CAR_Public/020204.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, February 4, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 23

                            Headlines

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Another Layer Of Defendants Added To Enron Battle
COOPER TIRE: Judge Considers $64 Million Settlement To Consumer Suit
EARL SMITH: SCI Subsidiary Faces Suit For Misplacing Cremated Remains
EASY MONEY: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Suit For "Usurious" Loan Rates
EASY MONEY: Sued For Charging "Usurious" Loan Rates in E.D. Kentucky

HEWLETT PACKARD: Consumers Sue For Sale of Half-Full Ink Cartridges
HEWLETT PACKARD: Sued For Sale of Computer With Defective Floppy Chip
IBM CORPORATION: Gypsies File Suit For Contribution To Nazi Atrocities
IBP INC.: Seeks Appeals Court Permission To Appeal Class Certification
NEW ORLEANS: Report Finds Prison Health Care At Fault In Inmate's Death

SOUTH CAROLINA: Workers Sue Electric & Gas Utility For Racial Bias
TYSON FOODS: Faces Multiple Suits For Water Pollution Due To Facilities
UNITED STATES: Court Awards Free Medical Treatment To Military Retirees
VECTOR MANUFACTURING: Voluntarily Recalls Defective Power Inverters
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls 1.4M Dehumidifiers Due To Fire Hazard

                        Securities Fraud

ACLN LTD.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Just Part of IPO Litigation Trend
ALLOY INC.: Denies Allegations In Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Proceeds In Amended Securities Suit in S.D. CA
DIGITAL ISLAND: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware

DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: Workers Seek 401K Suit Go-Ahead Despite Bankruptcy
HOMESTORE.COM: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HOMESTORE.COM: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. California
JENNY CRAIG: Shareholder Files Suit To Block Sale To Investment Group

LUMENIS LTD.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set For March 25 in NY
ONYX SOFTWARE: To Vigorously Defend Against Multiple Securities Suits
OPTICAL CABLE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. VA
SPX CORPORATION: Trial In Suit Over VSI Merger Moved To February 2003
TALX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities suit in E.D. MI

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Denies Allegations In Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                              
                            *********


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Another Layer Of Defendants Added To Enron Battle
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, has added another layer of defendants to
the Enron lawsuit craze, according to a recent report by the Financial
Times.  The Governor has announced that the State is considering suing
Alliance Capital Management, the asset manager that held Enron stock in
a portfolio it managed for the state's pension fund.  

The Company was one of the largest institutional holders of Enron
shares, and Alfred Harrison, the manager in charge of the Florida
pension account, continued buying shares as the shares plunged.  Mr.
Harrison did not give up this position until the shares reached 28
cents in late November.  In December, Florida fired Alliance which was
managing a $3.3 billion part of its pension fund.

Florida's State Board of Administration, the fourth-largest public
pension fund in the United States, is already suing Enron and its
auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, and its lawsuit is one of the many filed
by the nation's public pension funds, which collectively manage $2100
billion of assets.

Who lost how much money matters, because it will decide which large
investor becomes the lead plaintiff in the class action.  Funds with
the biggest losses are competing to be lead plaintiff.  Florida's $94
billion state pension fund lost $325 million on its 7.6 million Enron
shares as the stock collapsed.  It is not clear at this moment which
institution will grab the dubious honor.  The lead plaintiff will
direct the litigation, and have the most forceful voice in the way the
case is conducted.  A judge in Texas is expected to decide on the
matter in the next month.

Florida's losses are believed to be the largest by a single fund.  For
good measure, the State has joined forces with New York City's pension
funds, which lost $109 million, in making its bid for lead plaintiff
status.  However, there is some doubt as to whether Florida is eligible
for lead plaintiff status, because of its unique relationship with
Alliance Capital, which kept buying shares as Enron collapsed.  
Furthermore, the law is unclear whether lead plaintiff means a single
investor or a coalition.

If the judge interprets the rule as meaning the single biggest loser,
and therefore disqualifies Florida, then the winner will be the
University of California's pension and endowment funds that lost $145
million from Enron holdings, and which also is seeking lead plaintiff
status.

Although Enron is in bankruptcy, and is therefore protected until the
company has restructured itself, large pension funds can be patient.

"We understand they (Enron) are in bankruptcy, but there are assets of
the company that we might be able to reach.  We have a fiduciary duty
on behalf of our 650,000 members," said a spokeswoman for the Florida
Board of Administration.  At the same time, the funds are keen not to
alarm pensioners and have reassured members that the losses are small
relative to the overall size of the plan.


COOPER TIRE: Judge Considers $64 Million Settlement To Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After two days of hearings, Superior Court Judge Marina Corodemus, in
New Brunswick, New Jersey, is considering whether to approve the
proposed $64 million settlement of a nationwide class action against
Ohio tire manufacturer, Cooper Tire & Rubber Corporation, the
Associated Press reports.

The suit charged the Company with selling tires with hidden defects,
alleging that it knew a manufacturing defect had let air bubbles into
the inner liners of some tires and that workers at company plants poked
holes in the rubber to drain that air.

The settlement, according to Arvin Maskin, lead attorney for the tire
maker, includes these terms:


     (1) Enhanced warranties will be given to the Company's customers,
         who have bought more than 170 million steel-belted tires since
         1985;

     (2) An educational program to teach customers about tires will be
         established, and tire inspections at the Company's plants
         will be strengthened;

     (3) About $34 million will cover the enhanced warranties for 170
         million steel-belted radial tires bought since 1985.  Buyers
         whose treads separated because of a manufacturing defect will
         receive replacement tires;

     (4) About $30 million of the settlement will go to about 100
         lawyers who have filed 33 consumer fraud lawsuits since
         October 2000;

The Company, a whose largest distribution center is in South Brunswick,
agreed to the settlement but did not admit to any wrongdoing.

