CAR_Public/020719.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, July 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 142

                         Headlines

FLORIDA: Former Felons Commence Lawsuit Over Denial Of Voting Rights
HMO LITIGATION: Judge Considers Suit's Future Course V. Managed Care
NICOR GAS: Consumers Sue Over Deceptive "Fixed Bill" Plan Marketing
NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Revenues Overstatement in Canada Court
PEOPLES BANK: Fraud Suit Expanded To Include New Defendants, Charges

PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Two Drugmakers Sued Over Alleged Overpricing
ROYAL OUTDOOR: Recalls 1,250 Colonila Vinyl Post Kits For Injury Hazard
TERRORIST ATTACK: Compensation For Oklahoma Bombing Victims In Peril
UNITED ARTISTS: Arizona Court Revives Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Faxes
VENTANA MEDICAL: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal

WORLDCOM INC.: Alabama Pension Program Sues Former Executives, Others
WORLDCOM INC.: WV Pension Fund Files Suit Alleging Fraud in Bond Sale
WYETH: Cauley Geller Commences Suit Over Prempro Hormone Drug in PA

                  New Securities Fraud Suits

APPLIED DIGITAL: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CRYOLIFE INC.: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
DUKE ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Suit On Behalf of Plan Participants
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in NY
KNIGHT TRADING: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

MERCK & CO.: Squitieri & Fearon Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in OR
PERKINELMER INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in MA
REHABCARE GROUP: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
TELLABS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Johnson & Perkinson Expands Securities Suit Class
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in FL
                          
                          *********


FLORIDA: Former Felons Commence Lawsuit Over Denial Of Voting Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------
While most tremors from Florida's 2000 presidential election have
quieted, one aspect remains contested in federal court. The denial of
voting rights to former felons returned to society, The Baltimore Sun
reports.

That election is history, but a class action to restore the franchise
in behalf of former felons is in the US District Court for Southern
Florida, brought by voting rights advocates against Republican Governor
Jeb Bush and the state.  The issue is whether individuals convicted of
a felony deserve to lose this basic right forever or whether, having
served their time and having most other rights restored, they should be
made whole as functioning, and tax-paying, citizens.  

The state cites the 14th Amendment in defending the denial of voting
rights to felons.  Thousands of men and women convicted of a felony who
had served their time, were legally barred from casting ballots in that
decisive election, which was eventually awarded to George W. Bush by
537 votes and a controversial ruling by the US Supreme Court that
stopped the recounts.

Thousands more in Florida, particularly in minority communities, have
charged they were erroneously listed as former felons on Election Day
and were denied ballots, possibly tilting the election to Mr. Bush.

The lead petitioner is Thomas Johnson, 52, a black minister, who, a
decade ago, served eight months in a New York prison on charges of drug
and weapon possession.  He now heads an organization working to
rehabilitate ex-convicts returned to society.  His case is being
handled by the Brennan Center for Justice in New York.

The class action charges that the state's disenfranchisement laws
amount to arbitrary, irrational and intentional race discrimination in
violation of the federal Voting Right Act.  Nancy Northrup, Director of
the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, says, "In our criminal justice
system, who gets arrested, who gets prosecuted and who gets convicted
of a felony are all decisions that involve a great deal of discretion.  
Too often, race and class play a role in these decisions.  When felony
convictions result in voting bans, the result is increasing
disenfranchisement of populations that already were marginalized."

Florida officials, the Brennan Center says, used unreliable voter
registration lists in 2000, to weed out convicted felons and, as a
result, many eligible registered voters were erroneously turned away
from the ballot box, including a high percentage of African-Americans
who had never committed a felony.  "Florida is now denying the voting
rights of more than five percent of its voting age population, 10
percent among African-Americans, who have paid their debt to society,"
Ms. Northrup says.

In a separate case, the NAACP is suing Florida Secretary of State
Katherine Harris, charging improper purging of alleged felons from the
voting rolls in the 2000 election.  Lori Borgen of the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, says the state violated the
Voting Rights Act in "an election practice having a disproportionate
impact" on minority citizens.

Nearly two years after Florida's troubled presidential election, echoes
continue to be heard in the Florida courts over real or alleged abuses
which may never be definitively determined and defined, in possibly the
most contentious election in United States history.


HMO LITIGATION: Judge Considers Suit's Future Course V. Managed Care
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A judge coordinating lawsuits by the nation's patients and doctors
against the managed care industry, was recently asked to get the cases
back on track after a year's detour on appeal, according to a report by
the Associated Press Newswires.

Attorneys for doctors and patients want US District Judge Federico
Moreno to set a trial date next year and open up company records for
inspection in lawsuits claiming racketeering and deception by the
industry.  Attorneys for the industry, meanwhile, want Judge Moreno to
make decisions on class action status for the two parallel lawsuits
first.  If he decides not to grant such status, the cases could simply
disappear.

An estimated 80 million patients claim that the managed care industry
deceived them by promising quality care, but actually skimped on the
care provided.  About 600,000 doctors claim they are routinely
shortchanged in a profit-driven system that makes it costly and time-
consuming for them to object.

