CAR_Public/020624.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Monday, June 24, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 123

                              Headlines

APPLERA CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
ARGONAUT INSURANCE: Tentatively Agrees to Settle Insurance Claims Suit
ARIZONA: Tucson Residents to Receive Payment for Water Project Damage
BY US INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 132T Mountain Bikes Over Injury Hazard
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Plaintiffs in Boston Abuse Suits Agree to Negotiations
CRITICAL PATH: CA Court Grants Final Approval to $17.5M Suit Settlement
DATRONIC EQUIPMENT: Asks for Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit in CO
DOMINION TELECOM: Landowners Sue Seeking Compensation for Use of Land
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Says State Not Required to Refund Unlawful Tax
HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: Faces Consumer Suit Over Document Fees in N.D. IL
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense in Fraud Suit in CA
MEDICAL RESIDENTS: Medical Group Reduces Trainee Physician's Work Hours
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Resists States' Remedies in Antitrust Litigation
NABORS INDUSTRIES: TX Court Approves Settlement of Wages Antitrust Suit
NEW YORK: City's Parks Dep't Charged With Racial Bias Against Blacks
PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officials Agree to Settle Police Abuse Cases
PINNACLE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Securities Suit in CA
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lorillard to Appeal Award in Secondhand Smoke Suit
TRISTATE CREMATORY: Property Inspection Reveals More Human Remains
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in NY, FL
UICI: Parties Fail to Reach Resolution in Securities Suit in N.D. TX
UL UNITED: Voluntarily Recalls Electrical Paintings for Shock Hazard
UST LIQUIDATING: CA Appeals Court Reinstates Suit Over Veeder-Root Sale
VERISIGN INC.: Enters Agreement Prohibiting Mailing of Domain Notices
WISCONSIN: Judge Clarifies Rules for Mentally Ill at Supermax Prison
XOMA LTD.: Plaintiffs File Amended Unfair Competition Suit in CA Court

                              *********

DUKE ENERGY: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Suit in S.D. NY
PEROT SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
RELIANT ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                              *********


APPLERA CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action relating to its 2000 offering of shares of
Applera - Celera stock.  

The suit was initially filed as five lawsuits on behalf of purchasers
of Applera - Celera stock in the Company's follow-on public offering of
Applera - Celera stock completed on March 6, 2000.  In the offering,
the Company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of
Applera - Celera stock at a public offering price of $225 per share.

The consolidated suit generally alleges that the prospectus used in
connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it
failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human
Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the United
States and the United Kingdom, to providing patent protection to the
Company's genomic-based products.

Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended to
seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint
also alleges that the Company did not adequately disclose the risk that
it would not be able to patent this data.

The Company's dismissal motion is now pending before the court.  
Although the Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and
intends to defend the case vigorously, the outcome of this or any other
litigation is inherently uncertain.


ARGONAUT INSURANCE: Tentatively Agrees to Settle Insurance Claims Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Insurance Company has tentatively agreed to settle a class
action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the Company in
isolated instances inadvertently miscoded loss data regarding workers'
compensation claims reported to the California Workers Compensation
Insurance Rating Bureau from 1989 through 1993.

Following mediation, the Company tentatively agreed, without admitting
liability or any wrongdoing and subject to court approval, to enter
into a class action settlement resolving all claims.  The Company
accrued $1.0 million for legal fees as of March 31, 2002.  Management
is unable to reasonably estimate at this time the amounts, which may be
paid to class members under the tentative settlement.


ARIZONA: Tucson Residents to Receive Payment for Water Project Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Pima County judge has ordered the city of Tucson, Arizona to abide by
a settlement with thousands of Tucson homeowners who sued over damage
caused by Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  Damage payments to the 4,300 class action
plaintiffs could total nearly US$10 million, the Tucson Citizen
reports.

"That's fantastic.  I'm totally stunned," said Lupe Escobar, who still
has not paid the $5,000 repair bill from CAP water-related damage to
her home.

Tucson Water Director David Modeer and Mayor Robert Walkup said the
city will not appeal the decision.  The city has the money to pay the
claims, said Mr. Modeer.

The ruling by Judge Charles V. Harrington should begin a process
allowing participants in the suit to file damage claims with the city.  
This process was halted after the city attorneys balked at the
provision in the agreement asking the city to pay the plaintiffs'
attorney fees.  Judge Harrington ruled that the matter of attorneys'
fees may be decided after the settlement agreement is resolved.

CAP was designed to augment the city's dwindling groundwater supplies
with Colorado River water delivered to 80,000 homes through a 336-mile
canal.  From 1992 to 1994, the utility delivered CAP water to its
customers directly, without a filtration process, with disastrous
results.  

The residents' water pipes and appliances were damaged.  Some homes
received rust-colored, foul-smelling and bad-tasting water that
corroded or burst pipes, plus a mutiplicity of other problems like
growth of mold spores, trees growing in holes in their homes and tiles
falling off the walls.

CAP delivery stopped in 1994 and an improved water program surfaced
after years of infrastructure improvements.  In 1995, Tucson approved
the Water Consumer Protection Act to prevent any recurrence of CAP's
direct treatment and delivery of CAP water.