At the recent hearing, attorney Bonnie Robin Vergeer of the consumer
watchdog organization, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and some
plaintiffs' attorneys said too much of the settlement was for attorneys
and that its terms would bring little benefit to about 42 million
people who have bought the Company's tires since 1985.

"The new warranty covers only treads separation," Ms. Robin-Vergeer
told the Judge Corodemus. "Almost never will anyone have a chance to
use it."  The Company said that the warranty will cover all separations
and that it would pay any claims regardless of how long the tire had
been on the road. The settlement has been five months in the making.


EARL SMITH: SCI Subsidiary Faces Suit For Misplacing Cremated Remains
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two sisters filed a class action in Palm Beach Circuit Court against
E.Earl Smith& Son funeral home in Lake Worth, Florida, alleging that
the cremated remains they believed was their mother's was actually not
hers.

Plaintiffs Donna and Gary Bello thought they were fulfilling their
mother's wish by traveled around the world, holding memorial
observances and scattering cremated ashes at the sites of her most
cherished memories. They allegedly did not know the remains they
carried were not of their mother, Grace Violet Billingham.

According to a Miami Herald report, Ms. Bello discovered the error in
January 2001, when she came across the urn that had contained what were
supposed to be Mrs. Billingham's ashes. Inside, she discovered a
medallion with a serial number that did not match the serial number on
the certificate attached to the urn, the suit alleges.  The Company has
since refused to return Mrs. Billingham's remains, prompting the Bellos
to sue for breach of contract, negligent handling of a dead body and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and requests unspecified
monetary damages.

According to Jaclyn Muskat, attorney for the Bellos, the Company agreed
to return Mrs. Billingham's true remains, but only if the family agreed
to return the ashes they were given. "They were saying: `I'll give him
mine if you give me yours,'" Ms. Muskat said.  "How are my clients to
have confidence in the fact that they would be receiving the proper
ashes?"

E. Earl Smith is owned by Service Corporation, Incorporated (SCI) the
same Company that owns the controversial Menorah Gardens in Palm Beach,
Florida.  Menorah Gardens currently faces a class action accusing it
and SCI of digging up bodies, burying people haphazardly and discarding
human bones in nearby woods. Hundreds of bodies have allegedly been
misplaced or desecrated at cemeteries in Broward and Palm Beach
counties.

SCI spokesman Greg Bolton said in a statement that the incident was
".an unfortunate documentation error. We have verified and identified
the (remains). They have been offered to the family, and (the family
has) declined."  He added Mrs. Billingham's remains ".are secure and
stored at the funeral home."

Neal Hirschfeld, the Fort Lauderdale attorney who filed the class-
action suit against Menorah Gardens, told the Miami Herald that he was
not surprised to learn SCI was accused of mishandling remains. "We've
heard many stories involving the cremation procedures and policies, and
received various statements from former employees criticizing the way
cremations were handled," he said.


EASY MONEY: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Suit For "Usurious" Loan Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy Money Holdings, Inc. has asked the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana to dismiss a class action
commenced in October 2000, alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and Louisiana Usury Laws.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Easy Money of Louisiana, Inc.,

     (2) Easy Money of Virginia, Inc.,

     (3) David L. Greenberg,

     (4) Tami Van Gorder and

     (5) Jerome Greenberg

The suit alleges the defendants offered to loan money to consumers at
usurious rates, and that defendants charged duplicate fees in
connection with certain rollover loan transactions.

The Court has not certified the class in the suit, and has yet to
decide on the dismissal motion filed by the Company.  The Company
vehemently denied the allegations in the suit and stated its intent to
vigorously oppose it in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


EASY MONEY: Sued For Charging "Usurious" Loan Rates in E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy Money Holding Corporation faces an amended class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Lexington Division, for allegedly charging "usurious rates" for
consumer laws.

The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Easy Money of Kentucky, Inc.,

     (2) Easy Money of Virginia, Inc.,

     (3) David L. Greenberg,

     (4) Tami Van Gorder,

     (5) Jerome Greenberg,

     (6) John Murphy,

     (7) Sterling Financial Bank and

     (8) several unknown individuals and entities

The suit alleges that the defendants engaged in fraud and violated:

     (i) the Kentucky Interest and Usury Statute,

    (ii) the Kentucky Consumer Loans Act,

   (iii) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and

    (iv) the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act

The plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of customers similarly
usurious interest rates for consumer loans. The suit alleges that  
defendants illegally coerced payment of monies from plaintiffs and
other class members by threatening to pursue collection of the debts.  
The complaint also charges that defendants were not properly licensed
under Kentucky state law.

The Company labeled the suit without merit and vows to vigorously
defend against the suit.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Consumers Sue For Sale of Half-Full Ink Cartridges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer company Hewlett Packard, Inc. faces multiple consumer class
actions in over 30 states, charging the Company with "unfair business
practices" when it allegedly sold printers with half-full or "economy"
ink cartridges instead of full cartridges.

The suits sprang from one class action commenced in California Federal
Court by three residents of San Bernardino, California.  The plaintiffs
claimed to have purchased different models of the Company's inkjet
printers over the past three years. The Company allegedly sold the
printers with half-full ink cartridges and led the plaintiffs to
believe they would receive full cartridges, through its advertising,
packaging and marketing representations.

