CAR_Public/020712.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, July 12, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 137

                           Headlines

AIR NEW ZEALAND: ASIC Decides Not To Pursue Action Over Ansett Collapse
AUTO WAY HONDA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Unfair Vehicle Service Fees
BIRCHCREST MANUFACTURED: Park Residents Consider Suit Over Relocation
DYNACRAFT INC.: Recalls 4,700 XL2 Mountain Bicycles For Injury Hazard
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Claims Securities Fraud Suit Baseless in TX

EL AL AIRLINE: Passengers Sue Over "Misused" $16 Security Surcharge
MARCOS WEALTH: Philippines, Switzerland Sign Mutual Expedition Treaty
MERCK & CO.: Faces Several Suits Over Allegedly Misleading Statements
NEWBOLD TOYOTA-BMW: Agrees To $6.5M Settlement of Junk Faxes Suit
NUCLEAR TESTING: UK Firms Funded To Study War Veterans' Suit Filing

UNITED STATES: Black Farmers To Meet USDA Secretary Over Settlement
UNITED STATES: Parties Continue Processing "Special Rate" Settlement
WISCONSIN: Only State Planning To Utilize Part in Tobacco Settlement
WORLDCOM INC.: Teachers Fund Considers Joining Suit After Losing $93M

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS, INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CRYOLIFE INC.: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Hoffman & Edelson Commences Securities Suit in TX

KNIGHT TRADING: Fruchter & Twersky Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERCK & CO.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
MERCK & CO.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
MERRILL LYNCH: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MIRANT SECURITIES: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in GA
PERKINELMER INC.: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Suit in Massachusetts
RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches WI Securities Suit
RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in WI
TOUCH AMERICA: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MT

UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL

                              
                           *********


AIR NEW ZEALAND: ASIC Decides Not To Pursue Action Over Ansett Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has decided
not to pursue any legal action against Air New Zealand over the
collapse of the Australian carrier Ansett, CNN.com reports.

Ansett was the No. 2 carrier in Australia before it collapsed last year
after parent Air New Zealand cut away to concentrate on its own
survival.  Ansett was then put into administration as it had debts of
more than $1 billion at the time, and was attempting to upgrade its
aging fleet of B767 aircraft.  

The airline continued to operate in a reduced form while administrators
tried to rescue the firm.  In March 2002, the airline was forced to
close, causing thousands to lose jobs and creditors to lose hundreds of
millions of dollars.

ASIC decided not to pursue the investigation, despite what they call
the possibility of "misleading and deceptive" disclosures.  CNN.com
reports that ASIC closed the investigation, after legal advice that it
would not be possible for it to pursue creditors' claims by way of a
single group proceeding or class action.  

ASIC is now considering a representative action for damages against Air
New Zealand over its level of financial disclosure during 2001.


AUTO WAY HONDA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Unfair Vehicle Service Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against one of the nation's largest new-car dealership
chains, was dismissed by Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Judge Douglas Baird,
after he could find no loss on the part of the plaintiff, The Tampa
Tribune reports.  However, Judge Baird left open the possibility that
the lawsuit could be amended and refiled.

The lawsuit against Auto Way Honda and its corporate parent, AutoNation
Inc., contended that state law was broken and a Largo, Florida man
victimized when he was tricked into paying an extra $270 for a
maintenance program when he agreed to pay $1,610 for an extended
warranty contract.  Both amounts were combined on the purchase order
for a total of $1,880, which is a violation of state law, according to
Christa Collins, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of
plaintiff Charles Gibson.

Ms. Collins said Mr. Gibson did not notice the combining because the
monthly payment fit his budget.  However, an AutoNation official said
Mr. Gibson agreed to both, the extended warranty and the maintenance
Program, and the court agreed.  For the extra $270, Mr. Gibson is
entitled to periodic oil changes, so he received a product for his
money.

Mr. Gibson could have gotten his money back and voided the maintenance
contract if he had asked, said Ron Salhaney, senior district vice
president for AutoNation.  Judge Baird also had both sides to agree not
to destroy any documents that might be the subject of a future lawsuit
in this matter.

Larry Dougherty, a spokesman for James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
Christa Collins' law firm said a new lawsuit is being prepared based on
allegations made by additional AutoNation customers who contacted the
firm after the Gibson lawsuit was filed.