The Judge ended a two-hour hearing by saying he did not know how he
would rule, but added that he plans to make a decision on opening
company records "within a reasonable time."  Attorneys for patients and
doctors want wide access to company databases that Aetna attorney
Miguel Estrada predicted would be "abusive, oppressive and
overreaching."

Mr. Estrada, who argued for the industry, wants the judge to force the
plaintiffs' attorneys to amend their lawsuit's complaint to fit several
orders narrowing the case.  "You gave us 90 pages of rulings.  They
should write a complaint which complies with your rulings," he said.  
"The notion that this is merely a cleanup of what has long been before
this court is just fantasy."

Attorneys for patients and doctors said such an amendment was not
required and accused the industry of using every possible delaying
tactic, including the request for a new complaint, to stall the
lawsuits.  "They know the issues.  They know the assertions.  They know
the allegations," patients' attorney Richard Scruggs said.  He urged
Judge Moreno "to get moving on the merits."

"These involve fundamental issues of health care for tens of millions
of Americans," said Mr. Scruggs.  Decisions by a federal appeals court
on Judge Moreno's pretrial rulings "are a green light to go forward
with this case."

When asked Mr. Estrada was asked whether he thought the suggested trial
date of November 2003 was too ambitious, Mr. Estrada said he could not
gauge that now.

The leading companies being sued are:

     (1) Aetna,

     (2) Cigna,

     (3) Health Net,

     (4) Humana,

     (5) Prudential and

     (6) United HealthCare


NICOR GAS: Consumers Sue Over Deceptive "Fixed Bill" Plan Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a class action accusing Nicor
Gas and an unregulated sister company, Nicor Services, of deceptive
marketing of the "Fixed Bill" plan, which is causing some consumers'
natural gas bills to more than double.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court by CUB and the Chicago
law firm of Macey, Chern & Diab, accuses the companies of violating the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  It asks
that the companies be ordered to accurately describe the "Fixed Bill"
plan in its marketing materials and that punitive damages be awarded to
customers who were led to believe they would save money under the plan
only to see their bills skyrocket.

Usually, customers are charged for their actual gas usage each month,
but the "Fixed Bill" plan, which was first marketed to customers in
March, offers to charge them 12 equal monthly payments, based on their
"gas use profile."  Playing off the fear caused by unusually high gas
bills in the winter of 2000- 2001, the companies promise customers "a
bill that won't go up, regardless of gas prices or weather."

However, the Company doesn't reveal that the "Fixed Bill" plan sets the
monthly amounts so high that customers are likely to pay far more than
if they stayed with the regulated utility.  A sample of bills of
consumers contacted by CUB showed that the "Fixed Bill" plan increased
or would have increased annual bills by 88 percent to 134 percent.

"Nicor Gas and Nicor Services are deceiving their customers," CUB
Executive Director Martin Cohen said.  "The companies promise customers
that the `Fixed Bill' plan will protect them from future price spikes -
- without telling them that the plan itself has a built-in price
spike."

Although the "Fixed Bill" plan is a Nicor Services program, Nicor Gas,
the public utility, is included in the lawsuit, accused of conspiring
with its sister company to defraud customers.  Nicor Gas inserted
"Fixed Bill" marketing materials into its customers' billing
statements, agreed to add the "Fixed Bill" charges to its customers'
bills and collect those charges, and allowed Nicor Services to use the
Nicor trademark to market the plan, the lawsuit said.

"Shopping for natural gas is confusing enough for consumers without
deceptive marketing by a company with the same name as the utility,"
Mr. Cohen said.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over Revenues Overstatement in Canada Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks faces a class action, alleging it overstated its
revenues in late 2000 and early 2001, when the Company first said it
would fail to meet growth targets, the Associated Press reports.

Toronto lawfirms, Rochon Genova and Lerner Associates, filed the suit
on behalf of three Ontario residents, alleging the Company engaged in
numerous improper accounting practices that overstated its revenues,
and that its auditor Deloitte & Touche failed to have the Company
correct its accounting procedures or warn investors.

The Company already faces several class actions in the United States,
which were commenced after the Company's February 15, 2001 announcement
that it would fail to meet previous growth targets.  The announcement
caused shares to lose billions of dollars in value.

Company spokeswoman Tina Warren told AP the lawsuit was "without merit"
and that the company would "vigorously defend" itself.


PEOPLES BANK: Fraud Suit Expanded To Include New Defendants, Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action against Peoples Bank of Northern Kentucky has been
expanded to include as defendants the bank's former president and vice
president and to include new charges against the bank's former board
members, the Kentucky Post reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of victimized Erpenbeck Co. homeowners,
whose homes are saddled with builders' mortgages.  Erpenbeck Co. or its
affiliates deposited payoff checks written to various banks into a
company account at Peoples Bank, according to bank records.