The suit further contends that the Company's advertising, and failure
to advise specifically that "economy" cartridges were included,
constitute false and misleading conduct in violation of both the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Company failed to enter into an early settlement of this action,
leading to the filing of consumer class actions in other states in
coordination with the original plaintiffs.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Sued For Sale of Computer With Defective Floppy Chip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard, Inc. faces a nationwide defective product consumer
class action commenced in April 2001 in a Texas federal court, alleging
that the Company knowingly sold computers containing a defective chip.

A resident of Eastern Texas filed the suit, which was similar to five
other suits filed against several computer manufacturers on the same
day. The suit alleges that the Company sold computers containing floppy
disk controller chips that fail to detect both overruns and underruns
if either occurs on the last byte of a read/write operation.  This
allegedly led to data loss, data corruption or system failure.

After filing this action, the plaintiff's counsel commenced a related
action with the State of Illinois, the State of California and the
United States of America.

The Company asserts in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that an adverse outcome in this litigation will not have a
material effect on its financial position or operations.


IBM CORPORATION: Gypsies File Suit For Contribution To Nazi Atrocities
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Corporation faces a class action filed in Switzerland this week by
Gypsies who allege the Company's expertise helped the Nazis commit mass
murder more efficiently, the Associated Press reports.  

The Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action commenced
the suit in Geneva in behalf of four Gypsies from Germany and France
and one Polish-born Swedish Gypsy, who were orphaned during the
Holocaust.  The group began considering a class action after American
author, Edwin Black, wrote in a book last year that IBM punch-card
machines enabled the Nazis to make their killing more efficient.

Associated Press reports Mr. Black's book as saying that the punch-card
machines were used to codify information about people sent to
concentration camps. The number 12 represented a Gypsy inmate, while
Jews were recorded with the number 8. The code D4 meant a prisoner had
been killed.

May Bittel, head of the Gypsy group, said the suit was based on moral
reparation and expects more Holocaust survivors to join the suit.  He
told AP, "Our aim is to achieve recognition of IBM's complicity in
crimes against humanity."  The lawsuit was filed in Geneva because
IBM's wartime European headquarters were in the city. "Swiss law is
clear - selling goods and services destined to be used in a crime is
itself criminal," he added.

Company spokesman Ian Colley told the Associated Press said he could
not comment on the lawsuit because the company had not received a copy.  
He asserts "The fact that the Hollerith machines were used by the Nazis
has been known for many years - but we have very little information
about what happened."  He also emphasized that the Company "abhorred
Nazi atrocities"

The Company has said its German subsidiary, Deutsche Hollerith
Maschinen GmbH, was taken over by the Nazis before World War II, like
other companies operating in Germany.


IBP INC.: Seeks Appeals Court Permission To Appeal Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat producer IBP, Inc. asked the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
seeking permission to appeal the US District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama's decision to grant class certification to an
antitrust lawsuit commenced against the Company by cattle producers
nationwide.

The suit alleges that the Company has used its market power and alleged
"captive supply" agreements to reduce the prices paid to producers for
cattle.

After several amendments and denials of their class certification
motions, the plaintiffs finally garnered the District Court's approval
in December 2001, certifying a class of cattle producers who have sold
exclusively to the Company on a cash market basis.

In January 2002, the Company filed a petition with the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification
decision.  The petition asks the Appellate Court to permit an appeal
to:

     (1) enforce the Appellate Court's earlier directive to the Federal
         Court as to the proper standards for evaluating conflicts
         between plaintiffs and class members;

     (2) establish the standards the plaintiffs must meet when
         plaintiffs claim they can prove a class-wide case with expert
         testimony; and

     (3) define the requirements for providing individual notice to
         potential class members.  

The Company believes it has acted properly and lawfully in its dealings
with cattle producers.  However, the outcome of this matter and any
potential liability on the part of the Company cannot be determined at
this time.


NEW ORLEANS: Report Finds Prison Health Care At Fault In Inmate's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A report commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was
filed recently in the long-running class-action lawsuit against Orleans
Parish Prison over the inadequate care given prison inmates in the
psychiatric units of the prison, The Times-Picayune reported recently.
The report was requested by the ACLU in the wake of the mysterious
death of Shawn Duncan, a healthy 24-year-old, who was found dead after
spending a week in jail on traffic charges.

According to the Orleans Parish coroner's office, Mr. Duncan died from
complications related to dehydration while being held in restraints for
more than 42 hours in the prison psychiatric unit.  After Mr. Duncan's
death, the ACLU commissioned Denver-based mental health expert Dr.
Jeffrey Metzner to assess the psychiatric care at the prison.  Dr.
Metzner's conclusions, stated in the report, assert that the
psychiatric units at Orleans Parish Prison suffer from inadequate
staffing, improper use of restraints and a dangerous policy of allowing
inmates to administer their own medication.

Dr. Metzner did not comment directly on the course of medical care
provided to Mr. Duncan.  He did say, however, that many of the policies
and procedures that guided his care are inadequate, especially those
involving the use of restraints.

"The use of restraints and seclusion is very problematic for several
reasons," he wrote.  According to Dr, Metzner, Orleans Parish inmates
who are placed in restraints are forced to wait more than 24 hours
before they are examined by a doctor.  He said the federal standard for
psychiatric hospitals is one hour while an acceptable standard for
correctional facilities is four hours.  

In addition, he said, the prison puts inmates at risk by using
restraints in bunk beds and by not providing range of motion exercises
to prevent blood clots.  Furthermore, the prison relies too heavily on
untrained deputies to check on restrained inmates.  He said the prison
should adopt a standard requiring restrained inmates to be checked
every two hours by a nurse or doctor.

"These standards of care are not being used at Orleans Parish Prison,"
said attorney Mohamedu Jones, who is based in Washington, D.C., and
heading the lawsuit for the ACLU.  "They certainly weren't used in
the case of Shawn Duncan."