BIRCHCREST MANUFACTURED: Park Residents Consider Suit Over Relocation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Birchcrest Manufactured Housing Community are
considering taking legal action after owners of the manufactured home
park told them to move for the redevelopment of the complex as a
condominium community, the Flint Journal reports.

The residents have been given the option to become condo owners, but at
a cost of $36,000 for the lot and landscaping, that option is not
realistic for most of the 17 homeowners in the complex, resident
Quentin LeFlore told the Journal.  "They're treating people any kind of
way," Mr. LeFlore said.  "We want to go class action with this."

The residents are already planning to meet with an attorney to discuss
the suit, and have enlisted the support of state Rep. Vera B. Rison, D-
Mt. Morris Twp.  "The owners are putting pressure on these people to
get out," Ms. Rison said.  "Those people shouldn't be treated like
that."

The Company offered residents $5,000 to relocate to another park, but
Mr. LeFlore said the actual cost of relocation will be closer to
$10,000 after storage and temporary rental costs are factored in.  "We
have elderly people here and some people with lower incomes, and they
can't afford that," he said.

Officials from Birchcrest could not be reached for comment, according
to the Flint Journal.


DYNACRAFT INC.: Recalls 4,700 XL2 Mountain Bicycles For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacraft Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 4,700 Vertical
XL2 mountain bicycles.  The forks on these bicycles can break apart,
causing riders to lose control, fall and suffer serious injury.  The
Company has received six reports of the forks breaking on these
bicycles resulting in injuries that include abrasions, cuts, bruises
and broken teeth.
        
The recall includes only 24-inch Vertical XL2 mountain bicycles, with
model number 8524-21.  A label on the frame near the crank housing
identifies the model number. The bicycles are red.  "Vertical" is
written on the top tube, and "XL2" is written on the down tube.
        
Target stores nationwide sold these mountain bikes from August 1999
through March 2000 for about $130.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-288-1560
between 7 am and 4 pm PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.dynacraftbike.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Claims Securities Fraud Suit Baseless in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oil field services provider Halliburton Co. labeled "without merit" the
securities suit filed by the advocacy group Judicial Watch in Dallas
federal court the Company and Vice President Dick Cheney, its former
chief executive, Reuters reports.

The suit was filed against the Company, its directors and its
accounting firm, Andersen, alleging they defrauded shareholders by
overstating revenue.  In May the company said the SEC was investigating
how it accounted for cost overruns on construction jobs.

"The claims in this lawsuit are untrue, unsupported and unfounded,"
Halliburton Chief Financial Officer Doug Foshee said in a statement.

"We are working diligently with the SEC (Securities and Exchange
Commission) to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting
procedures," Mr. Foshee said.  "Halliburton has always followed and
will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP,
General Accepted Accounting Principles."


EL AL AIRLINE: Passengers Sue Over "Misused" $16 Security Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers of Israel's national airline filed a NIS153 million class
action in the Tel Aviv District Court, relating to the US$16 security
surcharge the airline imposed on them in addition to the cost of their
tickets, Virtual Jerusalem.com reports.

The suit alleges that the Company misled the public into believing that
the surcharge was designed to increase security levels on its planes,
while in fact, the money raised was used for other purposes.

According to the suit, the passengers were forced to pay the surcharge
after the terror attacks in the United States in September.  The
Company told the media that the surcharge was necessary to bolster
security on its flights, and the plaintiffs are claiming that they paid
the surcharge in the belief that the money would be used to increase
their personal safety.

On Monday, Transport Minister Ephraim Sneh said the new surcharge was
also partly aimed at improving the company's balance sheet in advance
of its impending privatization, and that the company's overseas
security network has actually shrunk over the last two years, Virtual
Jerusalem reports.  The Company has yet to submit its response.


MARCOS WEALTH: Philippines, Switzerland Sign Mutual Expedition Treaty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippines and Switzerland have signed a treaty to speed up
solving transnational crimes by allowing, among other things, the
exchange of information and videotaped interrogation of criminal
suspects, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  The treaty still
requires legislative approval in both countries.

The recent situation between the courts in Hawaii ordering the giving
of a deposition by a Swiss citizen who had, presumably, some
information about a Swiss bank account that former President Marcos had
opened in 1972, and the refusal of the Swiss citizen to submit to the
court order, can reasonably be assumed to have been the trigger for the
treaty.