BY US INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 132T Mountain Bikes Over Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BY US International Co. Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 132,000
Next Ultra Shock mountain bicycles with "Ballistic 105" front
suspension forks.  Dynacraft Industries Inc., of San Rafael, Calif.,
was the sole distributor of these bicycles.

The Company manufactured the forks on these bicycles that can break
apart, causing riders to lose control, fall and suffer serious
injury.  CPSC previously announced the recall of about 103,000 of these
forks sold on bicycles manufactured by Brunswick Corp.
        
There have been 20 reports of the suspension forks breaking on the
Next Ultra Shock bicycles, resulting in 19 riders suffering injuries
that include abrasions, concussions and chipped teeth.
        
The recall includes only Next Ultra Shock bicycles, which are blue,
with model numbers 8524-14 and 8526-20.  They were manufactured between
April 1999 and November 9, 1999.  A label affixed to the frame near the
crank housing identifies the model and date of manufacture.  The name
"Ultra Shock" is written on the bicycle down tube in white lettering.
        
Wal-Mart stores nationwide sold these mountain bikes from May 1999
through December 2000 for about $150.
        
For more information, contact Dynacraft Industries by Phone: (800) 288-
1560 between 7 am and 4 pm PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.dynacraftbike.comfor information on receiving a  
free replacement fork and free installation.
        

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Plaintiffs in Boston Abuse Suits Agree to Negotiations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the people who alleged they were molested by priests in
the Archdiocese of Boston agreed to suspend investigations for 30 days
and discuss a settlement, the Associated Press reports.  

Donna M. Morrissey, a spokeswoman for the Boston Archdiocese, confirmed
that the Archdiocese and lawyers for 275 alleged victims planned to
enter preliminary discussions.  The negotiations will mean that a
deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law that had been scheduled for Thursday
will not take place.

Attorney Roderick MacLeish told AP that other depositions and similar
discovery will be postponed for at least 30 days while the lawyers and
the archdiocese attempt to set a framework for a settlement, MacLeish
said.

However, one key attorney in the suit said that he will not go along
with the negotiations.  Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who represents 86
people who say they were molested by defrocked priest John J. Geoghan,
said he plans to ask a judge next month to force the archdiocese to
honor a tentative US$15-30 million settlement, that the archdiocese and
his clients put together.  The archdiocese later backed out.

The archdiocese is also under investigation by a grand jury, convened
by Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly, which wants to know if
Cardinal Law and his associates failed to keep accused sex abusers away
from contact with children, according to an AP report.


CRITICAL PATH: CA Court Grants Final Approval to $17.5M Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to a settlement in the securities
class action against Critical Path, Inc. (Nasdaq:CPTH).  The suits
allege violations of federal securities laws relating to financial
restatements for the third and fourth quarters of 2000.

As previously announced, the settlement provides for a payment of $17.5
million in cash -- which will be covered by the Company's liability
insurance -- and the issuance by the Company of warrants to purchase
850,000 shares of Company common stock at an exercise price of $10.00
per share.

"We are pleased that the Court has given the settlement its approval,
and we are excited to continue to build upon Critical Path's momentum
in the marketplace," said Critical Path Chief Executive Officer William
McGlashan, Jr., who restored the company to financial stability last
year and refocused its business with a new management team.

For more information, contact Marcie Powers by Phone: 415/541-2662 (For
Reporters) or by E-mail: shane.dolgin@cp.net or contact Mike Bishop by
Phone: 415/541-2619 or by E-mail: Mike.bishop@cp.net


DATRONIC EQUIPMENT: Asks for Dismissal of Breach of Contract Suit in CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Datronic Equipment Income Fund XVI, LP asked Colorado State Court to
dismiss a class action filed against it and:

     (1) Lease Resolutions Corporation (its general partner),

     (2) other limited partnerships of which Lease Resolution
         Corporation is the general partner, and

     (3) certain "unnamed" officers and directors of the general
         partner

The suit prays for a declaratory judgment concerning certain winding up
decisions and expenses of the Company and the other partnerships,
including the reserve fund for potential liabilities which was
established under Delaware law, and that the general partner and its
officers and directors shall not be indemnified or have their
attorneys' fees and costs to be incurred in the filed action paid by
the Company.

The suit also asks for an accounting of the Company and the other
limited partnerships, and alleges breach of contract and fiduciary
duty, certain tortious business conduct and negligence.

On May 9, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit
because, among other things, it merely seeks collateral review with
regard to matters directly within the scope of the continuing
jurisdiction of the federal court in Chicago under the 1993 settlement
of the class actions.

The plaintiffs contested this, saying the motion to dismiss is
precluded by federal court order from bringing the action in Colorado
because the Colorado plaintiff is an inappropriate putative class
representative and because Colorado is an inappropriate jurisdiction
with respect to the plaintiff's allegations.

The Company believes the allegations are spurious and totally without
merit, and has retained counsel in Colorado.  If the motion to dismiss
is not granted, the Company intends to vigorously contest this action
and, if appropriate, to seek sanctions against the plaintiff and its
counsel.