The Kentucky Post reports that while the directors were already named
as defendants in the lawsuit, attorneys Brandon Voelker and Stanley
Chesley amended the action Tuesday to detail what they say is the
directors' role in the debacle, including:

     (1) Failing to hire employees "who were capable of performing
         their banking responsibilities."  Those responsibilities
         included understanding when a check was proper for deposit;

     (2) Failure to establish proper training, policies and procedures;

     (3) Failure to implement policies and procedures that would have
         prevented then-president John Finnan and then-vice president
         Marc Menne from forming JAMS, a private partnership through
         which the two officers bought Erpenbeck homes and leased them
         back to Erpenbeck; and

     (4) Inadequate supervision of employees, including allowing mr.
         Finnan to take a luxury cruise with Erpenbeck and his
         employees and friends

The plaintiffs want Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger to declare
Peoples and its board of directors liable for the millions of dollars
in liens still on many homes.  They also want the bank to buy homes
that homeowners can't sell because of the liens, and to offer new
mortgages to homeowners who have had trouble refinancing because of the
liens, the Kentucky Post reports.

Mr. Voelker told the Post the claims against Finnan, Menne and the
board members were added out of necessity.  "It's always been our goal
to hopefully just resolve it with the bank, but so far that's not
happening. We have a duty to our clients, and at this point, we feel
this is the only option," he said.

Mark Arnzen, Peoples attorney, board member and shareholder, told the
Post the board is not responsible for any misdeeds committed by Mr.
Finnan or Mr. Menne.

"At the time we hired John Finnan and Marc Menne, we believed that they
were outstanding, honest bankers who were members of the community for
many years. We trusted them as we moved forward over the years, and
they breached that trust as we moved forward, and we're very
disappointed," Mr. Arnzen said.


PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Two Drugmakers Sued Over Alleged Overpricing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two pharmaceutical companies, Biovail Corp., Canada's largest listed
drug company and Elan, Ireland's biggest drug manufacturer, are being
sued by two union health funds. Federal regulators allege a licensing
agreement improperly divided the US market for a blood pressure drug,  
keeping prices artificially high, The National Post reported.

The Post's Michael Lewis writes that according to the unions' separate
lawsuits, each seeking class action status and recently filed in US
District Court in Washington, D.C., the 1999 licensing agreement
between the two drugmakers forced the union health funds and their
members to pay inflated prices for generic forms of Bayer AG's Adalat
CC, a popular blood pressure drug.

The AFL-AGC Building Trades Welfare Plan of Mobile, Alabama, filed its
claim on July 2, while the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 56
Health & Welfare Fund of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, followed suit last
Wednesday.  The two unions are soliciting participation in the lawsuits
from other consumers of the generic drugs.

The lawsuits further contend that Biovail and Elan agreed not to
compete with the other's approved dosage because such competition would
result in the lowering of prices.  

The US Federal Trade Commission continues to consider a probe into drug
industry practices.


ROYAL OUTDOOR: Recalls 1,250 Colonila Vinyl Post Kits For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Outdoor Products is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,250 colonial
vinyl post kits.  Cracks can develop near the base of the posts.  This
can allow the railing to collapse, potentially injuring people on the
deck.
        
The Company has received seven reports of the posts cracking and one
report in which the post failed.  The Company is not aware of any
injuries associated with the posts cracking or failing.
        
The recalled Royal Colonial Vinyl Deck Post Kit is intended for use
with the Royal pre-built vinyl deck rail system.  The 4-inch square
post has a "lathe turned" design in the middle.  A label with the words
"Royal Outdoor Products" and "R008-45-136" is affixed to the bottom of
each post.  Each kit contains one post.  The posts were made in Canada.
        
Home Depot stores in the mid-Atlantic region sold these deck post
kits from February 2002 through April 2002 for about $30.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 877-467-6925 between 9
am and 7 pm Monday through Friday, 10 am and 6 pm Saturday, and 11 am
and 6 pm Sunday ET or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.royaloutdoor.com


TERRORIST ATTACK: Compensation For Oklahoma Bombing Victims In Peril
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the attorneys who is seeking federal terrorism compensation for
Oklahoma City bombing victims has withdrawn from the case, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.  He was one of two attorneys
lobbying for the inclusion of the plaintiffs they represent.

St. Louis attorney Douglas Dowd, who recently withdrew, said he has
filed a report with the Missouri Bar that raises questions about how
his co-counsel, Charles E. Polk Jr., got involved with the bombing
victims.  Mr. Dowd also said that his withdrawal means all the
agreements with bombing victims are void.  Mr. Polk said about 150
people had signed up, and stated that he has done nothing improper, but
would not discuss Mr. Dowd's claims.

Mr. Dowd and Mr. Polk had been lobbying for legislation to include the
Oklahoma City bombing victims in the compensation fund set up after the
September 11 terrorist attacks.  They had promised to file a class
action lawsuit if the legislation was not enacted.  The two attorneys
had solicited clients by offering contingency arrangements.  They had
first required those signing to pay 25 percent of anything they
received from the fund even if it was the result of congressional
approval.

After that fee was criticized by Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla, and Rep.
Ernest Istook, R-Okla, the attorneys said they would take 10 percent
for lobbying or negotiating or lobbying for legislation and 25 percent
if a class action was filed and successful.