At stake for the some 9,539 Filipinos, who brought a class action
against former president Marcos's estate, was a jury award, which with
interest has reached the figure of $3.1 billion.  The money is
important to the Filipinos as a form of reparations for summary
executions, disappearances and torture they had endured during the
Marcos presidency.  

Release of the Mr. Marcos's funds, which he deposited in a Swiss bank
was an important step in the complex legal process, which might have
been facilitated by the deposition of the Swiss national, a financier,
Jean-Louis Sunier.

The Swiss government, for their own reasons, decided to step onto the
scene.  Swiss Justice and Police Minister Ruth Metzler-Arnold said that
the work is finished on forfeitures concerning the Marcos estate since
the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ordered the transfer of $356 million to
an escrow account at the Philippine National Bank in Manilla.  "The
handling of the Marcos case lies now in the hands of the Philippine
authority.  On the Swiss side, the forfeiture is finished."

However, not content with the forfeiture as the end of transnational
relations, apparently the two governments perceived need for
establishing the legal tools for implementing exchange of information,
enable the videotaped interrogation of criminal suspects, and other
methods of solving transnational crimes.

The treaty would permit the two countries to exchange information on
crimes such as terrorism, money laundering and illegally acquired
wealth.  The treaty "has a bearing on all matters pertaining to. all
criminal activities," said Philippine Justice Secretary Hernando Perez
at a news conference.


MERCK & CO.: Faces Several Suits Over Allegedly Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. may have followed an acceptable
accounting practice in reporting $12 billion in income it never
received at its Medco Health Solutions pharmacy benefits unit, but
experts say drug makers and mail-order drug firms now will be pressured
to unveil all of their accounting and business arrangements, according
to a recent report by the Los Angeles Times.

A class action was recently filed on behalf of Merck shareholders,
charging Merck officers and directors with "issuing false and
misleading statements concerning (the) business and financial
condition" of Merck and its wholly owned subsidiary, Medco Health
Solutions Inc.

Medco reported in Securities and Exchange Commission documents that it
had booked as revenue $12 billion from patient co-payments to
pharmacies, which it never had collected.  The news followed on the
heels of devastating admissions by WorldCom Inc. and other major
companies that their revenues had been inflated by billions of dollars.

"The issue here is more accounting confusion rather than Merck actually
doing anything wrong," said H&R Block Financial Advisors analyst Jason
I. Fox.  However, as long as Merck owns most of Medco, it still would
be "a cloud over the company."  Medco is the largest of the nation's 75
pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which compete with chain and
independent pharmacies with cheaper prices and mail-order service.

However, whether confusion rather than wrongdoing, there was
considerable agreement that consumers have had their fill of accounting
practices that do not make sense to the average citizen.  Other
analysts suggested that the accounting questions would lead to more
scrutiny of another long-standing practice.  The public, these experts
say, may be more disturbed about the rebates PBMs earn from
pharmaceutical companies for guaranteeing to sell specific amounts of a
certain pharmaceutical company's drug or drugs.

These rebates are, in part, supposed to be passed on to consumers as a
savings, but in Medco's June 13 SEC filing, the company acknowledged
that it pockets most of the rebates and that "without the rebates
earned from pharmaceutical companies, Medco would not have been
profitable in 1999, 2000, 2001."

Critics have filed lawsuits charging that the rebates are really an
incentive program to push one manufacturer's drugs over another's, even
though the drug might be more expensive and without any clear medical
benefit as compared to others of its kind.  This is how the PBMs reap
higher profits, the critics charge.

Mike Deskin, president of the Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute, a
consultant group providing information on PBms to employers, health
plans and unions.  Mr. Deskin says his clients are concerned about such
basic issues as how quickly prescription discount cards and
prescriptions are processed.  "How these PBMs account for their
revenues really does not come up," says Mr. Deskin.

Mr. Deskin said his clients take it on faith that the PBMS are offering
the best drug at the best price and not pushing one drug over another
in order to reach a rebate quota.  "But I think the public is going to
be more concerned about the rebates than the accounting practices," Mr.
Deskin said.


NEWBOLD TOYOTA-BMW: Agrees To $6.5M Settlement of Junk Faxes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O'Fallon, Illinois car dealership Newbold Toyota-BMW agreed to settle
for US$6.5 million the class action filed over its unsolicited "junk
fax" advertisements, which are barred by federal law, the Associated
Press reports.