Dr. Metzner found that the inadequate staffing applies generally to all
psychiatric inmates, saying the prison should at least double the
number of psychiatrists currently employed.  He also criticized the
prison's policy of allowing some inmates under psychiatric care to
keep and administer their own medication.  Shortly after Mr. Duncan's
death, prison officials acknowledged that Mr. Duncan ingested
medication that he stole from other inmates.

Local attorney Mary Howell, who is representing Shawn Duncan's family,
said the prison's self-medication policy is alarming.  "On every level
of common sense, to have self-administration of medication on a mental
ward is a bad idea," Ms. Howell said.  

Ms. Howell, who is conducting a separate investigation into Mr.
Duncan's death, said the inadequacies outlined by Dr. Metzner directly
contributed to Mr. Duncan's death.  "His report confirms everything we
have discovered so far in the Shawn Duncan case," she said.

The Sheriff's Office has not yet filed a response to Dr. Metzner's
report, and Criminal Sheriff Charles Foti Jr. could not be reached for
comment.  In the past, Sheriff Foti has said, that since 1993, the
National Commission on Correctional Health Care has accredited his
prison since.  Additionally, a $5 million unit suitable for up to 400
inmates stricken with mental illness and other serious medical problems
is under construction.

The investigation into Mr. Duncan's death conducted under the aegis of
the ACLU, is also the subject of criminal investigations by the FBI
and the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Workers Sue Electric & Gas Utility For Racial Bias
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight employees of the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G)
have sued the State's largest utility and its parent company, Scana
Corporation, claiming discrimination against black employees, the
Associated Press recently reported.

The federal lawsuit alleges that the workers, whose tenures range from
10 to 30 years, were denied promotions and that the Company did little
to stop racial insults and pranks by white co-workers.  Several of the
"pranks" involved mock hanging nooses.  

"I felt I was blocked several times by my supervisor," said Alfred
Bates, 33, of North Augusta, South Carolina, who has been with the
company for 12 years.  "My manager said SCE&G doesn't block people, but
nobody would ever explain why I wasn't moving ahead."

Darnell Dobson, 35, of Irmo, who works in the SCE&G delivery division,
says top SCANA officials did little or nothing after three white
employees handed him a typewritten copy of a racially offensive joke.
Mr. Dobson reported the incident with names, but later learned an SCE&G
investigation was "inconclusive."  A second investigation, at Mr.
Dobson's insistence, ended with of the three white workers being
transferred to another division, he said.

Frank Dickerson, 47, of Columbia, said he and other plaintiffs
discussed their concerns with management for more than a year without
getting any agreement on remedies.  "We think it is justified to bring
this action against them," he said.  "SCE&G needs to be accountable for
the treatment of its employees."

"Each of these gentlemen has served his company faithfully," attorney
for the plaintiffs, Carl Solomon said.  "They just want to be treated
fairly."

Company spokesman Robin Montgomery said the Company enforces a code of
conduct that forbids racial taunts or discrimination.  "We have a
full-time staff in place that thoroughly investigates any kind of
inappropriate behavior in the workplace," he states.  "And we take
corrective action when warranted."

He added that officials at the 5,600-employee energy holding company
have had to deal with "isolated incidents" of racial discrimination,
but had dealt with each of them on an individual basis.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Multiple Suits For Water Pollution Due To Facilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poultry producer, Tyson Foods, Inc., intends to vigorously oppose
several class actions in Oklahoma and Missouri charging the Company's
operation with polluting the water supply.  The Company said the
allegations are "unfounded."

The first class action was commenced in October 2001 in the District
Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by Grand Lake homeowners R. Lynn
Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson on behalf of all owners of Grand Lake
O' the Cherokee's lake front property.

The suit alleges that the Company "or entities over which it has
operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to interfere
with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, allegedly
caused by diminished water quality in the lake.  In November 2001, the
suit was removed to the US District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

The Company faces another class action filed in December, 2001 by the
City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, against the Company and:

     (1) Cobb-Vantress, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,

     (2) four other fully integrated poultry companies and

     (3) the City of Decatur, Arkansas

With respect to the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc., the suit alleges
that degradation of the Tulsa water supply is attributable to the non
point source run-off from the land application of poultry litter in the
watershed feeding the lakes that act as Tulsa's water supply.  The suit
further states that the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc. are responsible
for the alleged over application of poultry litter in the watershed.

Recently, the US Attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri
advised the Company that the government intends to seek its indictment
for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act related to activities at
its Sedalia, Missouri facility.

The Company is presently discussing the possible resolution of this
matter but neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the
amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this matter can
be determined at this time.


UNITED STATES: Court Awards Free Medical Treatment To Military Retirees
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal fight waged by aging military retirees to regain free medical
treatment will return to a federal court in Washington, DC, for oral
argument on March 6, the Associated Press recently reported.  The full
11-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will rehear the
case that a three-member panel last year decided in favor of two Air
Force retirees from Fort Walton Beach, Florida.  A retiree organization
called the Class Act Group has raised money to support the litigation.

Earlier, the retirees' lawyer, retired Air Force Colonel George "Bud"
Day, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam and Medal of Honor winner,
persuaded the Appellate Court panel that the limitation of a 1956 law
allowing retiree care only on a space-available basis at military
medical facilities, did not apply to the plaintiffs, who had joined the
service before passage of  the 1956 law.  However, the federal
government has obtained a rehearing before the full Court.

If the retirees are successful again, the case will return to U.S.
District Court in Pensacola for a determination of damages that could
reach $15 billion, Col. Day said.  It could grow that large if Col. Day
can obtain class-action status for the lawsuit to cover up to 1.5
million World War II-and Korean War-era veterans, who joined the
service before enactment of the 1956 law.  Col. Day's suit also seeks
reimbursement for past medical expenses and a refund of Medicare fees.