DOMINION TELECOM: Landowners Sue Seeking Compensation for Use of Land
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Landowners filed a class action against Dominion Telecom and Virginia
Electric & Power Company (VEPCO) today in the United States District
Court in Richmond, Virginia, demanding that landowners in Virginia and
North Carolina be compensated for the Company's improper occupation of
their land.

Dominion Resources is the parent company of both Dominion Telecom and
VEPCO.  Dominion Telecom makes its money by selling telecommunications
services to the public, and provides these services through fiber optic
cable which it has strung across private landowners' property in
Virginia and North Carolina without permission or payment.  Under state
law, this taking of land entitles landowners to damages for trespass
and unjust enrichment.

The complaint states that punitive damages should also be awarded
because the defendants' conduct "evidenced a conscious disregard for
the rights of the class members."  "Damages for the class are estimated
in the millions of dollars," said Richmond attorney, Sam Hixon, of the
Williams Mullen law firm, one of the lead counsel for the landowners.

The complaint against Dominion Telecom and VEPCO is brought by class
counsel who have successfully sued other major telecommunications
companies for installing fiber optic cable on land without permission
or payment.

Washington attorney Nels Ackerson, one of the lead attorneys for the
class of landowners, explained, "The telecommunications companies act
like the land is free when they install their cable.  They use the
cable to make billions in revenue. They know the land is not theirs.
They know they have to pay, but they hope they will not be caught. They
forget the Constitution that guarantees that property will not be taken
without compensation. They forget the law. This lawsuit will make them
remember."

For more details, contact Kathleen C. Kauffman of The Ackerson Group,
Chartered by Mail: 1666 K Street, NW, Ste 1010, Washington, D.C. 20006-
1217 by Phone: (202) 833-8833 by E-mail: kkauffman@ackersonlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.ackersonlaw.com


FLORIDA: Appeals Court Says State Not Required to Refund Unlawful Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A state appeals court ruled that Florida does not have to repay
hundreds of people who paid a state tax on illegal narcotics that was
declared unconstitutional, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Third District Court of Appeal in Miami ruled recently that a class
action by the taxpayers seeking refunds had been filed too late,
because Florida law provides only three years to ask for a refund after
paying taxes.  The ruling overturned a lower court's decision that had
ordered the state to issue the refunds.

The tax on illegal narcotics was enacted by the state in 1986.  It gave
the state Department of Revenue the power to tax anyone who had engaged
in the unlawful sale, use, possession manufacture or distribution of
certain controlled substances.  The Florida Supreme Court ruled that
the tax was unconstitutional in 1994.

"When the state takes someone's money through an unconstitutional tax,
the state should refund them," said Stephen Bronis, attorney for the
taxpayers in the class action that sought their refunds.  The 815
people who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and whom the state accused
of being drug dealers, paid a total of $3 million on the illegal
narcotics to the state and were asking for a refund.  For many of the
taxpayers, however, the three-year window to file for the refund had
expired the tax was declared unconstitutional in 1994.  The lawsuit was
filed in 1996.

Mr. Bronis said he was considering appealing the ruling to the Florida
Supreme Court.


HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: Faces Consumer Suit Over Document Fees in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HomeAmerican Credit, Inc. (doing business as Upland Mortgage) faces a
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of borrowers in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin who paid a document preparation fee on
loans originated since February 4, 1997.

The plaintiff alleges that the charging of, and the failure to properly
disclose the nature of, a document preparation fee were improper under
applicable state law.  The plaintiff seeks restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in unspecified
amounts.

The Company believes that its imposition of this fee is permissible
under applicable law and intends to vigorously defend the case.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense in Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation faces a purported class action suit filed in
January 2002 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, alleging that, two individuals were acting as agents of
The Company, and that they solicited the plaintiff to enter into a
lease agreement with the Company.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against all
defendants based upon alleged violations of California law.  The
plaintiff purports to represent two subclasses comprised of:

     (1) business entities who entered into commercial lease agreements
         with the Company, and

     (2) all California residents who entered into lease agreements
         with the Company for consumer goods.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.  Because of the
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company cannot predict
whether the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its results
of operations or consolidated financial position.


MEDICAL RESIDENTS: Medical Group Reduces Trainee Physician's Work Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Association passed a resolution restricting the
number of hours that trainee physicians work, following standards
created last week relating to the working hours of residents in
graduate medical programs, Reuters reports.

The American Medical Association decreed that residents' working hours
should be limited to 80 hours a week, over a two-week period.  
Residents currently work up to 120 hours a week.

The AMA resolution called for restricting on-call assignments to 24
hours, with up to six additional hours to complete transfer of care,
patient follow-up and education. It also limited on-call shifts to no
more than every third night and required one day off in every seven
days.

"The AMA is deeply concerned with patient safety and the welfare of our
physicians in training," Peter Watson, a resident trustee of the group,
told Reuters.  "Instituting these rules will greatly enhance medical
education across the nation and, in turn, produce the highest quality
new physicians."