The Senate Judiciary Committee debated last week about whether to limit
attorney fees, but reached no decision.  The committee may take up the
issue again this week.  Sen. Nickles has been pushing to get federal
compensation for the bombing victims, but wants to limit the attorney
fees.

Mr. Dowd's and Mr. Polk's efforts have come under fire in their
hometown.   The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried an editorial last week
saying the two attorneys "make ambulance-chasers look reputable."  Mr.
Dowd called the newspaper that day to say he was withdrawing.

Mr. Dowd told The Oklahoman he withdrew from the case because he
learned that Mr. Polk had a "secret agreement" with a person who is not
an attorney to solicit clients for a fee for the Oklahoma City effort.  
Mr. Dowd said he called the Missouri Bar to discuss the situation
because non-attorneys are prohibited from making solicitations or legal
referrals unless they are a legitimate referral service.

Mr. Dowd also said it had been his impression initially that the
bombing victims "had contacted us and wanted us to represent them.  I
just was not aware of how Mr. Polk had gotten involved in the whole
thing."  He would not name the third party or discuss other details.

Tom Kight and Gloria Chipman, who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma City
bombing, said they were contacted by a man named Jim Helenthal and  
that Mr. Helenthal had asked Ms. Chipman when she was going to sign an
agreement with the two attorneys.  She has not signed an agreement.

Mr Helenthal, who distributes a "shopper" newspaper in Illinois and
once was represented by Mr. Polk in an antitrust case, declined to
discuss the case.  "I'm a good guy.  I think that justice will be
served in this situation.  That's all I can say now," he said.


UNITED ARTISTS: Arizona Court Revives Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An Arizona appeals court recently revived a class action which a trial
court had blocked because a movie theater chain could face "possibly
annihilating punishment" of up to $135 million for sending unsolicited
advertisements by fax, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

A three-judge Arizona Court of Appeals panel said the trial court
should not have denied class action status to the lawsuit filed by an
Arizona company, ESI Ergonomic Solutions Inc., against United Artists
Theater Circuit Inc.

ESI had sued for damages in 1999, after it received a one-page
advertisement from United Artists for discount movie packages.  The
advertisement was transmitted to 90,000 fax machines in the Phoenix
area at a cost of $3,375 to United Artists, according to court papers.

ESI sued under a federal law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
that prohibits transmitting unsolicited advertisements to fax machines.  
The law allows private lawsuits to enforce the law, with damages up to
$500 per violation, though damages can be trebled.

The trial court denied class action status to the case, a step which
would permit ESI's lawyers to represent all recipients of the fax and
seek damages from United Artists on their behalf.  By then, however,
United Artists had filed for US Bankruptcy protection.

The trial court ruled that bankruptcy proceedings offered potential
claimants a superior way to obtain redress from United Artists for the
fax, and that the potential penalty of $135 million was "horrendous,
possibly annihilating punishment."

The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that the bankruptcy proceedings
might not be suitable for potential claimants.  Class actions are
intended to allow large penalties to be extracted from defendants to
deter misbehavior.  "When the amount at issue is small and costs and
fees are not recoverable, claimants may well conclude that it would
cost more to pursue an individual claim than they would obtain in
relief, one of the very circumstances class actions are intended to
address," Judge Cecil B. Patterson Jr. wrote in the opinion.

United Artists will appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court,
said Keith Beauchamp, the company's attorney.  The Court of Appeals
ignored previous rulings that allow a trial judge, considering whether
to permit a class action, to take into account the effect on the
defendant, Mr. Beauchamp said.  The case now goes back to Maricopa
Superior Court for further proceedings.

United Artists is now part of Regal Entertainment Group of Englewood,
Colorado.  Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz formed the company last
year after gaining control of United Artists and two other theater
chains while they were in bankruptcy proceedings.


VENTANA MEDICAL: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted
summary judgment in favor of Ventana Medical Systems Inc. (Nasdaq:
VMSI), in the securities suit filed against it by former shareholders
of BioTek Solutions Inc. against the company and certain of its
directors and stockholders in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company violated
federal and California securities laws in connection with the BioTek
shareholders' consent to the February 1996 merger of BioTek into the
Company and the related conversion of BioTek notes into Company notes.

On June 5, 2000, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all
of plaintiffs' claims.  The court later issued an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 8, 2000.  The hearing of
the appeal took place before the Third Circuit on Feb. 4, 2002, and the
Third Circuit rendered its opinion affirming the District Court and
dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal on July 11, 2002.

Separately, on April 1, 1999, a shareholder derivative and class action
suit was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware
entitled Leung v. Ventana Medical Systems Inc. et al.

The plaintiff, who was related to the plaintiffs in the above federal
securities action, alleged breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract relating to Ventana's merger with BioTek and the related
conversion of BioTek notes into Ventana notes, as well as the company's
decision to compensate two of its directors by selling Ventana stock to
them at a fixed price.

On May 6, 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and on Feb. 29,
2000, the court granted the company's motion, dismissing the action in
its entirety.  The plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on Oct. 24,
2000, and on May 22, 2001, after a hearing, the Delaware Supreme Court
decided in the Company's favor and dismissed the appeal.

