved as a class action.  The action
seemed doomed in the lower court, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, when the judge ruled that there was no fiduciary duty (a
relationship of trust and duty, such as between teacher and student,
doctor and patient) between Mr. Betts and his models.  However, an
appeals court judge dismissed this ruling, saying the issue of
fiduciary duty can be argued in a trial.

Establishing a fiduciary duty is important for the 60 or more alleged
victims, Mr. Raphael said, since the statute of limitations on most of
the alleged crimes, such as assault or negligence, has expired.  If a
fiduciary relationship is established, there is no statute of
limitations to overcome.

"One of the hurdles is past," Mr. Raphael said.  Next, in order to
qualify the suit as a class action, it needs to be established that Ms.
Fehringer is a "good representative plaintiff" and that there are
common issues among all the complainants.  "We think the common issues
are the Sun's breach of duty and the Sun's vicarious liability for its
employee," Mr. Raphael said.

Mr. Betts, a photographer with the paper since its inception in 1971,
was suspended briefly in 1998, after allegations surfaced that he had
asked the Sunshine Girls to pose topless.  Mr. Betts resigned in 2000.


TRITON NETWORKS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Triton Network Systems, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
July 12, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  The suit names as defendants
the Company, a former officer and a current officer of the Company, and
several investment banking firms that served as managing underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit alleges liability under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration
statement for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose
that:

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

     (2) the underwriters had allegedly arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices under alleged arrangements to manipulate
         the price of the stock in aftermarket trading.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
numerous other lawsuits challenging initial public offerings conducted
in 1998, 1999 and 2000.  The Company does not know if a specific amount
of damages is claimed in the complaint involving its initial public
offering.  The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously.


TRITON NETWORK: Offices, Directors Face Securities Suits in M.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Triton Network Systems, Inc. officers and directors face two
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.  The suit also names as
defendants certain investment bankers involved in the Company's initial
public offering, certain venture capital firms owning shares of the
Company prior to the initial public offering, and the Company's
independent auditors.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from July 13, 2000 through August 14, 2001, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10b and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit alleges that the Company's registration statement relating to
its initial public offering and certain of its subsequent Exchange Act
reports and press releases contained untrue statements of material
facts, or omitted to state facts necessary to make the statements made
therein not misleading, with regard to the Company's revenues in fiscal
2000, the nature of its relationship with certain of its customers, and
its financial statement presentation.

The Company intends to assist its current and former officers and
directors in contesting the claims.  


WORLDCOM INC.: Executives Blame Former Auditors for Accounting Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Worldcom, Inc.'s top executives blamed its former auditor Arthur
Andersen LLP for nearly US$4 billion in accounting irregularities, as
they indicated they would invoke the Fifth Amendment and refused to
answer questions from a House committee, the Associated Press reports.

The Company's top three executives - founder and former chairman
Bernard J. Ebbers, former chief financial officer Scott D. Sullivan and
president and chief executive officer John Sidgmore, were subpoenaed by
the House Financial Services Committee, which is investigating the
telecommunications giant's collapse.

Mr. Sidgmore, said in a prepared testimony, "WorldCom uncovered this
problem internally. The kind of initiative demonstrated by our internal
audit group is to be applauded and will continue to be encouraged."  
Company Chairman Bert Roberts however criticized Andersen, calling the
accounting improprieties "an outrage."  Mr. Roberts stated "To my mind,
the failure of our outside auditors to uncover them is inconceivable."