The dealership allegedly faxed promotions to more than 33,000
businesses and homes in the 314 and 636 area codes around St. Louis in
early 2001.  Lawyer Steven Katz, who filed the case last year, told PA
that the dealership's owners did not know the practice was illegal when
they hired a company to do the advertising.

If a judge approves the settlement after a September hearing, anyone
who received a fax can claim as much as $500 for each advertisement
received, the standard penalty under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Mr. Katz told AP he did not expect everyone to file a
claim.

A notice of the settlement was sent, by fax, to the 33,000 numbers
turned over by the company that carried out the dealership faxing. That
company, American Blast Fax of Dallas, is out of business, he said.


NUCLEAR TESTING: UK Firms Funded To Study War Veterans' Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two UK law firms said they have received public funding to look into
lodging a class action on behalf of veterans and civilians exposed to
British nuclear tests in the South Pacific half a century ago, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Alexander Harris and Clarke Wilmott & Clarke law firms said they
had received new medical evidence linking the tests to several
illnesses, including cancer, that could warrant the taking of legal
action.

The law firms are using funding from the Legal Services Commission, the
legal assistance panel, to investigate the strength of five sample
cases before considering the launch of a compensation class action
involving hundreds of veterans and civilians from Britain, New Zealand
and Fiji.

Thousands of British and Commonwealth troops and local civilians were
exposed to atomic radiation from nuclear test explosions in the Pacific
between 1952 and 1963, the year that the International Nuclear Testing
Ban was signed.  Britain's Ministry of Defense always has denied the
level of exposure was sufficient to cause cancer, muscular diseases,
gastrointestinal problems, heart conditions, asthma, loss of teeth and
loss of hair, that those exposed complained of later.

Mervyn Fudge, a partner at the Clarke Willmott law firm, said that
recently published research shows "that the stance taken by the
Ministry of Defense is incorrect and that the veterans have sustained
injuries which should allow them to claim compensation from the British
government."

Mr. Fudge said that "from the information which is available to both
ourselves and Alexander Harris, we are at this time satisfied that such
an action is sustainable and would be successful."

However, a Ministry of Defense spokesman said independent studies had
shown no evidence of excess illness or mortality among the veterans.  
"We refute very strongly any suggestion that these veterans were used
as guinea pigs," he said on customary condition of anonymity.

During the Cold War, Britain and the United States detonated nuclear
devices at several locations in Australia, Christmas Island and other
islands in the South Pacific.  Troops from Britain, the Commonwealth
and the United States were involved, and many civilians also witnessed
the nuclear program being conducted.

The veterans claim they were not given suitable protective clothing and
were exposed to atomic radiation.  Mr. Fudge said the law firms were
still gathering complainants and already had been contacted by hundreds
of people.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers To Meet USDA Secretary Over Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman has agreed to meet with black
farmers this week to discuss their concerns that the government is not
meeting it obligations under the settlement of a 1999 class action, The
Kansas City reports.

The meeting was set after more than 200 black farmers occupied a
Department of Agriculture office in Brownsville, Tennessee, for six
days last week to protest what they claim are ongoing problems in the
US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) treatment of black farmers.

"We are under the feeling that she can fix it if she wants to," said
George Hildebrandt, a farmer in Leavenworth County, Kansas.  He will be
among the 10 farmers of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist
Association meeting in Washington with Ms. Veneman.  "The black farmers
who are still out there trying to farm are going broke," he said.

He said that some are dying and that stress was killing them.  Mr.
Hildebrandt is one of the original plaintiffs in the 1997 lawsuit that
alleged the USDA for years had discriminated in its lending practices
against black farmers.  The 1999 settlement with the black farmers was
supposed to pay them $50,000 each and forgive their federal farm loans
from 1983 to 1998 as compensation for years of discrimination.  An
estimated $2.2 billion was expected to be paid or forgiven.

Of the 21,358 claims accepted for consideration, the government
approved 60 percent and paid about $615 million, according to the USDA.  
Ms. Veneman, however, is concerned with the issues being raised, said
USDA spokesman Kevin Herglotz.

The department has assigned a team to look into the group's complaints
about current operations, Mr. Herglotz said.  Among those complaints is
that USDA county offices continue to discriminate against black
farmers, delaying their loans until after planting season has passed.