"We believe the decision by the Court of Appeals brings to a successful
close a series of securities law complaints filed by former BioTek
investors as early as 1997," Chris Gleeson, Ventana's president and
chief executive officer, said in a statement.

"Our willingness to successfully contest these complaints in both
federal and state lower and appellate courts over a five-year period
demonstrates our commitment to vigorously defending all complaints
brought without merit against the Company or its directors," added Mr.
Gleeson.

The Company intends to assess its options for recovering from the
plaintiffs the costs of defending these suits.


WORLDCOM INC.: Alabama Pension Program Sues Former Executives, Others
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's pension program for active and retired public employees has
sued former WorldCom, Inc. executives, and accounting and investment
firms, seeking US$1.1 billion in damages over its losses in the
Mississippi-based company, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The pension program's CEO David Bronner said he decided to fight in
court because he fears the country may be heading toward a 1930s-style
depression caused by a lack of public confidence in Wall Street and
because he does not believe the federal government is doing enough
about accounting irregularities.

"I have never been as scared in my life," said Mr. Bronner, who has
headed Alabama's $26 billion pension program since 1973.  "I have no
confidence in the attorney general or the SEC chairman because for
nearly a year now we have had one case after another.  There has not
been one arrest or one indictment.  If the attorney general would worry
as much about Wall Street as he does about statues and breasts, we
would not have to do this (sue over WorldCom's wrongdoing)," Mr.
Bronner said, referring to Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort to
cover revealing statues at the Justice Department building.

Retirement Systems of Alabama's (RSA) lawsuit seeks US$275 million in
compensatory damages for losses on WorldCom stocks and bonds, plus $825
million in punitive damages.  The lawsuit names as defendants:

     (1) Bernie Ebbers, former WorldCom CEO,

     (2) Scott Sullivan, former WorldCom chief financial officer,

     (3) Arthur Andersen LLP,

     (4) JP Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (5) Citigroup,

     (6) Bank of America Corp. and

     (7) Bear Stearns & Co.

Arthur Andersen stood by its recent statement, that its work for
WorldCom complied with professional standards and that WorldCom
withheld financial information.  Other defendants either did not return
calls from The Associated Press or said they could not comment because
they had not yet seen the lawsuit.

RSA has sued both Enron Corp. and Providian Financial Corp. over losses
suffered by the pension program.  The Enron suit and the WorldCom suit
do not name the companies as defendants in order to keep the litigation
from being combined with class actions filed by banks and others in
federal court, Mr. Bronner said.  He also said that he chose to file
both cases in state court in Montgomery, Ala., because it moves faster
than federal court and it allows treble damages.

RSA is the lead plaintiff in a traditional class action filed in
federal court in California against Providian Financial Corp. and four
of its former officers.  RSA lost $3.9 million on Providian, Mr.
Bronner said.  Mr. Bronner said that WorldCom, Enron and Providian
losses won't affect the pension checks for government retirees in
Alabama, because they belong to a defined-benefit plan.  It will be
fiscal 2004 before the losses could have any impact on how much money
the pension program seeks from the Legislature.


WORLDCOM INC.: WV Pension Fund Files Suit Alleging Fraud in Bond Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Beleaguered telecommunications giant WorldCom, Inc. faces another
lawsuit, this time from West Virginia's public pension funds.  The suit
also names the Company's former accountant Arthur Andersen, LLP,
Reuters reports.  

West Virginia's pension funds lost about US$5.6 million on Company
bonds, Craig Slaughter, executive director of the West Virginia
Investment Management Board told Reuters.  The suit is now pending in
the Kanawha County Circuit Court.

The suit alleges that a bond sale by the Company was based on false
financial statements and misleading information. The suit is similar to
one suit filed by two Illinois pension funds, relating to a 2001 bond
offering by the Company.

A spokesman for the Company told Reuters the company does not comment
on pending litigation.  

The funds also lost money in their stock portfolios and Mr. Slaughter
told Reuters the state would consider joining a class action suit
against WorldCom related to stock losses.  The state's management
board, responsible for 12 pension and employment security plans,
reported having just under 80 million WorldCom shares at a cost of
$1.105 million in January. The fair value of those shares was $1.084
million, the board reported in its monthly statement.


WYETH: Cauley Geller Commences Suit Over Prempro Hormone Drug in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who were prescribed the hormone
replacement drug Prempro, chemically known as conjugated
estrogens/medroxyprogesterone.

As alleged in the suit, Wyeth and Wyeth-Ayerst Research are named as
the defendants in this action due to their responsibility in
manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing and/or selling
Prempro.  The class action seeks to:

     (1) inform the public that users and consumers of Prempro are at
         an increased risk of harm and/or death;

     (2) establish a medical monitoring fund so that every consumer may
         be tested and treated for the adverse effects of Prempro;

     (3) reimburse monies paid for the product; and

     (4) provide compensation to all victims for personal injuries and
         death.

Prempro is a medication commonly prescribed for patients in need of
hormone replacement therapy.  The drug, which falls within a category
of drugs known as progestins, contains conjugated estrogens and
medroxyprogesterone acetate.  