Last week, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Education reduced
standards for working hours.  The association accredits 7,800 medical
residency training programs that employ 100,000 residents.  

Both groups hoped the workweek and other restrictions would head off
federal legislation on the issue.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Resists States' Remedies in Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As the four-year antitrust proceedings against Microsoft Corporation
draws to a close, a federal judge in Washington, DC, pushed both sides
to narrow their demands, but the Company's refusal to do so suggests
that a compromise in the dispute remains unlikely, The Wall Street
Journal reports.

Lawyers for both sides made their final presentations, with the nine
states reiterating their call for tough penalties to curb what they
called Microsoft's "thuggish-like tactics" in the marketplace.  In an
unexpected move, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in an
order dated Tuesday of this week, told both sides to prioritize the
most important components of their competing proposals.

Calling the states' plan "truly disastrous," Company attorney John
Warden said their remedy was fundamentally flawed and offered no
provisions where common ground might be found.  Indeed, he said, the
Company could not consider accepting any part of the states' proposal.  
"We cannot remedy any of this by changing a few words here and there,"
Mr. Warden said.

Microsoft attorney Daniel Webb said that pulling back the curtain on
the Company's proprietary computer code would "virtually wipe out" all
of its intellectual property and destroy its incentive to improve its
products and develop new ones.  Mr. Webb said that the intellectual-
property disclosures go "far beyond anything Judge Jackson even thought
about," referring to US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who in
the earlier liability phase of the Company's trial found it violated
antitrust laws.

The states told the judge that the Company, above all else, should
release key technical data to rivals, and that its fears about its
intellectual property were exaggerated.  "Priority No. 1 really is
disclosure," said Steven Kuney, a lawyer representing the group of
states led by California, Iowa and Connecticut.  "If you forced us to
articulate the single highest priority, that's it."

Famed states attorney Brendan Sullivan also directly criticized
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates - who testified here as a witness two
months ago - calling Mr. Gates and other executives' penchant for
threatening business partners "mind boggling."

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's last-minute prioritization order appeared to be
a blow for Microsoft, as it hinted at a willingness on the judge's part
to find a middle ground between the two sides.  The Company has argued
that the states are entitled to no relief, and already has asked the
judge to approve a settlement reached with the Justice Department and a
group of other states in November of last year.  

This settlement was criticized as full of loopholes by the nine states
engaged in the present antitrust action now nearing its end.  Any
significant additions to the Justice Department accord could be viewed
as a justification for the nine states' continuing court battle of the
past several months.

However, Judge Kollar-Kotelly cautioned against interpreting her
questions as to the most important components of the two sides'
competing proposals as a foreshadowing of her ultimate decision.  "As
the court has stated previously, questions posed by the court should
not be viewed as an indication of future rulings," the judge wrote.  

In a frank passage directed at Microsoft, she added, "As the defendant
is well aware, its proposal has been criticized for 'exceptions which
swallow the rule.'"

The states' response to the prioritization order elicited what appeared
to be a realistic approach in ranking their preferences.  They grouped
in a second tier of demands their calls for a modular version of
Windows to allow substitution of rival software, the mandatory
distribution of Sun's Java programming language and the placing in the
public domain of the source code for the Internet Explorer Web browser.  
The first tier dealt with less onerous requests.  

In addition to technical disclosures, they included intellectual-
property licensing, industry standards and protecting personal-computer
makers from threats and retaliation.

Lead counsel for the states, Mr. Sullivan, said Microsoft had gone too
far with its dire predictions and still failed to understand the kind
of changes needed to address its antitrust violations.  "I suggest to
to you," he told the judge, "that Microsoft still doesn't get it, and
you are the only one left to tell them."

Even if Judge Kollar-Kotelly rules in Microsoft's favor, the Company
still faces private antitrust lawsuits brought by competitors AOL Time
Warner Inc.and Sun Microsystems Inc., a class action being heard
in federal court in Baltimore and a case brought by European antitrust
enforcers in Brussels.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: TX Court Approves Settlement of Wages Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Galveston Division, approved the settlement proposed by Nabor
Industries' offshore drilling subsidiaries to settle a class action
charging them with conspiracy to depress wages and benefits paid to
their offshore employees.

The settlement payment is expected to be made in the second quarter,
absent any appeal.  The settlement amounts to be paid by the Company's
subsidiaries are not material to such subsidiaries or to the Company.

In the event the settlement is not finalized, the Company continues to
believe the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will
defend vigorously the claims brought against them.  In such event, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the costs
to be incurred in connection with its defense and there can be no
assurance that this litigation will be resolved in our favor.


NEW YORK: City's Parks Dep't Charged With Racial Bias Against Blacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government recently sued New York City's parks
department, saying it had violated the Civil Rights Act by
discriminating against black and Hispanic employees when giving
promotions, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit in US District Court in Manhattan follows an investigation
opened when black and Hispanic employees of the Department of Parks and
Recreation complained that they had been discriminated against because
of their race and national origin.  The employees filed their own
lawsuit against the parks department a year ago, saying the
discriminatory practices reached top management in the department.