Some of the group's issues are not within the Secretary's jurisdiction,
Mr Herglotz said.  He noted that the settlement procedures were
established by a federal court.  "The process on how the suits were
handled was established under the previous administration," Mr.
Herglotz said.

The settlements seemed to favor the families of black farmers who no
longer farm, Mr. Hildebrandt said.  Many of those who are still
farming, like himself, have not gotten relief, he said.  His claim was
denied.  He appealed it 20 months ago.  Meanwhile, the USDA has
garnisheed his income taxes and crop subsidies to cover the $150,000 in
loans that were not forgiven.

"They took $12,000 last year from me.  That is pretty tough on my small
operation," Mr. Hildebrandt said.  "The problem is I can't service my
debt if they won't let me have money to operate."


UNITED STATES: Parties Continue Processing "Special Rate" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest news on the "special rate" class-action settlement is that
it continues to inch along, The Washington Post reports.

Current and former federal employees who received special salary rates
during the 1980s have been mailed announcements informing them that the
US Court of Federal Claims will hold a "fairness hearing" on the
settlement, announced in January, on November 18.  People covered by
the settlement have until August 28 to express their views in writing.

The payments would conclude a long-running dispute.  The case began
when the Reagan administration allowed the Office of Personnel
Management to stop passing along General Schedule pay increases to
special rate employees.  The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
filed a class action, setting off 19 years of litigation and
negotiation with the government.  Because of the regulation, many
special rate workers received no pay raises during the 1980s, or only
modest ones, the NTEU said.

The settlement covers clerical workers, engineers, medical personnel,
law enforcement officers and others who were paid the special salary
rates from fiscal 1982 through 1988.  In addition to the original
class, some employees receiving special pay rates in calendar years
1988, 1989 and 1990 are covered under the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, about 212,000 special raters will
share in more than $173.5 million in back pay and interest, one of the
largest back pay awards ever made to federal employees.  The current
and former federal employees probably will have to wait until late next
year to get their money, which could range from $1,000 to $30,000,
depending on their grade and occupation.  People usually wait nine or
10 months for back pay awards after payment has received court
approval.  The wait provides time to file appeals and to set up a
settlement trust fund.


WISCONSIN: Only State Planning To Utilize Part in Tobacco Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin is the only state planning to use all of the money from
selling off its tobacco settlement payments, stemming from the landmark
class action, to fix its budget deficit under a bill the state Assembly
is considering, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.  Anti-smoking
advocates fear the plan will mean fewer resources available from the
state for smoking prevention programs.

The bill approved by the Senate last week would use $825 million from
the sale of the tobacco settlement to resolve a $1.1 billion deficit,
on top of the $450 million lawmakers decided to use to balance the
budget last year.  The proposal needs approval by the Assembly and
governor to become law.

A dozen other states also have sold off some of their future payments
from the tobacco settlement, but none have used all of the future
payments to solve their budget problems, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures.

"It is fiscally irresponsible, and it blows what we could be using in
the future to fight death and disease in Wisconsin," said Maureen
Busalacchi, deputy director of  SmokeFree Wisconsin.

Wisconsin was expected to receive $5.9 billion in payments over 25
years as part of the settlement the states reached with tobacco
companies in a class action, brought in order to recover health-care
costs.  The state sold its payments for a one-time lump sum of $1.3
billion.

Before the state learned of its budget deficit, it had planned to put
the settlement money into a permanent endowment fund and use the
interest for anti-smoking efforts and other state programs.  However,
the budget plan resulted from three months of partisan wrangling by a
committee of lawmakers, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans,
in each of the houses of the Legislature.

The shortfall resulted in part from shrinking revenues caused by an
economic recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks.  The
Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates that the plan leaves the state with
a $1.34 billion deficit in the year starting next July 1, and a $2.8
billion deficit over the next two-year budget, because spending
commitments for various programs will outpace expected revenue.


WORLDCOM INC.: Teachers Fund Considers Joining Suit After Losing $93M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas lost US$93 million on
investments in beleaguered communications firm WorldCom, Inc, according
to a MySanAntonio.com report.  The system allegedly lost US$34 million
on Worldcom stocks and US$59 million on company bonds.