Approximately three million women in the United States take Prempro
daily to replace hormones lost at menopause as a means for reducing
incidence of post-menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats
and vaginal dryness. The drug first received FDA approval as a hormone
replacement therapy in 1995.

Between 1993 and 1998, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a group
focused on the health and welfare of post-menopausal women, enrolled
more than 16,000 women in a set of clinic trials to examine, among
other things, the effect of estrogen plus progestin on the prevention
of heart disease and hip fractures, and any associated change in risk
for breast and colon cancer. The specific drug used during the study
was Prempro supplied by Wyeth and Wyeth- Ayerst Research.

On May 31, 2002, an independent advisory committee charged with
reviewing the results of the clinical trials and ensuring participant
safety, recommended that the trials be stopped based on a finding of
increased breast cancer risk in the estrogen plus progestin group.

On July 8, 2002, participants began receiving letters informing them
about the results of the study and instructing them to stop study
medications. The specific study findings for the estrogen plus
progestin group compared to the placebo included a 41% increase in
strokes; 29% increase in heart attacks; 22% increase in total
cardiovascular disease; and 26% increase in breast cancer.

On July 9, 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association
released an expedited article concerning the WHI Prempro clinical
trials. The article, originally scheduled for publication on July 17,
2002, summarizes the wide-ranging harm caused by Prempro, including the
"increased risks for cardiovascular disease and invasive breast
cancer," and notes that "there were more harmful than beneficial
outcomes in the estrogen plus progestin group vs. the placebo group."

For more details, contact Liza McPhail or Kandie Gibson by Mail: P.O.
Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944 by E-mail:
mcphail@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com

                    New Securities Fraud Suits

APPLIED DIGITAL: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action status in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Applied Digital
Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSX) from February 11, 2000 through May 10,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and its CEO with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial
condition.  Specifically it is alleged that throughout the class
period, defendants were in possession of materially adverse information
concerning the Company's lack of proper accounting controls and
improper revenue recognition practices.

On April 18, 2002, the Company disclosed that one of its subsidiaries
had been booking revenue without evidence of customer acceptance.  The
Company also disclosed that the subsidiary did not have proper
restrictions to vendor access within its accounts payable system.

Defendants also made false or misleading misrepresentations that all
major hospitals in the West Palm Beach, Florida area would be equipped
with VeriChip scanners -- an essential component for use of the
Company's VeriChip technology. On May 10, 2002, it was disclosed that
no hospital had accepted the scanner. On this news, Applied Digital
shares dropped 30%.

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


CRYOLIFE INC.: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CryoLife Inc.,
(NYSE: CRY) between April 2, 2001 and July 5, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson, President, CEO and Chairman,

     (2) James C. VanderWyck, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and
         Quality Assurance,

     (3) D. Ashley Lee, Vice President and CFO and

     (4) Albert E. Heacox, Vice President, Laboratory Operations

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making material misrepresentations
and/or failing to make material disclosures throughout the class period
due to their failure to disclose and correct quality control problems
in the Company's processing of human tissues and heart valves.

As a result, the Company's class period assurances to the investing
public that patient safety was of paramount concern to it and that the
Company complied with applicable governmental processing and quality
regulations were also knowingly false when made.

On June 24, 2002 the Company issued a press release stating that the
Company had received its first and only warning letter from the FDA and
denying that there was any evidence of fungal infection in the heart
valves which had triggered the FDA's second inspection of the Company's
facilities in March of 2002.  

On July 5, 2002, the Company issued a corrective press release
announcing that it had received a warning letter from the FDA in 1997,
and that it had been notified by the CDC that there was evidence of
fungal infection in at least one of the heart valves it had supplied.

On July 6, 2002, however, the Wall Street Journal Online reported that
CDC disagreed with the Company's June 24 and July 5 statements, as a
result of a letter the CDC knew the Company had received in March of
2002 in which evidence of the fungal infection was discussed.  

The market's reaction to the Company's corrective disclosures and to
the CDC's disclosure was swift and severe - its common stock dropped
from a high of almost $45 per share during the class period and of
$23.66 per share just before the disclosure to as low as $9.90 per
share on July 10, 2002.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented its
2001 income and earnings during the class period, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), overstating both
income and earnings per share by approximately 20%.  The Company
admitted that its previously issued financial statements were false in
a March 29, 2002 press release, which announced that the Company had
restated its reported financial results for 2001.

For more details, contact Nikole Davenport by Mail: 2900 Promenade II,
1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta Georgia 30309 by Phone:
888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: nmd@classlaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com.  


DUKE ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Suit On Behalf of Plan Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP initiated a 401(k) breach of fiduciary duty class
action against Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE:DUK) on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Company's 401(k) retirement plan
from January 1, 2000 through the present.

The complaint filed alleges that the Company, and its plan
administrators, breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence.  The complaint continues that the breach occurred when
material information was withheld or concealed from the 401(k) Plan
participants and beneficiaries with respect to the Company's business,
financial results and operations, thereby encouraging current and
former Company employees to continue to make and maintain substantial
investments in stock in the Plan.