Col. Day argues that the government broke a promise of free medical
care for life after 20 years of service by putting the military
retirees on Medicare when they reached 65 and deducting fees for the
federal program from their pension checks.  The retirees also found
space no longer available at many military hospitals and clinics
because of base closures and funding cuts.


VECTOR MANUFACTURING: Voluntarily Recalls Defective Power Inverters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Manufacturing is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,600 power inverters
with ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) outlets. Power inverters
convert DC voltage to AC voltage to allow the operation of household
products using battery power. The GFCIs on the inverters, which are
intended to protect consumers against shock and electrocution, could
fail to operate correctly.  The Company has not received any reports of
injuries or incidents associated with these power inverters.

The recalled power inverters have a red, yellow or black rectangular-
shaped body with white or gray electrical outlets on the side, next to
the volt and amp meters. The outlets on the recalled inverters have
"TEST" and "RESET" buttons. They include these model numbers and names,
located on a label on the top of the power inverters:

     (1) VEC049GF, MAXX Series 1000 Watt Power Inverter,

     (2) VEC049GM, MAXX Series 1000 Watt Power Inverter for Marine
         applications,

     (3) VEC050GF, MAXX Series 1500 Watt Power Inverter,

     (4) VEC050GM, MAXX Series 1500 Watt Power Inverter for Marine
         Applications,

     (5) VEC051GM, MAXX Series 3000 Watt Power Inverter for Marine
         applications,

     (6) VEC049GF, Force Series 1000 Watt Power Inverter,

     (7) VEC050G, Power Force Series 1500 Watt Power Inverter,

     (8) VEC049G, Power Force Series 1000 Watt Power Inverter,

Automotive and marine stores nationwide, and mail-order catalogs sold
these inverters from November 1999 through November 2001 for between
$365.00 and $900.00.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 584-5504
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls 1.4M Dehumidifiers Due To Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1.4 million
dehumidifiers.  The dehumidifiers can overheat, posing a fire hazard.  
The Company has received 13 reports of the dehumidifiers overheating
and causing fires, three of which resulted in extensive property
damage.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled dehumidifiers were sold under the Whirlpool, Kenmore and
ComfortAire brand names.  The dehumidifiers are white plastic, about 2-
feet high and have a front-mounted water bucket. They have serial
numbers that begin with QG, QH, QJ, QK or QL.  The serial number can be
found on a label located on the wall behind the water bucket.

Department and appliance stores nationwide sold the dehumidifiers from
February 1997 through December 2001 for between $130 and $260.  

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 640-7139 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.repair.whirlpool.com.


                            Securities Fraud


ACLN LTD.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP initiated a securities
class against ACLN, Ltd. (NYSE: ASW) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those
persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between May 30, 2000 through December 20, 2001, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) its Chairman & Managing Director,

     (2) its President & Chief Executive Officer, and

     (3) its Chief Financial Officer

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
several press releases and filed quarterly and annual reports with the
SEC which highlighted the Company's growth and strong financial
performance. These statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to describe the true state of financial affairs at
the Company.

Specifically, defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements concerning:

     (i) the disposition of Company stock by its Chairman & Managing
         Director;

    (ii) the Company's ownership of a $6 million shipping vessel named
         the Sea Atef;

   (iii) understatement of the Company's selling, general and
         administrative expenses, causing the Company's net income to
         be overstated;

    (iv) the number of new cars sold in the first quarter of 2000; and

     (v) payments to a company controlled by the Company's Chairman &
         Managing Director for "administrative expenses."

In December 2001, the truth about the Company was finally disclosed
with the publication of an article on TheStreet.com. In response to the
questions raised in the article, Company shares plunged 64%, falling
from $26.11 to close at $9.40 per share.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(or (888) 4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomlaw.com.Those who inquire by e-mail are  
encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Just Part of IPO Litigation Trend
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agilent Technologies, Inc. will mount a vigorous defense against a
securities class action commenced in November 2001 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against various
Company officers and directors and certain investment bank underwriters
concerning the Company's initial public offering (IPO) in late 1999.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of Company IPO shares, in violation of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from November 17, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.

The Company believes it is part of the trend of suing companies who
have initiated IPOs in the past few years saying in its filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, "Other actions have been filed
making similar allegations regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other
companies."  The Company also asserts that it has enough meritorious
defenses to successfully defend against the claim.


ALLOY INC.: Denies Allegations In Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy, Inc. labeled "without merit" the securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May
14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (2) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company,

     (3) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (4) Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc.,

     (5) James K. Johnson, and

     (6) Matthew C. Diamond.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In May 1999, the Company
commenced an initial public offering of 3,700,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $15 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the Company had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which its underwriters allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in
         the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The Company also stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that defending against the suit could result in substantial
costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources, which
could hurt their business.


ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Proceeds In Amended Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the second amended and consolidated securities
class action pending against Ashworth, Inc. after the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California granted, in
part, and denied, in part the Company's motion to dismiss the suit.

The suit was commenced in January 1999 by law firm Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period between September 4, 1997 and July 15,
1998.

The complaint alleged that, during the class period, Company executives
made positive statements about its business including statements
concerning product demand, offshore production and inventories.  The
suit further alleged that the defendants knew these statements to be
false and concealed adverse conditions and trends in the Company's
business during the class period.

The suit was subsequently consolidated with two similar suits and
plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in December
1999, but the court dismissed the suit with leave to amend in July
2000. In September 2000, the plaintiffs served their second amended
suit.