Lewis M. Steel, who represents nine current and two former parks
department employees in the lawsuit they filed against the city last
year, said the federal government's action will help chances that their
lawsuit will be certified as a class action.  "It is very helpful, very
significant, for the government to come into a case like this."  

Mr. Steel said that no trial date has been set for a lawsuit that was
proceeding slowly, in part, because the case involves more than 20,000
documents.  He also said that the evidence he had seen shows that the
parks department "has at best turned a blind eye toward the epidemic
problem of racial discrimination."

The parks department employs about 2,000 workers, half of whom are
black or Hispanic, at more than 1,700 parks, playgrounds and
recreational facilities throughout the city.

The civil rights division of the Justice Department, in its lawsuit,
said the parks department' senior managers seek out and promote whites
to management positions without announcing job openings or conducting
formal interviews.  It said the parks department had disregarded its
own stated equal employment opportunity policies, significantly under-
representing blacks and Hispanics in its managerial ranks since at
least 1995.

Michael Cardozo, the city' top lawyer, said in a statement that the
city was "incredibly disappointed" that the federal government had
brought the lawsuit after it was told that the parks department had
taken a new direction regarding promotions.

The US government said the parks department had failed to improve its
record even after 1997, when the city's Equal Employment Practices
Commission and its Division of Citywide Equal Employment Opportunity
directed the department to promote more minorities.

The US government's lawsuit demands that the parks department promote
fairly in the future and pay damages to those who were injured in the
past.  US Attorney James Comey said in a statement that "employment
practices that exclude people from opportunities for advancement
because of their race or ethnic background cannot be tolerated
anywhere."


PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officials Agree to Settle Police Abuse Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh officials agreed to settle dozens of lawsuits that alleged
widespread abuse and misconduct by Pittsburgh police officers, claims
that led to federal oversight of the police department, the Associated
Press Newswire reports.  The city council must approve the plan to
settle the 32 cases for a total of US$275,000.

Attorneys for the city told US District Judge Robert Cindrich that the
city decided to settle to save the taxpayer money that would have been
spent on defending police, which could have totaled at least $200,000,
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on its Web site.  Pittsburgh's
attorney, Susan Malie, said city officials were not admitting any
wrongdoing by settling the cases.

After a series of trials in federal court, 32 cases remained from a
1996 class action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which
accused the city, its highest officials and 75 officers of condoning a
pervasive pattern of abuse.  The allegations were forwarded to the US
Department of Justice, and the city consented to federal oversight and
reforms a year later.

The trials, some of which involved more than one plaintiff, would have
determined whether people who were part of the class action, were
victims of what the Justice Department called a "pattern and practice
of civil rights abuses by Pittsburgh officers" and, and if so, whether
they deserve any damages.

City officials and police viewed the lawsuits as one of two steps,
along with having a federal consent decree lifted, to restore the
department's reputation and resolve the old misconduct allegations.


PINNACLE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Pinnacle
Systems filed a third amended suit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Several suits were commenced in July 2000, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.  These suits were later
consolidated.  The consolidates suit alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business during a putative class
period of April 18, 2000 through July 10, 2000.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in December 2000,
which the defendants thereafter moved to dismiss.  In May 2001, the
court dismissed the suit, but permitted plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint.

The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint in June 2001,
which the defendants again moved to dismiss.  On January 25, 2002, the
court dismissed the second amended complaint and granted plaintiffs
leave to amend.  

The Company is defending the case vigorously.  The Company has not
accrued any liability related to this contingency since a liability
cannot be reasonably estimated.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lorillard to Appeal Award in Secondhand Smoke Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco Company vowed to appeal a Miami Circuit Court's
decision awarding damages to a flight attendant who filed a suit
alleging personal injury due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS).

Flight attendant Lynn French claimed her chronic sinusitis was the
result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) while working
on flights in the 1970s and 80s.

"This decision runs contrary to the clear evidence presented during the
trial.  We are disappointed and continue to believe that plaintiff's
ETS exposure was unrelated to her chronic sinusitis, and that the jury
had no basis to assess the amount of damages it did in favor of Ms.
French, who had complained of a stuffy nose and an occasional headache.
We intend to ask the Court to overturn the verdict, or at least
substantially reduce the amount, and we will certainly pursue an appeal
while we continue to vigorously defend against similar claims," said
Ronald S. Milstein, Lorillard's Vice President and General Counsel.  
"We look forward to challenging the court's trial plan, which prevented
us from asserting many defenses that we would have otherwise been able
to present."

The suit is the third ETS lawsuit by a former flight attendant to
proceed to trial and is the fourth individual ETS suit to reach a
verdict.  Two previous trials ended in defense verdicts, while one
flight attendant case ended in a mistrial and was subsequently
dismissed.


TRISTATE CREMATORY: Property Inspection Reveals More Human Remains
------------------------------------------------------------------
An inspection of Tri-state Crematory property by counsel for parties in
the class action against the Company revealed more human remains in
various locations on the property.  The Walker County sheriff's
department re-sealed the property, investigators from the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation came to the scene and the inspection was
discontinued for a short period of time.