On May 17, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that it
had "analyzed its trades for the three-year period from 1999 through
2001 to identify those trades which may have some of the
characteristics of sell/buy-back trades."  These trades, known as
"round-trip" or "wash" transactions, involve the simultaneous buying
and trading of power in the same price and same amount. The Company had
engaged in approximately $1 billion of "round-trip" energy trades,
which provided no economic benefit for the Company.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o by Phone: 800-776-6044 by E-
mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the Website:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who acquired securities of Flextronics
International, Ltd. (NASDAQ:FLEX) between October 2, 2001 and June 4,
2002, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) Michael E. Marks,

     (2) Michael McNamara and

     (3) Robert R.B. Dykes.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between October 2, 2001 and June 4, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
consistently represented that its business was thriving in the global
electronics, telecommunications and handheld device markets.  
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company was suffering from a
host of undisclosed adverse factors that were negatively impacting its
business and which would cause it to report declining financial
results, materially less than market expectations.

On June 4, 2002, the final day of the class period, and only months
after certain officers and directors unloaded over $500 million of
Company shares priced at almost $26.00 per share upon unsuspecting
investors, defendants shocked the market when they finally revealed
that the restructuring, purportedly paid for in October 2001 and
substantially completed thereafter, was still far from complete.
Defendants admitted that there were at least an additional $150 million
in restructuring charges that had to be recorded.

In addition, defendants also stated that they could not possibly meet
the Company's previous earnings and revenue forecasts for its first
fiscal quarter 2003.  Defendants admitted that the Company would earn
as little as $0.05 per share, as little as one-third the $0.13 per
share Defendants forecast at the time of the January public offering
and thereafter throughout the class period. Revenue estimates too were
suddenly reduced, with only $3 billion in revenue now forecast for the
first quarter 2003, compared to prior estimates of $3.3 billion.

For more information, 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


KNIGHT TRADING: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District Of New Jersey on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Knight Trading Group, Inc. between
October 13,1999 and June 3,2002.

The suit charges the Company and Kenneth D. Pasternak, Knight's CEO,
with violations of sections 10(B) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants'
material omissions and materially false and misleading statements
regarding the nature of the Company's trading practices, caused Company
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors.

The suit alleges that defendants' statements between October 13, 1999
and June 3, 2002 regarding the Company's financial performance and
trading practices were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented, among other things:

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

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

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

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9161
or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


MERCK & CO.: Squitieri & Fearon Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court of New Jersey on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) common
stock during the period July 1,1999 through June 21,2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violating the federal securities laws.  Those officers and
directors are:

     (1) Raymond V. Gilmartin, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Kenneth C. Frazier, Senior Vice President and General
         Counsel,

     (3) Richard C. Henriques, Vice President and Controller,

     (4) Judy C. Lewent, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
         Officer and Principal Financial Officer, and

     (5) Mary McDonald, Senior Vice President and General Counsel

The lawsuit claims that the Company and the officers who are named in
the Complaint artificially inflated the Company's sales by improperly
including consumer co-payments as revenues in the Company's numerous
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and its public
statements about its financial results during the class period.

For more details, contact Lee Squitieri or Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. by
Phone: 800-432-8174 or by E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in OR
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and the head of its Internet group,
Henry Blodget, on behalf of purchasers of eToys, Inc. (PNK: ETYSQ.PK)
securities between June 27, 1999 and March 7, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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


PERKINELMER INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer 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, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The suti 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 during the class period.  During the class
period, the individual defendants and other Company insiders sold
595,000 shares of Company common stock, reaping gross proceeds in
excess of $18.4 million.

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

     (1) the Company's revenues and earnings would continue to
         increase,

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

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

The complaint alleges, however, that these and other representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing a decline in the demand for its
    
         products, especially at its Optoeletronics division;

    (ii) the Company was carrying tens of millions of dollars of
         obsolete inventory on its books; and

   (iii) the Company's expenses were soaring due to numerous
         acquisitions and divestitures it had undertaken.

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

However, 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 would break even, instead of
meeting the previously projected target of $0.16 - $0.17 earnings per
share that the Company reported on March 1, 2002.

In reaction to this announcement, Company stock plummeted by another
28%, falling from $16.70 per share on April 10, 2002 to $12.04, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
pguiteau@whhf.com.


REHABCARE GROUP: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of RehabCare Group, Inc. (NYSE: RHB)
common stock during the period between February 7, 2001 and January 21,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
between February 7, 2001 and January 21, 2002.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's supplemental staffing division.  The complaint alleges these
statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the supplemental staffing division was experiencing
serious operational problems with information systems critical for
matching supply with demand and poor employee training and retention
and that its revenues and earnings were declining as a result.

On January 21, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
earnings for its fourth quarter 2001 would be less than half than they
had reiterated in late October and that the Company would take a charge
of $8.5 to $9.5 million, $3 million of which was for a reorganization
of the staffing division.

In reaction to the Company's disclosure, as alleged in the complaint,
the price of its common stock plummeted by 25% over one trading day on
heavy volume, falling from $25.21 per share to $18.70 per share.  