However, officials have reiterated that the losses won't affect the
benefits, as they represent a minute fraction of the $80.4 billion the
fund manages.  Despite the losses, TRS, the state's largest public
investment fund, remains "well-funded, highly diversified and in sound
actuarial condition," spokesman Howard Goldman said in a prepared
statement.

Worldcom's stock has faced a battering after it revealed it used
improper accounting techniques to cover up nearly $4 billion in
expenses last months.  Texas Attorney General John Cornyn last month
said he has opened an investigation to identify and pursue claims
against WorldCom for any money owed to the state's pension and
investment funds, MySanAntonio.com reports.

TRS could join investor class-action lawsuits expected against
WorldCom, but Mr. Goldman said it's weighing its legal options as more
details become available.

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS, INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the shares of 360Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: TSIXQ) or
(TSE:TSX.TO) between November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001, inclusive.  
The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against:

     (1) Gregory B. Maffei,

     (2) Jimmy D. Byrd,

     (3) Larry Olsen,

     (4) Ron Stevenson,

     (5) Vanessa Wittman and

     (6) Steve Baker

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between November 8, 2000 and June 28, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company shares.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between August 3, 2000 and May 10, 2002.

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

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

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com


CRYOLIFE INC.: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond 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 against the Company and:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson and

     (2) Albert E. Heacox

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas claims
that Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) misled shareholders about its
business and financial condition.

Plaintiff seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between July
22, 1999 and May 28, 2002.

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Hoffman & Edelson Commences Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Halliburton Company
(NYSE:HAL) during the period from July 22, 1999 through May 28, 2002,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

On May 28, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC had begun an investigation into
its accounting for cost overruns. In reaction to the press release, the
price of the Company's stock dropped by 3.3% on May 29, 2002 on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 (toll free) by Fax:
215-230-8735 or by E-mail: jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.  


KNIGHT TRADING: Fruchter & Twersky Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class action against
Knight Trading Group, Inc. and its former Chief Executive Officer
Kenneth D. Pasternak, alleging that defendants made materially false
and misleading public statements concerning the Company's business,
trading practices, and financial performance.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that defendants were aware of but failed
to disclose that from February 29, 2000 to June 3, 2002, inclusive,
Company traders routinely engaged in improper trading practices known
as "front-running," wherein the traders delayed execution of the
Company's customer stock purchase orders until the traders themselves
made purchases in those same stocks.

The complaint alleges that this practice forced the Company's customers
to pay higher stock prices and generated undeserved windfall profits
for the Company and its traders.  The suit has been filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the class
period.

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter by Mail: One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10119 by Phone: 212-279-5050 or
800-440-8986 by Fax: 212-279-3655 or by E-mail:
JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.  


MERCK & CO.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all persons who purchased or acquired Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK)
securities between July 1, 1999 and June 21, 2002.

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

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Mail: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: MRK@bernlieb.com.  


MERCK & CO.: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK) securities during the
period between July 23, 1999 and June 20, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, 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 Merck 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 Alfred G. Yates Jr., 519 Allegheny Building,
429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 by Phone:
800-391-5164 by Fax: 412-471-1033 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


MERCK & CO.: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Merck
& Co. Inc. (NYSE: MRK) and certain of its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Merck common
stock between July 23, 1999 and July 3, 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 common stock.

Merck's operations are comprised of two reportable segments: Merck
Pharmaceutical and Merck's wholly owned subsidiary, Merck-Medco Managed
Care, LLC, which manages pharmacy benefits for employers, insurers and
other plan sponsors.  Consumers who are members of pharmacy benefits
plans must make co-payments directly to the pharmacy when purchasing
prescriptions.

Since Merck acquired Merck-Medco in 1993 and throughout the class
period, Merck and Merck-Medco have falsely inflated their reported
revenues by billions of dollars, by approximately $14 billion from
1999-2002, by including consumer co-payments for prescription drugs in
revenue, contrary to the revenue recognition practices of two of Merck-
Medco's biggest competitors and concealing these facts in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

As a result, defendants concealed these facts, overstating Merck-
Medco's total economic activity, making it appear more successful than
it actually was.

On July 5, 2002, Merck filed with the SEC Amendment No. 4 to the Form
S-1 Registration Statement for the initial public offering (IPO) of
shares of Medco Health Solutions, Inc., its former Merck-Medco unit. In
that document, defendants disclosed for the first time the material
amounts of the co- payments included in product net revenues.  The
defendants revealed the Retail copayments included in product net
revenues amount to approximately $2,838 million in 1999, $4,036 million
in 2000, $5,537 million in 2001, $1,378 million in the first quarter of
2001 and $1,640 million in the first quarter of 2002, each with a
corresponding equivalent amount recorded in cost of product net
revenues.

Therefore, between 1999 and 2001, co-payments represented nearly 10% of
Merck's overall reported revenue. Medco's co-payments of $5.5 billion
booked as revenue in 2001 represented approximately 11% of Merck's 2001
overall revenue of $50.69 billion. The co-payment revenue booked in
2000 was $4.04 billion, or approximately 9.4% of Merck's total reported
revenue, while it was $2.84 billion in 1999, or approximately 8.1% of
total revenue.

Following defendants' July 5, 2002 disclosure of approximately $14
billion of co- payments included in product net revenues from 1999-
2002, the price of Merck stock dropped approximately 14% to as low as
$45 and Merrill Lynch dropped its "buy" rating on Merck stock. The
Medco IPO has been delayed three times and Merck has reduced the
expected price range to $20-$22 from $22-$24.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
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


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 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 or Karen Markert by Mail: 1622
Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 800-424-6690 or
215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-4604 or by E-mail: mercase@bm.net  


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

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 during the class period.

The complaint alleges that the Company reaped illegal profits in the
State of California by artificially manipulating energy prices through
a variety of improper tactics which have resulted in investigations by
both the Attorney General of California and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, as well as a number of lawsuits filed by
California, and consumers.

Additionally, as the complaint alleges, while the Company announced
quarter-after-quarter of growth, and assured the investing community
that problems in the California energy market had been properly
accounted for, the Company, in fact, failed to:

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

     (2) provide for professional fees associated with the
         investigations arising from the fraud through a charge to
         earnings;

     (3) disclose the fact that the illegally obtained revenue was
         subject to forfeiture and that investigations surrounding the
         illegally obtained revenue would result in the expenditure of
         material amounts for legal and professional fees; and

     (4) comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

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


PERKINELMER INC.: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired PerkinElmer, Inc. (NYSE:PKI)
securities between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
the Company and:

     (1) Gregory L. Summe and

     (2) Robert F. Friel

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or 561-
712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches WI Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin,
claiming that the Company misled investors about its business and
financial condition.  The suit was filed on behalf of all investors who
bought Company securities between April 26, 2001 and September 19,
2001.

The suit alleges that the Company's statements failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) 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, the Company 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, the Company created the appearance of earnings
         growth, when defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that
         future sales would be negatively impacted by the
         aforementioned practices;

     (2) 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

     (3) 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.

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


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Rayovac
Corporation (NYSE: ROV) pursuant to a June 21, 2001 Registration
Statement and between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, inclusive,
against the Company, and certain of its officers and directors.

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

The suit alleges that the statements made by defendants in their
registration statement for a secondary offering and during the class -
period were materially false and misleading because they omitted and/or
distorted several unfavorable facts, including that the Company was
enduring decreasing demand for its products resulting in the Company's
extension of favorable credit terms to clients so that the clients
would be more likely to buy further products, thereby inducing greater
demand.

It is further alleged that the Company generated the appearance of
earnings growth, even though that defendants understood, or improperly
ignored problems that would negatively influence future sales such as
the Company's aggressive sales system in Latin America, extending
favorable payment terms and encouraging customers to obtain additional
surplus inventory, was the true cause of the Company's expansion there.

It is further alleged that concerning these sales practices, defendants
lacked a practical reasoning for their statements that the Company
would increase by 8-9% in the third and fourth quarter of 2001.

On September 20, 2001, the Company announced that the Company's fiscal
fourth quarter results would be negatively influenced by a supposed
slowdown in battery sales in its US and Latin American markets.  
Therefore, the Company's earnings for the quarter would be either even
or down somewhat from the same period for the preceding year, instead
of increasing.

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


TOUCH AMERICA: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court, District of Montana, Butte Division on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Montana Power Company
now known as Touch America Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TAA) between January
30, 2001 and November 14, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, 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 that began in August 2001, but was 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 Montana Power common stock decline from
a class period high of $22.78.

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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Uniroyal Technology Corporation
(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 and:

     (1) George J. Zulanas, Jr. and

     (2) Howard R. Curd

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or 561-
712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.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  * * *