Dr. William Bass, an expert witness retained by Lieff Cabraser Henmann
& Bernstein LLP, lawyers for the plaintiffs, was on the scene.  Dr.
Bass, who has been retained by other plaintiffs' counsel as well,
believed that the remains uncovered today are sufficient for DNA
testing.  Along with a team of lawyers and Dr. Bass, the firm had
industry experts, including a photographer, at the inspection to record
these findings.

Lawyer Kathryn Barnett of the Nashville office of Lieff Cabraser
commented that, "This gruesome discovery further demonstrates the need
for a Court Order in the civil cases prohibiting anyone from tampering
with or disturbing the Tri-State property."  She added, "We have asked
the Courts to take control over this property for the benefit of the
community of families impacted by this tragedy, so that no further harm
or disrespect will befall the remains of their loved ones."

The firm filed motions asking for such an order on March 8, 2002 and
April 18, 2002 in their cases pending in the Walker County and in Rome,
Georgia.

Alistair Newbern, one of the Lieff Cabraser lawyers on the scene was
stunned by the state of the property and said, "The lack of dignity and
respect given to bodies sent here for cremation is obvious even now."  
Mr. Newbern personally discovered abandoned remains on the property and
noted that while the remains of more than 300 decedents were previously
recovered, it is now clear that the remains of many, many more have
been mistreated on the property.

Ms. Barnett commented that today's discovery underscores the fact that
the story of what happened at Tri-State and when is just beginning to
be uncovered. "Our hearts go out to the many families who must now
wonder if the remains that were uncovered today were the remains of
their loved one or if the remains of their loved one still lie hidden
on the property."

She added, "This is exactly why the civil justice system critical. Only
through this process can we ensure that every effort that should be
made to identify and bring a respectful disposition of the remains
desecrated on the property is made."

Charles Griffin, of Nashville, Tennessee, one of the named plaintiffs
in the suits remarked, "I am saddened to learn that remains were left
behind. I wonder what else has been missed. I wonder when this
nightmare is going to end for all of us."

For more details, contact Kathryn Barnett by Phone: 615/313-9000 or by
E-mail: kbarnett@lchb.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in NY, FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International face several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and
the Southern District of Florida, filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities during various periods from February 1999 to
February 2002.

The suits charge the Company and certain of its executive officers with
violations of the securities laws in connection with the Company's
financial disclosures concerning certain mergers and acquisitions and
its accounting thereof.

In March 2002, another class action was filed in the Southern District
of New York against the Company and eleven of its directors, on behalf
of the Tyco Retirement Savings and Investment Plan and a purported
class of participants in the Plan whose accounts held shares of Company
stock from April 12, 1998 through January 28, 2002.

Plaintiff seeks damages on account of alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection
with the Company's financial disclosures concerning certain mergers and
acquisitions and its accounting thereof.

In May 2002, the Office of the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued conditional transfer orders
transferring twenty-two of the securities cases and the ERISA case to
the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Certain plaintiffs
have objected to the conditional transfer order, and it has been stayed
pending further briefing.

In February 2002, an action was filed in the Superior Court of New
Hampshire, Rockingham County, by John Gebhardt, purporting to bring
suit derivatively on behalf of the Company against the current
directors of Tyco International Ltd., a former director and the Company
as a nominal defendant, alleging that the individuals named as
defendants breached their fiduciary duties, committed waste and
disseminated misleading and inaccurate information in connection with
payments aggregating $20 million made to the former director and a
charity designated by him in connection with the acquisition of The CIT
Group, Inc.

The Company labels the suits "without merit" and intends to vigorously
defend against them.


UICI: Parties Fail to Reach Resolution in Securities Suit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action against UICI failed
to resolve the suit, after the first mediation session adjourned last
April 23,2002.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas and names the Company and certain of its
executive officers as defendants.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that the Company's periodic filings with the SEC contained
untrue statements of material facts and/or failed to disclose all
material facts relating to the condition of the Company's credit
card business.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from February 10,1999 through
December 9, 1999.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the suit, but in October 2001,
the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case.  At a required
scheduling meeting held in November 2001, the parties agreed to
voluntarily submit the dispute to early mediation, and the parties
designated a mediator and scheduled the mediation.  Discovery and other
pretrial motions have been suspended pending the outcome of the
mediation.

At the first mediation session held on April 23, 2002, the parties
reached no resolution in the case.  The parties did agree to continue
the stay in the discovery phase of the proceeding until a second
mediation.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without
merit, and intends to vigorously contest the allegations in the case.


UL UNITED: Voluntarily Recalls Electrical Paintings for Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
UL United, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 150 electrical
paintings.  The electrical paintings can short circuit, posing a shock
or fire hazard.  The Company has not received any reports of injuries.  
This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injury.   
        
The recalled paintings show 13 scenes of waterfalls and other bodies of
water, sold as "The Motion Picture" series.  The images are painted on
glass and are illuminated by a light bulb.  The paintings give the
impression of water spilling over a waterfall and have the sound of
running water, birds and music.  "MADE IN CHINA" appears on the
packaging of the paintings.
        