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, as
alleged in the complaint, the Company completed a secondary offering of
common stock, raising $50 million for the Company and more than $8
million for Company insiders.  In addition, Company insiders also sold
$4,568,209 worth of Company stock during the class period at
artificially inflated prices.

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


TELLABS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Tellabs, Inc. (Nasdaq: TLAB) from December 11, 2000 through June 19,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
between December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001.

According to the complaint, the Company had represented to the public,
in press releases issued throughout the class period, that:

     (1) its new products were enjoying strong demand;

     (2) the seeming slowdown in its business was due to "component-
         parts shortages which have been corrected;" and

     (3) the Company's business was strong fundamentally and the
         Company would meet earnings and revenues expectations.

The complaint alleges that these, and other, statements were materially
false and misleading because, as alleged in the complaint, its new
optical networking line of products were inferior to the competition
and their products were not well-received or in high demand.

The complaint further alleges that, contrary to its statements to the
investing public, the Company's highly-touted acquisition of SALIX was
a failure as sales of the product line it gained in the acquisition
were falling.

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

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

For more details, contact 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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Johnson & Perkinson Expands Securities Suit Class
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson expanded the class period in the securities class
action pending in the US District Court for New Hampshire against Tyco
International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) to include purchasers of the Company's
securities from April 25, 2002 through June 12, 2002.

The complaint asserts claims against the Company and several of its top
officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs
allege:

     (1) the Company's financial results announced on April 25, 2002
         overstated the value of CIT Group, a wholly owned Tyco
         subsidiary, by $4.5 to $6.5 billion, thereby materially
         inflating the reported financial results of Tyco;

     (2) defendants failed to reveal the material risk that the public
         offering of CIT stock by Tyco would not be able to be competed
         once the criminal investigation of one of the defendants
         became public or, if it were, would only occur at a value far
         below that represented defendants; and

     (3) defendants failed to reveal the ongoing criminal
         investigations of one of its top officers.

As a result, Company securities were artificially inflated throughout
the class period, causing plaintiff and other members of the class to
purchase or sell such securities at prices skewed by defendants'
conduct.  At the end of the class period, the Company announced the
need to restate its financial results to write down $4.5 billion of
CIT's goodwill.

For more details, contact Dennis J. Johnson or Jacob B. Perkinson by
Mail: 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 by Phone:
888-459-7855 or by E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net.  


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securitie class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of purchasers of Uniroyal Technology Corporation (Nasdaq:
UTCI) publicly traded securities during the period between February 8,
2000 and May 13, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) George Zulanas, Jr. and

     (2) Howard R. Curd

The complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market between February 8, 2000 and May
13, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants issued a series of press
releases touting its financial stability and its acquisition of
Sterling Semiconductor, while strategically positioning the Company to
increase its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
industry via internal growth.

However, unbeknownst to the investing public that purchased the Company
stock during the class period:

     (i) the Company was not a financially stable company;

    (ii) its acquisition of Sterling was not lucrative at all; and

   (iii) it was not strategically positioning the Company to increase
         its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
         industry via acquisition and internal growth.

But for the Company's financial support, Sterling would probably have
been forced to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws. Sterling was
a development stage company and not, as defendants touted, "a leading
developer of silicon carbide technology and materials."  Moreover, in
order to materially inflate the Company's net worth and further foster
the illusion of growth, defendants agreed to pay an inflated price for
Sterling with materially overvalued stock serving as currency.

On December 31, 2001, eighteen months after having acquired Sterling in
exchange for stock, with a purported value of more than $40 million,
the Company shocked the market by announcing that it recorded a write-
down of Sterling goodwill of approximately $9,816,000.

On January 2, 2002, Company stock closed at $1.69 down from $3.20 the
previous day and substantially down from its class period high of
$71.125 reached on February 23, 2000.

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


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Uniroyal Technology Corp.
(Nasdaq:UTCI) between February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002, inclusive
against the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants issued a series of press
releases touting its financial stability and its acquisition of
Sterling Semiconductor, while strategically positioning the Company to
increase its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
industry via internal growth.

However, unbeknownst to the investing public that purchased the
Company's stock during the class period:

     (1) Uniroyal was not a financially stable company;

     (2) its acquisition of Sterling was not lucrative at all; and

     (3) it was not strategically positioning the Company to increase
         its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
         industry via acquisition and internal growth.

But for the Company's financial support, Sterling would probably have
been forced to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws.  Sterling was
a development stage company and not, as defendants touted, "a leading
developer of silicon carbide technology and materials."  Moreover, in
order to materially inflate the Company's net worth and further foster
the illusion of growth, defendants agreed to pay an inflated price for
Sterling with materially overvalued stock serving as currency.

On December 31, 2001, eighteen months after having acquired Sterling in
exchange for stock, with a purported value of more than $40 million,
the Company shocked the market by announcing that it recorded a write-
down of Sterling goodwill of approximately $9,816,000.  On January 2,
2002, Company stock closed at $1.69 down from $3.20 the previous day
and substantially down from its class period high of $71.125 reached on
February 23, 2000.

For more information, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whhf.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  * * *