Melvin Dick, the senior Andersen audit partner for WorldCom, testified
that neither he nor any member of the Andersen team "had any inkling"
of the improper accounting, the Associated Press reports.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired 360 Networks, Inc. (Pink
Sheets:TSIXQ) securities between November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against:

     (1) Gregory B. Maffei,

     (2) Jimmy D. Byrd,

     (3) Larry Olsen,

     (4) Ron Stevenson,

     (5) Vanessa Wittman and

     (6) Steve Baker

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CMS ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against CMS Energy Corporation (NYSE:CMS) and three of the
Company's current or former senior officers on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's securities during the period from August 3,
2000 through May 10, 2002, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, charges that the Company improperly recorded at
least $4.4 billion from sham "round trip" trades of electricity.  These
transactions were allegedly of no economic value since the Company
would sell a given amount of electrical energy at a certain price to
another company on the wholesale electricity market, while
simultaneously, the other company would sell back to the Company an
identical amount of electrical energy at the same price.  The Company
would record the entire selling price as revenue, even though there was
no actual profit to the Company, thereby misleading investors about the
amount of revenue generated, the volume of its business, and also the
liquidity of the wholesale electric market.

Late in the day on May 10, 2002, the facts about the Company's
misconduct began to emerge with its announcement that the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) had asked it to provide information about
its "round trip" trades pursuant to an informal inquiry.

As a result of this disclosure, the market price of CMS stock fell.  On
May 10, 2002, a Friday, the stock closed at $19.29. On the following
Monday, May 13, 2002, the stock closed at $16.05

The Company finally acknowledged on May 15, 2002 that it had engaged in
"round trip" trades over an 18-month period (May 2000 through mid-
January 2002) and had improperly recognized $4.4 billion in revenues
from such trades.  The next day, the Company announced the resignation
of Tamela W. Pallas, the head of its trading unit. Upon this
disclosure, the price of CMS stock dropped further, closing at $15.25.

Thereafter on May 24, 2002, the Company announced that it would restate
its financial statements for 2000 and 2001 to eliminate the impact of
the "round trip" electricity trades that artificially inflated its
revenue more than $4.4 billion.  At that time, the Company also
revealed that William T. McCormick Jr. was stepping down as its
chairman and chief executive.

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


CRYOLIFE INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired CryoLife, Inc. (NYSE:CRY)
securities between August 11, 2000 and June 26, 2002, inclusive.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against the Company, Steven G.
Anderson and Albert E. Heacox.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CRYOLIFE INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division on behalf of purchasers of CryoLife, Inc.
(NYSE: CRY) publicly traded securities during the period between August
11, 2000 and June 26, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges that the Company, although purporting to be a "leader
in the development and commercialization of implantable human tissue"
and that "patient safety is of paramount concern to us" was, in reality
not in compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.  
Inherent in those representations is that the Company abides by and
follows all FDA rules, regulations, and guidelines.

On June 17, 2002, the FDA sent a letter to the Company's detailing a
laundry list of deficiencies and safety hazards at the Company's
Kennesaw, Georgia facility.  On June 24, 2002, the Company issued a
press release, which stated that "since its inception, it has never
before received a warning letter."  This statement was blatantly false
as the Company received a similar FDA warning letter in 1997 which
detailed "serious regulatory problems."

The effect on Company stock price was significant and dramatic. The
stock fell 18% on June 25, 2002 and an additional 16% on June 26, 2002.
After trading as high as $31.31 on May 3, 2002, the stock dipped below
$16.00 per share on June 27, 2002.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Edison Schools, Inc.
(Nasdaq: EDSN) between November 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) three members of its senior management,

     (2) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (3) Banc of America Securities LLC,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, and

     (6) JP Morgan Securities Inc.

The defendants allegedly misled the investing public during the class
period by recognizing as revenue monies paid for teachers' salaries,
students' transportation and utility bills that were remitted directly
by the Company's "clients" (local school districts and public charter
school boards).  This revenue was included in financial documents
prepared in connection with the Company's November 11, 1999, initial
public offering.

The Company never actually received this money and did not have any
entitlement to it, and therefore the Company should not have recorded
this money as "revenue" in the financial results issued to members of
the investing public.

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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) and four of the
Company's senior officers on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period between July 22, 1999 and May
28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, alleges that during the class period, defendants
improperly recognized revenues in connection with the Company's long-
term construction projects in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  

Beginning at least as early as the fourth quarter of fiscal 1998, the
Company amended its accounting policies to report approximately $89
million of revenues to cover disputed cost overruns on long-term
construction projects. The Company assumed that its customers would pay
the disputed amounts, but never disclosed the change in accounting or
the assumption of payment to the market.

As alleged in the suit, for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the
Company reported unbilled receivables of $98 million, $113 million, and
$234 Million, respectively.  These unbilled receivables were based on
the same undisclosed assumption of payment, in violation of GAAP
because payment of the receivables was not probable and the amounts
could not be estimated with the requisite reliability.

Thereafter, on May 28, 2002, the Company disclosed that the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) had begun "a preliminary investigation of
the Company's accounting treatment of cost of cost overruns on
construction jobs."  Over the next two weeks, the stock lost 15% of its
value as it fell from a closing price of $19.35 on May 28, 2002, to a
closing price of $16.49 on June 11, 2002, a loss of $2.86 per share.

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


MERCK & CO.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK)
between July 23, 1999 and June 20, 2002, inclusive.

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

     (1) 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);

     (2) 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

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


MERCK & CO.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) and several of its
top officers, alleging they improperly inflated revenues by billions of
dollars.  The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
common stock from July 1, 1999 through June 21, 2002.

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

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

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

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

After the complaint was filed, Company shares fell again when the
Journal reported that the company admitted, in a regulatory filing,
booking $12.4 billion in Merck-Medco revenue that it had never
collected.

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


MERCK & CO.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of all investors who bought Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) common stock
between July 1, 1999 and June 21, 2002, inclusive against the Company
and certain of its senior officers and directors.

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

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

On June 21, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported on the Company's
accounting practices and estimated that Merck and Merck-Medco may have
pumped up their 2001 revenues by as much as $4.6 billion.  Similar
overstatements may have occurred for 1999 and 2000, the complaint says.

That same day, according to the complaint, a Merck spokesman admitted
that the company had been recording prescription drug co-payments as
revenue since it acquired Merck-Medco in 1993.

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

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


MERCK & CO.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 23, 1999 and June 20, 2002,
inclusive.

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

      (1) 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);

     (2) 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

     (3) 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 Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc., and its wholly owned broker-dealer subsidiary and
former analyst Henry Blodget, for violations of the federal securities
laws.  The suit, brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, is on behalf of all persons who
purchased Merrill Lynch common stock (NYSE:MER) during the period July
3, 1999 through April 8, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Merrill Lynch and
Mr. Blodget misrepresented, among other things, that Merrill Lynch's
research analysts "provide insightful, objective and decisive research
to clients" and were "an integral component" of Merrill's product
offerings to investment banking and brokerage clients.

In fact, the firm's research analysts, under pressure from the firm's
investment bankers, routinely manipulated research coverage, and issued
inflated ratings and biased research reports to maintain and attract
investment banking clients.

The Company's research analyst practices came to light on April 8,
2002, when after a 10 month investigation, the New York State Attorney
General concluded that since late 1999, Internet research analysts at
the firm published ratings for Internet stocks that were misleading.  
In resolution of the Attorney General's investigation, the firm agreed
to pay a $100 million penalty to New York and other state governments
and admitted that the research published by its analysts may not have
reflected the analysts' objective opinions of the companies they were
covering.

Persons who acquired the firm's common stock during the class period
were injured because its stock traded at artificially inflated prices.  
When the true facts concerning the firm's research practices were
disclosed, by virtue of the New York State A.G.'s investigation, and
subsequent settlement, the firm's common stock plummeted from $53.90
per share to its July 5, 2002 closing price of $39.36 per share.

For more details, contact James A. Harrod or Abigail Kowaloff by Mail:
845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9642 or
877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-Mail:
IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross initiated a securities class
action lawsuit charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former
Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing misleading
analyst reports about GoTo.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVER).  

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period between January 11, 2001
through June 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that during the class period, in an effort to obtain
investment banking business from GoTo, defendants issued positive
ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as they were
inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse
assessments of GoTo.  For example, the very day of the initiation of
coverage, Mr. Blodget admitted in an e-mail that there was "nothing"
interesting about GoTo except banking fees.

The complaint also describes how defendants made their proposed rating
for GoTo more palatable to GoTo management by downgrading a GoTo
competitor.  However, when defendants learned that GoTo had awarded its
underwriting business to another bank, defendants downgraded GoTo in
retribution.

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


MONTANA POWER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of Montana, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Montana Power Company now known as
Touch America Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TAA) between January 30, 2001 and
November 14, 2001, inclusive.  The action is pending against Touch
America and Robert Gannon.

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 January 30, 2001 and November 14, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants
issued positive statements regarding the Company's successful
restructuring from an energy company into a standalone
telecommunications company.  These statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them,
including:

     (1) that the Company was having problems with the assets that it
         acquired from Qwest Communications International, which had
         become its principal assets in lieu of the power generation
         assets which it had sold - and in its relationship with Qwest.
         As a result of these problems, the Company was experiencing
         declining revenues in its telecommunications business;

     (2) that the Company's broadband division was experiencing
         declining demand for its products and services; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's purported
         transformation to a standalone telecommunications company was
         not meeting with success.

On November 14, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third
quarter of 2001, the period ending September 30, 2001, and disclosed
that the Company's quarterly losses, "reflect the continued slowing of
the nation's economy and the difficult transition of Montana Power from
a diversified energy company to Touch America."  

The press release further revealed that, as a result of its poor third
quarter results, the Company was not in compliance with certain
financial covenants under its Senior Secured Credit Facility.  Finally,
the press release revealed that the Company was engaged in litigation
with Qwest concerning its purchase of certain assets from Qwest in June
2000, litigation ongoing since August 2001, but not meaningfully
revealed to investors.

Following this announcement, the price of the Company's common stock
declined from $5.16 per share to $4.70 per share on heavy trading
volume. In total, investors saw the Company's common stock decline from
a class period high of $22.78.

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


PERKINELMER INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PerkinElmer, Inc.
(NYSE: PKI) between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, Gregory L. Summe (CEO, President and
Chairman) and Robert F. Friel (CFO).

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 July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company issued numerous press releases
regarding its performance during the class period, which represented
that:

     (1) the Company was successfully growing its revenues and
         earnings;

     (2) the Company's transformation into a provider of health-related
         products and services was proceeding successfully; and

     (3) that the Company would meet its financial performance targets
         for 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing a decline in the demand for its
products, especially at its Optoeletronics division, the Company was
carrying tens of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory on its books
and the Company's expenses were soaring due to the spate of numerous
acquisitions and divestitures it had undertaken.

On March 1, 2002, the Company issued a press release revealing that
first quarter of 2002 revenues and earnings would be materially less
than the Company had represented its figures would be only three weeks
earlier.  In reaction to the announcement, the price of its common
stock plummeted by 31%.

The full truth regarding the Company's business was not fully disclosed
until April 11, 2002, when the Company issued a press release revealing
that its reported earnings will be breakeven, instead of the figure of
$0.16-$0.17 per share that the Company had stated, on March 1, it
expects to earn, and that its revenues will decline in the first
quarter of 2002 because of weakness in all of its division. In reaction
to the announcement, Company stock plummeted by another 28%, falling
from $16.70 per share on April 10, 2002 to $12.04 by the close of April
11, on extremely heavy trading volume.

The individual defendants and other Company insiders sold a total of
595,000 stock during the class period, reaping gross proceeds in excess
of $18.4 million and the Company completed a significant acquisition
using its common stock as currency.

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


RAYOVAC CORP.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Rayovac Corporation (NYSE:
ROV) between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, inclusive.
The action, is pending against the Company and:

     (1) Kenneth V. Biller,

     (2) Kent J. Hussey,

     (3) David A. Jones,

     (4) Scott A. Schoen,

     (5) Stephen P. Shanesy,

     (6) Thomas R. Shepard,

     (7) Randall J. Steward,

     (8) Warren C. Smith, Jr. and

     (9) Merrell M. Tomlin

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements, including a materially
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its Secondary Offering of shares to the public,
regarding the demand for the Company's products and the Company's
future prospects.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that 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 was experiencing declining demand for its
         products and in order to stimulate demand and create the
         impression that the Company was performing according to
         analyst expectations, Rayovac was extending generous credit
         terms to customers in order to induce them to purchase
         additional products, thereby pulling sales in from the future.
         As a result, Rayovac created the appearance of earnings
         growth, when defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that
         future sales would be negatively impacted by the
         aforementioned practices;

    (ii) that the Company's expansion in Latin America was the result
         of aggressive sales practices whereby the Company extended
         generous payment terms and induced customers to take
         additional unneeded inventory; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
         for their statements that the Company would grow by 8-9% in
         the third and fourth quarter of 2001.

On September 20, 2001, before the market opened for trading, the
Company issued a press release announcing that the Company's fiscal
fourth quarter results would be negatively impacted by a purported
slowdown in battery sales in its US and Latin American markets.  As a
result, contrary to defendants' bullish class period statements,
Company earnings for the quarter would be flat to down slightly from
the same period for the previous year.

The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive,
with shares of the Company's common stock falling more than 23% to a
Class Period low of $12.74 per share on almost eight times the normal
trading volume.

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


TELLABS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Tellabs, Inc. (Nasdaq:TLAB)
securities between December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001, inclusive.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company, Richard C.
Notebaert and Michael J. Birck.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


TRITON NETWORK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Triton Network Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNSIE.OB) between July 13, 2000
and August 14, 2001, inclusive.  

The suit names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and
directors, the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO), US
Telesource, Inc. and Oak Investment Partners, two of the Company's
shareholders.

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.

The suit alleges that the Company filed a prospectus on July 13, 2000,
which included false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
sales and revenue.  The prospectus additionally publicized a three-year
supply agreement with their client, Advanced Radio Telecom (ART),
claiming that this agreement would provide a considerable amount of
revenue.

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

The suit further alleges that defendants circulated materially false
financial statements for the Company's interim quarters throughout the
class period, as well as for the year ended December 31, 2000, causing
the Company's revenues and net income to be materially overstated.  
Defendants further announced a series of other materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company and its financial condition
and performance.

The suit also alleges that during the class period, defendants failed
to contain every adjustment, required for a "fair presentation" of the
financial results in violation of GAAP, in its financial statements and
that they utilized a non-GAAP accounting method, resulting in a
material $2.7 million under-provision for bad debts.

Defendants also failed to write off useless intangible assets and
neglected to distinguish a provision for loss and inventory purchase
commitments.  On August 21, 2001, it was reported that the Company
would close the company and sell its assets, awaiting shareholder
approval.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor 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. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Triton.


TRITON NETWORK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of
Triton Network Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNSIE.OB) between July 13, 2000
and August 14, 2001, inclusive against:

     (1) Kenneth R. Vines,

     (2) Howard "Skip" Speaks,

     (3) Brian J. Andrew,

     (4) Joseph Antinucci,

     (5) Stanley R. Arthur,

     (6) Bandel L. Carano,

     (7) James F. Gibbons,

     (8) Robert P. Goodman,

     (9) Arjun Gupta,

    (10) James Wei,

    (11) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

    (12) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown,

    (13) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

    (14) Ernst & Young, LLP,

    (15) U.S. Telesource, Inc. and

    (16) Oak Investment Partners

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between July 13, 2000 and August 14, 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Uniroyal Technology Corp.
(Nasdaq:UTCI) securities between February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, against the Company, George Zulanas,
Jr. and Howard R. Curd.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.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  * * *