Flea markets sold the paintings in Texas and Arkansas from December
2001 through April 2002 for between $18 and $50.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 332-6643
between 9 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday.


UST LIQUIDATING: CA Appeals Court Reinstates Suit Over Veeder-Root Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California court of appeals reversed a trial court's decision
granting UST Liquidating, Inc.'s demurrer to a class action filed on
behalf of certain common shareholders of the Company, and allowed the
plaintiffs to file a personal non-derivative claim.

The suit alleges alleging that the Company and other parties breached
their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs in connection with the Veeder-
Root sale.  The plaintiffs also filed a derivative claim alleging
corporate waste.

In August 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which was denied in a court hearing held in September 2000.  
The Company and certain other parties subsequently filed a demurrer to
the suit contending that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid cause
of action, which was granted in October 2000.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the demurrer and
voluntarily dismissed the derivative claim alleging corporate waste,
which the trial court also dismissed.  The briefing on the appeal has
been completed and oral argument was heard before the California Court
of Appeals.  The appellate court then reversed the trial court with
respect to the demurrer and ruled that the plaintiffs could assert a
personal, non-derivative claim.

The Company intends to continue to contest this case vigorously, and in
the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of this matter is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


VERISIGN INC.: Enters Agreement Prohibiting Mailing of Domain Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Domain registrar VeriSign, Inc. entered a legal agreement that
prohibits it from sending controversial domain name expiration notices
to customers.  The Mountain View, California-based Company and Go Daddy
Software signed the order that forces the Company to not only stop
sending the solicitations to Go Daddy's customers, but also to the
customers of all other registrars

Arizona federal judge Mary Murguia entered the stipulated order into
the courts, which effectively extends an injunction against the Company
forcing it to abandon its current marketing campaign.

Earlier this month, the rival discount domain name registrar, accused
the Company of consumer fraud, deceptive advertising and
misappropriation of trade secrets.  "It is our hope that this order
will send a strong message to anyone in this industry contemplating the
use of such dubious marketing tactics to clean up their act," said Go
Daddy founder and president Bob Parsons.

The suit stems from a direct marketing campaign launched earlier this
year by the Company, which Go Daddy and Baltimore-based BulkRegister
said duped their customers into believing their domain names were about
to expire, and prompting them to pay the Compny to take over their
domains.

Go Daddy said it was forced to take this issue to court when the
Company refused to respond to two formal requests to stop the mailings
and comply with the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  This
agreement limits the use of a registrar's customer contact database
(Whois) to lawful purposes such as the inquiries necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations.

The Company reported to Go Daddy that it stopped mailing the domain
expiration notices on May 14, the day a preliminary injunction was
entered in Maryland in a similar suit filed by BulkRegister. But
customers of registrars like Go Daddy continued to receive the notices
well into June, sparking the lawsuits.

Go Daddy said its customers had been "flooded" by the mailings, which
were labeled "Domain Name Expiration Notices" and marked with "Reply
By" dates that Go Daddy said bore no relation to users' actual domain
expiration dates.  This is the second injunction rallied against the
Company by a competitor and the fourth action spawned by the effort to
date.

In May, lawyers at the Los Angeles law firm of Weiss & Yourman filed
for damages on behalf of consumers, aiming to receive class-action
status for the suit. In March, the non-profit California Consumers
Action Network filed a similar complaint.

Despite the injunctions, both BulkRegiser and Go Daddy said they would
continue seeking their legal cases for damages.


WISCONSIN: Judge Clarifies Rules for Mentally Ill at Supermax Prison
--------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled last year that seriously mentally
ill inmates should not be sent to Supermax prison or remain there.  
However, in a recent ruling, she left open the possibility that there
may be exceptions to that rule, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Seriously mentally ill inmates who are so dangerous that they cannot be
safely placed anywhere but the state's ultra-security Supermax prison
can be incarcerated there, but it should be a "very, very rare
exception," Judge Crabb wrote.

"There may be very rare situation in which one inmate, possibly two,
need the kind of protection that Supermax offers," the judge said,
adding that "it should be a very, very rare exception in which an
inmate who is seriously mentally ill stays at Supermax."

The recent ruling is part of a class action filed by Supermax inmates
who claimed they were subjected to living conditions that were that
were cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
US Constitution.  Both sides agreed to a settlement that included new
outdoor exercise areas, expanded face-to-face visits with friends and
and family members and a new prison name.

State prosecutors petitioned the court to set guidelines for when
inmates are so dangerous as to warrant confinement at Supermax despite
their mental illness, or when inmates who were previously diagnosed as
seriously mentally ill can be sent back to the prison because they no
longer suffer from the illness.

Judge Crabb said in her ruling that there could be instances in which
one of those conditions were met.  However, prison officials must first
contact the inmates' lawyers and give them a chance to object, either
to a court-appointed independent monitor, or in court.  An independent
clinician review board could make decisions about whether an inmate
still suffered from a mental illness that would be worsened by
confinement at Supermax, she said.