The remaining portions of the second amended suit allege that during
the class period and in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the Company's financial statements, as reported, did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles with respect to
revenues and inventory levels. It further alleges that certain Company
executives made false or misleading statements or omissions concerning
product demand and that two former executives engaged in insider
trading.


DIGITAL ISLAND: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of
holders of Digital Island, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISLD) common stock between May
14, 2001 and August 30, 2001, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) Cable & Wireless PLC,

     (2) Dali Acquisition Corporation,

     (3) Ruan F. Ernst, CEO and

     (4) the Company's board of directors during the class period

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a), 14(e),
14(d)(7) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
14d-10 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose material
information to those Company shareholders who had received an offer to
purchase from defendant Cable & Wireless in May and June 2001, and to
those Company shareholders who received a proxy statement in connection
with the merger between the Company and Cable & Wireless, which was
consummated on August 30, 2001.

In particular, defendants failed to disclose important contracts
between Digital Island and Bloomberg, LLP, and Digital Island and Major
League Baseball's Internet media. Those contracts were not disclosed
either in the offer to purchase or the proxy statement. Defendants also
violated the all-holders provision of the Williams Act by giving
additional consideration to the Company's directors and officers, who
were also shareholders, in excess of that given to other shareholders
as an inducement to support Cable & Wireless' offer to purchase.

For more information, contact Aaron Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street,
New York, New York 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022
or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International Inc.
(Nasdaq:DYII) publicly traded securities during the period between Nov.
29, 1999 and Jan. 16, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants represented that the
Company's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class period,
defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were strong
and that it was consistently achieving "record results."  Defendants
actually knew that the quality of the Company's balance sheet was
eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance of its
facilities and that it improperly cared for patients.

On January 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company
entitled, "Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  
Essentially, the article exposed many of the Company's problems that,
in the days that followed, caused its share price to crumble.

These disclosures shocked the market, causing Company stock to decline
to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on Jan.
17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com/dynacq


ENRON CORPORATION: Workers Seek 401K Suit Go-Ahead Despite Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing Enron Corporation employees who lost money in
their 401(k) retirement plants after the energy giant's collapse have
asked a judge to let their suit proceed even though Enron is tied up in
a bankruptcy court, the Houston Chronicle recently reported.   

Robin L. Harrison, a Houston attorney representing the plan
participants, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay filed in a New
York bankruptcy court, where the Company's fate will be determined.  A
hearing on the matter has been set for February 20.

"In our case, discovery will be very important so we want to try to get
the automatic stay lifted so we can proceed with discovery as well as
our claims against the company," said Mr. Harrison.  He added US
Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Gonzalez had mentioned the possibility of
lifting the stay during a change-of-venue hearing earlier this month.  
He said creditors have made a similar motion, but he was unaware of any
others filed on behalf of retirement-fund participants.

Melanie Gray, a Houston lawyer representing the Company, said attorneys
are "evaluating their response" to the motion.  Timothy Hoeffner,
representing the Company in the bankruptcy case, said he had not seen
the motion and was not in a position to comment.


HOMESTORE.COM: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Homestore.com (NASDAQ: HOMS) in the US District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4,
2000 through December 21, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) its President of the Retail and Consumer Services Group, and

     (3) its former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements concerning its publicly
reported revenues and earnings. As a result of these false and
misleading statements, the market price of the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated during the class period.

On December 21, 2001, after the close of the market, the Company
disclosed that it was conducting an inquiry into its accounting
practices, and announced that it would restate certain of its financial
statements. In response to this announcement, the Nasdaq Stock Market
halted trading of the Company's stock.

Thereafter, on January 2, 2002, the Company announced that it had
overstated its advertising revenues for the first three quarters of
2001 by between $54 million and $95 million in connection with certain
advertising transactions that should have been accounted for as barter
transactions. The Company also announced that transactions under review
included transactions that occurred in 2001, as well as in 2000, and
that there may be additional material restatements of the Company's
financial results.

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


HOMESTORE.COM: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of Homestore.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: HOMS) between July 20, 2000, and December 21, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and several members of its top
management misled the investing public during the class period about
the financial condition of the Company.

On December 21, 2001, after the close of the market, the Company
admitted that past accounting for its prior results was inaccurate, and
that it would have to restate certain of its financial statements. On
this news, the Company's shares were halted and have not traded since.

On January 2, 2002, defendants admitted that the Company's revenue for
2001 had been overstated by as much as $95 million. The Company stated
that an internal investigation revealed that between $54 million and
$95 million of barter transactions during the first three quarters of
2001 were booked incorrectly as advertising transactions.  The
Company's com stock fell from a class period high of $54.625 to $3.60
before trading was halted on December 21, 2001.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman or
Wayne T. Boulton by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.
               

JENNY CRAIG: Shareholder Files Suit To Block Sale To Investment Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Masseo Investments Ltd., a shareholder of Jenny Craig Inc., La Jolla,
California, recently filed a class action suit in Delaware Federal
Court against certain of the weight-loss firm's officers and directors
to stop the sale of the company to a group of private investors,
claiming that the price is below the company's market value, The Wall
Street Journal recently reported.  

The Company said it had agreed to be purchased for $115 million, or
$5.30 a share, by a group led by ACI Capital Corporation and Deutsche
Bank AG's DB Capital Partners.  The diet chain's founders, Jenny and
Sid Craig, who control about 67 percent of its stock, would sell their
stock but keep a 20% equity stake in the new firm.  The suit alleges
that Mr. And Mrs. Craig agreed to a price that was "grossly inadequate
and intrinsically unfair to the company's public shareholders."

The Company's Chief Financial Officer James Kelly said the Company had
not been served with the lawsuit yet and could not comment on the
allegations.  He, however, said that Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin
Financial Advisors had been hired to evaluate the offer and considered
the price to be fair.


LUMENIS LTD.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set For March 25 in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The fairness hearing for the settlement of the securities class action
against Lumenis Ltd. (NASDAQ: LUME) is set for March 25, 2002 at the
United States District court for the Southern district of New York.

The Company earlier agreed to settle the consolidated suit, which
charges the Company, Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and several of its
current and former directors and officers with irregularities in the
way in which the Company reported its financial results and disclosed
certain facts throughout 1997 and 1998 and in the alleged "tipping" of
non-public information to Salomon Smith Barney Inc. in September 1998.

In December 1999, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The Court later entered an order dismissing the claim
against the Company's director and officer defendants and denying the
remaining dismissal counts. The parties then entered into a scheduling
order and have commenced discovery.

The terms of the settlement, which is subject to Court approval,
include a cash payment of $4.5 million and the issuance of between
420,000 and 500,000 shares of Company stock to plaintiffs. Due to the
resolution of a dispute with one of the two re-insurers, the total
consideration to be paid is less than previously announced and provided
for in 2nd Quarter of 2002. As a consequence the Company will recognize
a gain in connection with the settlement.

The hearing will be held to determine an order should be entered
regarding:

     (1) the certification of the suit as a class action pursuant to   
         Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure;

     (2) the approval of the settlement of the claims of the class
         against the defendants; and

     (3) the net settlement fund


ONYX SOFTWARE: To Vigorously Defend Against Multiple Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Onyx Software, Inc. will vigorously oppose several securities class
actions pending in federal and state courts, in which the Company and
several of its officers and directors have been charged with violations
of federal securities laws.

Some suits were commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded stock during various time periods ranging from January
10, 2001 to August 10, 2001.

The suits allege that the Company violated SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act.  
In addition, a shareholder to which the Company issued shares in the
first quarter of 2001 has claimed that the Company made certain
misrepresentations and omissions and otherwise violated the securities
laws.

The Company and two of its directors face other suits in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's stock from December 6, 2000 through
February 12, 1999, sold under the registration statement and prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities Act,
by failing to disclose excessive commissions allegedly obtained by the
underwriters pursuant to a secret arrangement whereby the underwriters
allocated initial public offering shares to certain investors in
exchange for the excessive commissions.  The suit also asserts claims
against the underwriters under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act
in connection with the allegedly undisclosed commissions.

A shareholder derivative lawsuit was also commenced in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County, alleging that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty and their duty of
care to the Company by failing to supervise its public statements and
public filings with the SEC.  As a result of these breaches,
misinformation about the Company's financial condition was disseminated
into the marketplace and filed with the SEC.  The suit asserts that
these actions have exposed the Company to harmful and costly securities
litigation which could potentially result in an award of damages
against the Company.

The Company believes it has several meritorious defenses and, in
certain instances, counterclaims.  The Company stated that the
litigation could potentially harm their financial position, as it could
result in substantial costs to the Company and could divert
management's time and attention away from business operations.


OPTICAL CABLE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Optical Cable
Corporation (Nasdaq: OCCF) between July 31, 2000, and October 8, 2001,
inclusive, against the Company, its President and CEO Robert Kopstein
and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the
class period.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
issued false and misleading statements to the public about the business
and financial health of the Company prior to and during the class
period, yet failed to disclose to the investing public Mr. Kopstein's
use of his stock as collateral for margin loans with various brokerage
accounts he maintained to speculate in technology stocks.

Given Mr. Kopstein's control of 96% of the Company's common stock, his
use of his stock as collateral created a significant risk that large
numbers of these shares could be seized and sold on the open market by
brokerage firms to cover his trading losses.

According to the complaint, Mr. Kopstein had been cautioned by at least
one brokerage firm not to speculate by borrowing money against his
stock to invest in other technology company securities.  His
speculation in other technology companies' securities led to the margin
calls which then resulted in significant losses to the plaintiffs when
the brokerage firms seized his stock and dumped millions of shares on
the market at the same time, resulting in the severe depression of the
Company's stock price.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole
Michael Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to OPTICAL CABLE.


SPX CORPORATION: Trial In Suit Over VSI Merger Moved To February 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The scheduled trial in the class action suit filed against SPX
Corporation (NYSE: SPW) and its directors by VSI Holdings, Inc. has
been extended ninety days at the request of the Company.  The trial
will commence in February 2003 in the Oakland County Michigan Circuit
Court.  VSI Holdings, Inc. filed the lawsuit on behalf of approximately
1,600 shareholders and options holders of the Company.  

The suit alleges that the Company failed to perform its obligations
under the merger agreement of March 2001, and requests the Court to
require the Company to complete the $197 million merger acquisition of
VSI Holdings.

The Company denied VSI Holding's allegations and filed a counterclaim
alleging breach of contract and seeking recovery damages, including a
termination fee of approximately $9 million.

Commenting on the counterclaim, VSI Holdings Chairman and CEO Steve
Toth Jr. said, "The Company asserts that the counter-claim is without
merit and that SPX had no legal basis to terminate the merger
agreement. Furthermore, SPX has had since May 2001 to prepare for the
litigation. We intend to vigorously defend our position and our
shareholders in the upcoming proceedings."


TALX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of Talx Corporation
(Nasdaq: TALX) common stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws.  In August 2001, the Company completed a secondary
offering of 3.245 million shares of its stock (including over-
allotments, and also including the sale of 253,000 shares by the
Company's CEO), raising gross proceeds of approximately $100 million
for the Company, pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus
dated August 2, 2001.

The suit alleges that the registration statement/prospectus was false
and materially misleading for these reasons:

     (1) Defendants had failed to disclose that the Company had
         improperly capitalized significant amounts of software related
         to the Company's customer premised systems line of business,
         which assets were already substantially impaired and which
         would have to be written off in the near term;

     (2) Defendants failed to properly account for the true value of
         the Company's inventory, such that the overstated value of the
         Company's impaired inventory would have to be written down in
         the near term;

     (3) Defendants misrepresented that the Company's business was
         expanding, when it was not, and at which time defendants were
         already planning on reducing staff and closing offices;

     (4) Defendants were already planning to take at least $2.8 million
         in write-offs; and

     (5) the outsourced benefits enrollment business was not operating
         according to the expectations that had been promoted by the
         defendants, and this line of business was not a significant
         growth-driver as represented by the Company.

The suit further alleges that, throughout the class period, the same
factors that were not properly disclosed in the Company's secondary
offering registration statement/prospectus were also hidden by the
defendants from the Company's public shareholders.  The defendants
misled investors and analysts by issuing a series of false and
materially misleading public statements that were designed to and which
did artificially inflate the value of the Company's shares.  This
inflation allowed the Company and its CEO to reap almost $100 million
from the sale of stock.

In October 2001, weeks after the defendants had sold almost $100
million worth of Company stock and used over $11 million in Company
stock to acquire Ti3, that the defendants issued a press release which
revealed that the Company's fiscal 2002 earnings would be only $0.58-
$0.62, excluding charges, on revenues of less than $50 million and that
second quarter fiscal 2002 revenues would be less than $12 million.
TALX also announced it would recognize charges of $2.8 million to write
off capitalized software costs, inventory and to close offices.

As a result of the defendants' shocking disclosures, Company stock
declined to less than $17 per share, representing a loss to investors
of over 50% of the value of their investment by the end of the class
period.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Thomas
Burt, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com. E-mail should refer to TALX.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Denies Allegations In Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software, Inc. intends to put up a vigorous defense against
several securities class actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock between July 13, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated and names as defendants the Company,
several of its officers and directors and:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, and

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation  

The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws because the prospectuses related to the Company's
offerings failed to disclose, and contained false and misleading
statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have been
received by the underwriters, and other underwriter practices, in
connection with their allocation of shares in the offerings.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action lawsuit against
Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB), Williams Communications Group, Inc.
(WCG), and certain individuals associated with those companies, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on
behalf of investors who purchased WMB or WCG securities between July
24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material information to their shareholders regarding:

     (1) the spin-off of WCG from WMB;

     (2) the accounting and financial impact of the contingent
         liabilities retained by WMB; and

     (3) the nature of the assets and liabilities of WCG.

The suit alleges these misleading statements caused the common stock of
both companies to trade at artificially inflated prices.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Phone:
(800) 437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Williams Companies, Inc. (WMB) and/or
Williams Communications Group, Inc. (WCG) between July 24, 2000 and
January 29, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma against both Companies and:

     (1) Keith E. Bailey,

     (2) Howard E. Janzen and

     (3) Scott E. Schubert.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of WMB common stock and WCG common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that WMB and WCG issued a series of
statements concerning their businesses, financial results and
operations which failed to disclose:

     (i) that the spin-off of WCG from WMB was not in the best
         interests of both WMB and WCG shareholders as the primary
         motivation for the spin-off of WCG was to allow WMB to shore
         up its balance sheet so that it could then issue more stock
         and/or debt to acquire companies using its common stock as
         currency and protect its debt rating;

    (ii) that WCG was operating at levels well below company-sponsored
         expectations, such that revenue projections were overstated,
         and costs and expenses were understated, and also such that,
         in an effort to control costs, defendants would soon have to
         take actions which would have a further adverse impact on
         WCG's profitability;

   (iii) that approximately $2 billion of WCG debt that was guaranteed
         for payment by WMB around the time of the spin-off was
         improperly footnoted by WMB as a mere contingent obligation of
         WMB, which was materially false and misleading because the
         declining financial condition of WCG made it increasingly
         certain that WMB would be forced to pay on such guaranties,
         for which it did not adequately reserve;

    (iv) that WCG's assets were permanently impaired and had to be
         written-off and that WCG avoided taking such write-offs on its
         own books through the series of financial machinations
         described in the complaint;

     (v) that WMB was carrying on its financial statements receivables
         from WCG that were impaired, uncollectible and should have
         been written-off in whole or in substantial part. Rather than
         writing off these impaired assets, which amounted to tens of
         millions of dollars, WMB agreed to extend up to $100 million
         of WCG's receivables with an outstanding balance due on March
         31, 2001, to March 15, 2002; and

    (vi) that the sale and leaseback of WCG's office properties in or
         about September of 2001 was a non-arm's-length transaction at
         an inflated value for the properties whose motive and intent
         was to funnel monies to WCG and avoid forcing WMB to perform
         its guaranties and thereby adversely affect its results and
         debt ratings.

In January 2002, as alleged in the complaint, WMB shocked the market by
announcing that it would be delaying the release of its 2001 earnings
"pending an internal assessment of William's contingent obligations to
Williams Communications." According to the press release, WMB "expects
to be able to estimate the financial effect, if any, regarding its
ultimate obligation related to WCG's $1.4 billion debt and network
lease agreement covering assets that cost $750 million."

In response to WMB's shocking announcement, as alleged in the
complaint, the price of WMB common stock, which was already
substantially eroded from its prior year's high, declined sharply,
falling from approximately $24 per share to as low as $18.70 per share
and the already depressed WCG common stock declined to as low as $1.30
per share.

For more information, 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:
www.scott-scott.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  * * *