David Fathi, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union's
National Prison Project in Washington, DC, said all mentally ill
inmates should be permanently barred from Supermax.  However, Judge
Crabb's safeguards would help ensure that if such inmates are allowed
to remain or return, it would be only in rare cases, he said.

Mr. Fathi pointed out, however, that "Serious mental illness is not
like the flu, which goes away over time . Mental illnesses like
schizophrenia are chronic and do not go away with time.Getting the
seriously mentally ill out of Supermax has been a top priority for us."


XOMA LTD.: Plaintiffs File Amended Unfair Competition Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Xoma Ltd. filed an amended suit
in California Superior Court in San Diego County, extending the time
period reference in the suit to April 5,2002.

The suit was initially commenced in January 2002, and names the
Company, Genentech, Ltd. and certain unidentified "John Doe"
defendants.  The plaintiff purports to assert claims under the
California Unfair Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief and other
equitable remedies in connection with the defendants' alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the anticipated timetable
for the filing of the XanelimT Biologics License Application (BLA).

In March 2002, the Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the
suit.  Thereafter, Genentech filed its own demurrer and joined in the
Company's motion to strike the suit.

In May 2002, the plaintiff responded to the demurrers and motion to
strike by filing an amended suit, which tracks in material respects the
allegations contained in the plaintiff's original suit, but expands the
time period at issue to include the April 5, 2002 press release issued
by Genentech and the Company.

The Company anticipates that, by agreement among the parties, the
deadline by which it must respond to the amended suit will be extended.


                              *********


DUKE ENERGY: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Duke Energy Corporation (NYSE:DUK) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002,
inclusive.

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 22, 1999 and May 17, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in approximately $1 billion of
         "round-trip" energy trades that provided no economic benefit
         for the Company;

     (2) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         adequately monitor the trading of its power; and

     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's revenues and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On May 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, 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 and provide no economic benefit to the Company.

Following this announcement, shares of the Company fell $1.18 per share
to close at $33.52 per share, after reaching a split-adjusted class
period high of $44.97 on November 30, 2000, on volume of more than 11.5
million shares traded, or more than three times the average daily
volume.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: (800) 663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


EDISON SCHOOLS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Edison Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 11, 1999 and May 14,
2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Chris Whittle (President and CEO),

     (2) Adam Feild (Chief Financial Officer) and

     (3) Christopher Cerf (Chief Operating Officer)

The defendants allegedly 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 November 11, 1999 and May 14, 2002.

Throughout the class period, the Company issued numerous quarterly
press releases reporting its supposedly growing revenue stream and
increasing income.  Such representations were repeated in reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to the complaint, these representations were materially false
and misleading because the Company was improperly recognizing revenue
by recognizing as revenue monies that were remitted to their clients,
comprised of school districts and charter schools, even though the
Company did not receive this money.  Accordingly, the complaint
charges, the Company's revenues and other financial data reported
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading.

On May 14, 2002, the Company revealed that it had been the subject of
an SEC investigation and has entered into a settlement with the SEC
under which it agreed to reclassify the revenues that the Company had
reported for numerous quarters.  At the time of the disclosure, the
common stock of the Company was trading at $1.50 to $2 per share, after
reaching a class period high of $36.75 per share.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: (800) 663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Flextronics
International, Ltd. (Nasdaq: FLEX) securities between October 2, 2001
and June 4, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Michael E. Marks,

     (2) Michael McNamara, and

     (3) Robert R. B. Dykes

The defendants allegedly 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, which was 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 details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-
mail: FLEX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Perot Systems
Corporation (NYSE: PER) between February 2, 1999 and June 7, 2002,
inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
critical facts concerning some of the Company's hazardous business
practices.  Pursuant to attempting to generate new consulting business
and additional revenues, the Company had made use of proprietary
information regarding the architecture of California's power grid and
weaknesses and loopholes that could be used to cause artificial
congestion on such grid and enable power traders to reap supracompetive
profits to power trader Reliant.

The complaint further alleges that the Company faces considerable
potential legal liability regarding its improper disclosures of
proprietary information and the possibility that power traders utilized
the information to abuse such flaws for their own profit.

It is also alleged that the Company did not have adequate management
controls in place to avoid its personnel from using private information
acquired in the course of its consulting work as a selling point in
attempting to attain beneficial consulting business.

Company stock fell 19% on June 5, 2002 and dropped an additional 11.3%
to close at $12.90 on June 6, 2002, down from its class period high of
$85.75.

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


RELIANT ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas-Houston
Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Reliant
Energy, Inc. (NYSE: REI) and Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE: RRI) from
May 14, 1999 through May 9, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that on May 10, 2002 and May 13, 2002, defendants disclosed that the
revenue of the Reliant Companies had been artificially inflated due to
power trading transactions involving simultaneous purchases and sales
at the same price (referred to as "round-trip" trades).

Defendants further disclosed that these "round trip" trades had the
effect of materially and artificially increasing reported revenues over
the three-year period of 1999, 2000 and 2001.

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: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *