CAR_Public/020722.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, July 22, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 143

                           Headlines

AROMA HOUSEWARES: Recalls 117,000 Juice Extractors For Injury Hazard
FORD MOTOR CO.: Consumers Group Alleges "Secret Warranty" Violations
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Plan Participant Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
HILTON HOTELS: Recalls 27T Children's Cooler/Chairs For Injury Hazard
JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 296T "Smatter" Spray Foam Cans For Injury Hazard

JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,7T U-Line Pressure Gauges For Injury Hazard
MAXIM'S BAKERY: Canada Court Approves Salmonella Outbreak Settlement
NORTH CAROLINA: Lawsuit To Be Used As Predatory Lending Law Test
PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Faces Farmers Suit Over Fraudulent Accounting
STATE FARM: AZ Court Grants Consumer Fraud Suit Class Certification

TELECOMS COMPANY: Consumer Fraud Suit Going To Trial In Madison County
TERRORIST ATTACK: Second Attorney For OK Bombing Victims Withdraws
UNITED STATES: Thousands Of Federal Workers To Share Back Pay Accord
WORLDCOM INC.:  CA Pension Funds Sue Former Executives, Underwriters

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DUKE ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in NY

FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MIRANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in GA
MIRANT CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MUTUAL RISK: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
TELLABS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges FL Securities Suit
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                             
                          *********


AROMA HOUSEWARES: Recalls 117,000 Juice Extractors For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aroma Housewares Co. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), by voluntarily recalling about 117,000 more juice
extractors or juicers.  The juicer's filter and lid can break apart,
projecting metal and plastic into the air, causing injuries to
consumers.
        
The firm previously recalled 40,000 juicers in June 1999.  This recall
includes redesigned juicers used as replacements for the original
recall.  The Company has received two additional reports of the
redesigned juicer's filter and lid breaking apart, resulting in two
consumers suffering minor injuries.  There have been 32 reports of the
original juicer breaking, and 32 reports of injuries.  Seven of these
injuries required stitches and one required surgery for lacerated
arteries.
        
All model ACJ-250 Aroma Juice Extractors are included in the recall.  
"ACJ-250" and "MADE IN CHINA" are written on the bottom of the juicer
on a silver label.  The juice extractor is made of white and clear
plastic and has a metal filter.  "Aroma" is printed on the front of the
unit.
        
Discount specialty and department stores sold the recalled juice
extractors from March 1996 through July 2002 for about $25.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-276-6286 between 9
am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday.


FORD MOTOR CO.: Consumers Group Alleges "Secret Warranty" Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer group recently accused Ford Motor Co. of violating "secret
warranty" laws in California, Connecticut, Virginia and Wisconsin, by
failing to tell civilian owners of Crown Victorias and similar cars
about a program to reduce the risk of fires from gas tank ruptures, the
Los Angeles Times reports.  

Class actions already have been filed against the Company in Arkansas,
Texas, and New Jersey, seeking recall of all Crown Victoria police
cruisers, and now the issue of civilian cars has arisen.

In letters to California Attorney General William Lockyer and his
counterparts in the other three states, Connecticut, Virginia and
Wisconsin, the Center for Auto Safety said Ford had broken these
states' laws by telling repair shops about a recommended fix but
keeping owners of the cars in the dark.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Washington-based Center for
Auto Safety, said he hopes the latest salvo will increase the pressure
on Ford to issue a nationwide recall, not only of the Crown Victoria
police cruisers that have been in the news, but civilian models, too.
They also have fuel tanks behind their rear axles, which critics say
makes them unusually vulnerable to rear-collision fires.

Sara Tatchio, a Ford spokeswoman, said the center had misinterpreted
the states' "secret warranty" laws.  Ford is in compliance, "and there
was no intention of hiding anything," she said.  The company has
maintained that the cars are safe and that the gas tank fires have been
extremely rare, the result of high-speed collisions that no fuel system
would be likely to withstand.

In the last 10 years, there have been reports of at least a dozen
police officer deaths in fiery wrecks involving the popular Crown
Victoria police cruisers.  Using court and medical records and a
government database of accidents, the Center for Auto Safety said it
had identified about 30 fatal wrecks since 1992, mostly involving
civilians, in which occupants of the cars appeared to survive a crash
but died in the ensuing fire.

The letters written by the Center for Auto Safety to the attorneys
general in California, Connecticut, Virginia and Wisconsin, focused on
a technical service bulletin that Ford sent to repair shops in October
2001, advising that the risk of tank punctures in 1992-2001 "Panther"
platform cars, the Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car and Mercury
Marquis, could be reduced by grinding down a metal tab and replacing a
protruding bolt that could be pushed into the tank in an accident

Ford said the work was recommended only for Crown Victoria police
cruisers, which are frequently exposed to high-speed rear collisions
during traffic stops.  However, the service bulletin said all owners of
Panther platform cars could have the work done free of charge if their
cars were under the warranty.  

The "secret warranty" laws grew out of a campaign by the Center in the
early `90s that helped get the laws on the books in the four states.  
Mr. Ditlow said they were a response to numerous cases in which
vehicles were not recalled, but manufacturers told repair shops "they
would fix something for free, but they would not tell the consumers."

Ford's view is that the laws do not cover technical service bulletins,
which frequently are issued without consumers being notified, the
spokeswoman, Ms. Tatchio, said.  "We do not believe their
interpretation is anywhere near correct.  They have twisted the facts
to fit their argument."

The Crown Victoria issue, which has been simmering for about three
years, arose to a boil last month with the fiery death of a police
officer in Chandler, Arizona, when Robert Nielsen, 25, became the third
Arizona officer to die in less than four years when the fuel tank of
his Crown Victoria erupted in flames after a crash.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Plan Participant Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company faces a class action plan filed in the United
States District Court for Dallas, Texas by a participant in the
Company's retirement plan, alleging accounting fraud, the Associated
Press reports.

The suit alleges that the Company altered its accounting policies in
late 1998 to report hundreds of millions of dollars worth of revenues
from disputed cost overruns on long-term construction projects.  
Lawyers filing the lawsuit said the company should not have counted on
getting the revenue, the Associated Press reports.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) David J. Lesar, chairman and chief executive,

     (2) Michele Mastrean, chairwoman of the company benefits
         committee,

     (3) Robert L. Crandall,

     (4) Kenneth T. Derr,

     (5) Charles J. Dibona,

     (6) Lawrence S. Eagleburger,

     (7) W.R. Howell,

     (8) Ray L. Hunt,

     (9) Aylwin B. Lewis,

    (10) J. Landis Martin,

    (11) Jay A. Precourt,

    (12) Debra L. Reed and

    (13) C.J. Silas

The Company has denied wrongdoing, according to an Associated Press
report.  The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is Texas resident Gay R.
Pitman, a participant in the retirement plan. Pitman's lawyers, the
Hartford, Conn., firm of Schatz & Nobel, are seeking to broaden the
lawsuit by allowing any Halliburton plan participant whose account held
Halliburton shares August 1999 through May 28 of this year to join as a
plaintiff.


HILTON HOTELS: Recalls 27T Children's Cooler/Chairs For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Hotels Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 27,000 Vacation
StationT children's cooler/chairs.  When the chair collapses the
folding mechanism can pose a crushing, cutting or severing hazard to
consumers' fingers.  The Company is aware of one report in which part
of a 2-year-old boy's fingertip was severed when the chair collapsed.
        
The recalled product is a multi-use product that can be used as both a
child's chair or a food/beverage storage cooler.  The cooler/chairs
were given to hotel guests as a welcoming gift at participating
Hiltonr, Doubletreer, and Hilton Garden Innr hotels and resorts.  The
chairs have either a purple aluminum frame with a purple fabric seat
and green cooler bag, or a green aluminum frame with a green fabric
seat and a blue cooler bag.  Vacation StationT is printed on the front
of the cooler bag.  The chairs were made in Hong Kong and imported into
the US by Promotional Partners Group Limited of Hong Kong.
        
Participating Hiltonr, Doubletreer, and Hilton Garden Innr hotels and
resorts nationwide distributed the cooler chairs between May 2002 and
June 2002 for free to hotel guests with children.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 877-221-2424 between 9
am and 4 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit one of the participating
brand Websites: http://www.hilton.com/families,
http://www.doubletree.com/familiesor  
http://www.hiltongardeninn.com/families.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls 296T "Smatter" Spray Foam Cans For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jakks Pacific, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling approximately 296,000 cans
of its aerosol "Smatter" spray foam.  If the pressurized can is left in
a hot automobile, it can forcefully break apart and cause injury to a
nearby consumer.
        
The Company has received eight reports of the aerosol container
breaking apart.  One child reportedly suffered a minor bump on the head
when a can of spray foam broke apart after being in a hot car. In two
cases, car windshields were cracked.
        
Only early production of spray foam with the date codes "0492PT" to
"0952PT" stamped on the bottom of the can are involved in this recall.  
"Smatter" is an aerosol product that sprays a soft foam material from
the can when the nozzle is pushed.  The product is generally used at
parties, celebrations, or games.  The spray foam is sold in three
different varieties - "Original Smatter," "Spit Smatter," and "Fatter
Smatter."  "SMATTER" appears in large print on the can and on the
cardboard packaging.  "NickelodeonTM" is written on the orange handle.  
"Made in China" is written the back of the product.
        
Discount department and toy stores sold the recalled "Smatter" products
nationwide from February 2002 through June 5, 2002 for about $10.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-554-5516 between
9 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday, for information on receiving a
free replacement "Smatter" product, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.jakkspacific.com.


JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls 1,7T U-Line Pressure Gauges For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Outdoors, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 1,700 SCUBAPRO/UWATECT
dive computer consoles.  The U-LineT submersible pressure gauge that is
part of the dive consoles can malfunction and display inaccurate
pressure readings.  Divers using the consoles could fail to decompress
properly during a dive, causing decompression sickness.
        
The Company has received four reports of the pressure gauge
malfunctioning.  No injuries have been reported.
        
Only U-LineT submersible pressure gauges contained in UWATECT brand
Smart PROT, Pro ULTRAT, and Sport PLUST dive computer consoles are
included in the recall.  The consoles are mostly gray in color and the
brand name "UWATECT" is written on the front of each console.  The
pressure gauges are made in the US and the computers are made in
Switzerland.  All of the recalled consoles have a test code that
appears on the back of the gauge:       

     (1) Tested - IL,
             
     (2) Tested - LL,

     (3) Tested - DM,

     (4) Tested - JL,

     (5) Tested - AM,

     (6) Tested - EM,

     (7) Tested - KL,

     (8) Tested - BM,

     (9) Tested - LL,

    (10) Tested - CM

Aquatic sports, sporting goods and dive shops nationwide sold these
gauges from January 2002 through May 2002 for between $500 and $700.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-382-2211 between
8 am and 4:30 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scubapro.com.  


MAXIM'S BAKERY: Canada Court Approves Salmonella Outbreak Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The BC Supreme Court in Canada approved a settlement of the class
action filed on behalf of 48 Lower Mainland residents who became ill in
one of the worst salmonella outbreaks in Canada in recent memory.

The salmonella outbreak began in mid-July 2000, with most reported
cases concentrated in Richmond.  By early September 2000, regional
health authorities had 47 reports of the same strain of salmonella, and
finally traced the source to egg-based products from Maxim's Richmond
Centre bakery.  Investigators determined that Maxim's had been using
raw unpasteurized eggs cooked at temperatures inadequate to kill
bacteria.  The bakery subsequently issued a product recall and switched
to pasteurized eggs.

Salmonella enteritidis is a virulent, potentially lethal form of food
poisoning, made all the more dangerous because it does not affect the
appearance, smell, or taste of the food it contaminates.  Even healthy
young people can be made severely ill by this strain of salmonella.

Christopher Dalhuisen, a Richmond teen athlete who served as the
representative plaintiff for the case, was hospitalized for five days,
could not complete his summer job and had to dropout of a series of
cross-country races.

The Company initially fought to prevent a class action suit, arguing
that the company would settle individually with each person who came
forward.  However, Justice Burnyeat decided to allow the case to
proceed as a class action.

"Class action suits help democratize justice in our society, making the
courts available to those who might not have the time, resources, and
language skills to pursue a case on their own," said lawyer David
Klein.  "Class actions have great impact in improving corporate
standards for safety, ethics and consumer protection. They're also a
more economical use of the legal system's overburdened resources."

The settlement requires Maxim's to pay victims who were hospitalized
$6,500 plus $600 per day of hospitalization, or $10,000, whichever is
greater; plus out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages.  Those who were
not hospitalized receive $3,750 plus expenses.  A third settlement
option with no dollar limit is available for anyone who experienced
permanent injury from the poisoning.  

For more details, contact David Klein by Phone: 604-874-7171 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.kleinlyons.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Lawsuit To Be Used As Predatory Lending Law Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three years ago, North Carolina became the first state in the country
to pass a law to safeguard consumers from predatory lenders.  Now, a
former proponent of that law when he was a state senator, state
Attorney General Roy Cooper is watching a potential class action become
the first test for whether that groundbreaking law has any teeth, The
News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.) reports.  The lawsuit will decide
whether out-of-state national banks are subject to the state's
predatory lending law.

Last year, three Wake County, North Carolina residents sued Guaranty
National Bank of Tallahassee, claiming the bank charged them
unreasonable closing fees and failed to provide loan counseling as the
lending law requires.  The bank says, however, that it does not have to
follow North Carolina law.  The consumers' attorney is seeking class
action status on behalf of 141 homeowners across the state who obtained
loans through Guaranty National.

This bank is subject to federal law and law in the state of its
charter, Florida.  "Florida does not have a law like North Carolina's
predatory lending law," said the bank's attorney, John M. Loper of
Raleigh.

The consumers' attorney, Jerry Hartzell, says federal law does not free
the bank from being regulated by North Carolina, where it is soliciting
customers.  "There is nothing in the banking law that entitles them to
sidestep North Carolina's consumer protection law," Mr. Hartzell said.  

Attorney General Cooper, in support of the consumers' position, said,
"I think it is important that the state defend the constitutionality of
this important law whenever it is challenged."  He said the case could
be an important precedent.  In 1999, when Mr. Cooper was instrumental
in getting the legislation passed, proponents said other states soon
would follow North Carolina's lead.  This has not yet happened,
however, the outcome of this lawsuit could determine whether they will.

Susan Lupton, projects director for the Coalition for Responsible
Lending in Durham, says the mortgage industry supports the law, which
protects consumers from the hidden costs of loans.

If the consumers win the lawsuit, they could recover twice the interest
they have paid on their loans and will not have to pay any more
interest on what remains.  If the lawsuit is certified a class action,
and the consumers win, the bank faces losing $6.6 million, Mr. Hartzell
estimates in court records.

In January, while the lawsuit was pending in federal court, the bank
sent checks and release forms to the 141 borrowers after Mr. Hartzell
rejected a $353,000 settlement offer, court records say.  Mr. Hartzell
accused the bank of trying to entice borrowers "who may be strapped for
cash" with $5,000 checks.  He also accused the bank of misleading the
borrowers about their rights to recover more money with the lawsuit.  
Mr. Loper denied wrongdoing, saying the letters were accurate and
encouraged borrowers to seek legal advice before accepting the
settlement offer.

Senior US District Judge James C. Fox ruled that the bank's letter was
not "false or misleading," but did not explain the lawsuit well enough.  
Judge Fox ordered a new letter written by both sides to be sent to all
the borrowers.  And Judge Fox ruled the banks could not finalize the
settlements and banned the banks from contacting the borrowers again
without court approval.

Six weeks later, before the new letters were sent, Judge Fox sent the
case back to state court.  The state court judge assigned to the case
will have to decide whether Judge Fox's order should be carried out.


PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Faces Farmers Suit Over Fraudulent Accounting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers helped build Pro-Fac Cooperative Inc. into an agricultural
giant, but mow, some of them are going to court about an accounting
dispute with the Company, The Wall Street Journal reports.  An Oregon
Circuit Court judge has certified the lawsuit to be heard as a class
action, and the trial is set for January 15.

About 170 farmers in Oregon's fertile Willamette Valley have banded
together to sue the Rochester, New York company, alleging it inflicted
an estimated $50 million in damages on them by shifting profitable
assets of a Pro-Fac unit they belonged to, called AgriFrozen Foods
Inc., to the parent company.

As a result, say the farmers, AgriFrozen was left so unprofitable that
Pro-Fac closed it down last year, leaving the farmers belonging to the
unit with no place to sell many of their fruit and vegetable goods,
while also wiping out their investments in the company.

Additionally, the farmers say in their lawsuit that Pro-Fac underpaid
them by as much as 50 percent for their crops.  The farmers accuse Pro-
Fac and its subsidiary, Agrilink Foods Inc., of fraud, breach of
contract and other misdeeds.  Lead plaintiff Robert Dettwyler added
that the farmers feel "Pro-Fac came in here, promised a lot of things
and then let us down."  His family farm's annual income has been
reduced about 20 percent by Pro-Fac's breach of contract, among other
things.  He said some farmers who sold a greater percentage of their
crops to the Pro-Fac unit are in danger of going out of business.

In a SEC filing, the company said the case is without merit and that it
intended to vigorously defend itself.

Pro-Fac was founded in 1960 to process and market crops grown by its
members.  Its Agrilink subsidiary is the largest frozen-vegetable
producer in the nation.


STATE FARM: AZ Court Grants Consumer Fraud Suit Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Maricopa County certified as a class action the
suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., on behalf of
all policyholders who, from or after January 29, 1993, made a claim for
vehicle repairs pursuant to their policy and who received payment based
on an estimate prepared or approved by the Company which did not
include one or more omitted repairs where the vehicle was not a total
loss.

By "omitted repairs," the plaintiffs allege:

     (1) seat belt check,

     (2) rust proofing,

     (3) weld through primer,

     (4) undercoating,

     (5) flex additive,

     (6) masking inner surfaces,

     (7) front wheel alignment,

     (8) four wheel alignment,

     (9) aim lamps and

    (10) replace EPA label

This suit was filed by Stacey White, who claims that the Company pays
less than required to repair its insureds' damaged vehicles by using an
estimating software program that systematically omits payment for the
omitted repairs.  Ms. White claims that the Company's failure to pay
the full amount required by its policies to repair its insureds'
damaged vehicles violates the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and
constitutes a breach of contract.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and raises the following defenses to
the allegations:

     (i) the software does not omit any necessary repairs;

    (ii) not all procedures performed on a vehicle will appear on the
         estimate; and

   (iii) the statute of limitations bars many of the claims.

For more details, contact Andrew Friedman and Elaine Ryan of Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, class counsel by Mail: 2901 N.
Central Avenue, Suite 1000, Phoenix, Arizona 85012 or contact Ron Parry
and David Futscher of Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks, PSC, by Mail:
128 East Second Street, Covington, Kentucky 41012.


TELECOMS COMPANY: Consumer Fraud Suit Going To Trial In Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Courthouse has become a favorite place for lawyers
to file class actions, but none of those cases has ever had a trial.  
So far, reports the Belleville News-Democrat (IL), all of the class
actions that have been resolved, have been settled out of court.

That is expected to change next month, however, when a trial is
scheduled to begin in a class action which accuses AT&T and Lucent of
deceiving customers by not clearly informing them that some of the
charges on their bills represent lease charges for telephones they may
have been thrown away years ago.

Lawyers and businesses will be watching to see how a class action turns
out when it goes to trial in this county, which has a reputation of
being a plaintiff's paradise.  If the verdict goes in favor of the
defendants, more companies might be more willing to take their chances
with trials, said William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern
Illinois University Carbondale.

Belleville attorney Stephen Tillery, the lead lawyer in the AT&T and
Lucent case, said it is not really that unusual that none of the
Madison County cases have gone to trial, since "only a few class
actions are tried around the country per year - no more than a
handful," Mr. Tillery said.  "I think most companies probably look at
their potential exposure and decide they don't want that exposure."

Professor Schroeder said, "Litigation is very expensive.  Settlement is
almost always in everyone's best interest."

Mr. Tillery also has a separate suit against AT&T & Lucent.  He is
asking a judge to block AT&T from spinning off its profitable AT&T
Broadband division, because AT&T will not be able to pay the judgment
in Mr. Tillery's leased phone class action if it unloads the Broadband
division and its $103 billion in assets - which represents two-thirds
of AT&T's total worth.

"There is a lot of significance to the case, in terms of the numbers of
people that have been affected by this fraud," said Mr. Tillery.  
"There are literally tens of millions of people who have been affected
by their (the two defendants) conduct.  Mr. Tillery said there have
been no negotiations for a settlement, and he fully expects the trial
to begin as scheduled on August 5.  The trial is expected to last six
to eight weeks.

The case has its roots in the mid-1980s breakup of AT&T into regional
phone companies.  Before then, AT&T installed phones in customers'
homes and leased them to customers.  Lucent, one of AT&T's spin-off
companies, now owns the phones but mails the lease bills to customers
under the AT&T name.

Mr. Tillery said that the bills do not clearly explain that customers
are being charged for leasing a phone that they may have thrown away
years ago.  He said some people have unknowingly spent more than $1,300
leasing a phone.  Customers have been leasing phones at an average of
$6 a month, when local discount stores sell basic phones for $20.

Lucent spokesman John Skalko said Lucent customers, in a survey, showed
they liked to lease phones, because they could get them repaired free
of charge.  He said further that Lucent followed FCC guidelines when it
took over the lease program from AT&T and that, therefore, the issue
belongs in a federal court, not a state court.


TERRORIST ATTACK: Second Attorney For OK Bombing Victims Withdraws
------------------------------------------------------------------
A second attorney who was helping Oklahoma City bombing victims receive
federal terrorism compensation has withdrawn from the case, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Charles E. Polk Jr. told bombing victims recently that they have a
better chance of receiving federal money if he does not represent them,
said Kathleen Treanor, whose four-year-old daughter and in-laws were
killed in the 1995 blast.

Mr. Polk's co-counsel, Douglas Dowd of St. Louis, withdrew last week.  
He filed a report with the Missouri Bar that raises questions about how
Mr. Polk got involved with the bombing victims.  Mr. Dowd and Mr. Polk
have been lobbying for legislation to include the Oklahoma City bombing
victims in the compensation fund set up after the September 11 attacks.
The two attorneys had promised to file a class action if the
legislation was not enacted.

The attorneys solicited clients with contingency arrangements.  The
first required those signing to pay 25 percent of anything they got
from the fund, even if was the result of congressional approval.  After
that fee was criticized by Senator Donald Nickles, R-Okla., and Rep.
Ernest Istook, R-Okla., the attorneys said they would take 10 percent
for negotiation or lobbying for legislation and 25 percent if a class
action was filed and successful.  Now all agreements are off, as both
attorneys withdraw from the case.

Mr. Polk did not return a phone call from The Associated Press.  Ms.
Treanor said that Mr. Polk was trying to distance himself from the case
and that he did not want any dispute between him and his co-counsel to
harm the bombing victims' chances.

About 150 bombing victims had signed up with the attorneys.  However,
the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to discuss including in the
compensation fund victims from Oklahoma City, the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing and the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa.


UNITED STATES: Thousands Of Federal Workers To Share Back Pay Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of federal workers, numbering about 200,000, or their heirs,
will each get as much as $30,000 in back pay owed to the workers for
work done between 1982 and 1988, The Washington Times reports.

Under the terms of the settlement of the class action, due to receive
final approval in November, the government will give back pay with
interest to engineers, scientists, medical personnel and clerical
workers, who were short-changed during the 1980s.  The money is
intended to make up for raises denied the so-called special rate
employees.  Because the case has dragged on for so many years, many of
the people due the back pay have died, and their heirs will be eligible
to receive the settlement payments instead.

Earlier this month, the government sent notices to 212,000 workers who
were part of the class action, informing them they had held special
rate jobs during the class period and might be entitled to back pay,
inclusive of interest, under the terms of the recently signed
settlement.  Part of the settlement agreement between the government
and the National Treasury Employees Union is that the money will be
paid to the estates of any of the eligible federal workers who have
dies, and will be paid to their beneficiaries.

The next step in the long-running back pay cases will occur in
November, when the US Court of Appeals in Washington is expected to
approve the formula worked out between the government and the Union.


WORLDCOM INC.:  CA Pension Funds Sue Former Executives, Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
California public pension funds filed a joint lawsuit against WorldCom,
Inc.'s former executives and major underwriters of the Company's bonds,
and warned they were losing faith in investment bankers who sell bonds,
the Financial Times reports.

"If we cannot rely on the independence of the underwriters' due
diligence, how can we purchase bonds of any type in the future?" said
Jack Ehnes, chief executive of the California State Teachers'
Retirement System (Calstrs).

Calstrs filed a joint lawsuit with Calpers, the California Public
Employees' Retirement System and number one US pension fund, and the
Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA) seeking
recovery of $318.5 million in losses from a May 2001 WorldCom bond
issue.

The suit, recently filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by
the San Diego law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, names
the underwriting banks and 15 former WorldCom executives.

Calpers alleges that the banks sold the bonds to avoid having their
credit lines drawn down.  "These banks underwrote the bonds so that
WorldCom could use the monies raised to avoid having to rely on these
same banks' outstanding credit line," said James Burton, Calpers' chief
executive officer.  Mr. Burton said the lawsuit charges that the
Company clearly knew that its books falsely portrayed its true
financial picture.  The banks named include:

     (1) Citigroup,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney,

     (3) JP Morgan Securities,

     (4) JP Morgan Chase,

     (5) Banc of American Securities,

     (6) ABN/Amro,

     (7) Deutsche Bank and

     (8) Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown

Bernie Ebbers, former chief executive officer, Scott Sullivan, former
chief financial officer and 13 other former executives also were named.

The Company raised $11.9 billion in bonds in May last year.  At the
time, it was the biggest-ever bond issue by a US company.  While some
of the money raised was used for business purposes, the vast bulk of it
was needed to pay off maturing debt, including a bank facility that was
due to expire.  At the time, the Company already had more than $17
billion in debt.

Mr. Ehnes said the lawsuit was an attempt to hold more than the company
responsible.  "We want the investment banking community to know that
will not stand for this breach of ethical conduct."

Calpers hopes to recover $268 million in losses from the bond sale,
while Calstrs bond losses were $24.5 million, and LACERA's losses were
$26 million.  The funds are also involved in class-action lawsuits

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of the American Express Company (NYSE: AXP) between
July 18, 1999 and July 17, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and seeks to recover damages.  The action is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misstatements and omissions of material fact, including:

     (1) failing to disclose that the Company was investing in a risky
         portfolio of high-yield or "junk" bonds with ratings as low as
         "single-B" that carried the potential for substantial losses
         if default rates in the junk bond market increased;

     (2) failing to disclose the true extent of the Company's total
         exposure as a result of the foregoing after the Company wrote
         down $182 million of its junk bond portfolio in April 2001;
         and

     (3) failing to disclose that the Company was taking a substantial
         and unnecessary risk by investing in high-yield securities
         involving complex risk factors that American Express
         management and personnel did not fully comprehend.

The complaint further alleges that after the full truth regarding the
Company's unnecessarily risky and imprudent investment strategy began
to become known to the market on July 18, 2001 when the Company
announced a surprise charge against earnings of $826 million, its third
consecutive write-down of high-yield or "junk" bonds, Company stock
traded as low as $37.17, down from a class period high of over $62.00.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or
Christopher J. Gray by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110
by Phone: 212-608-1900 or by E-mail: classaction@lovellstewart.com


AOL TIME: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of America Online, Inc. between July 19, 1999 and
January 10, 2001 and all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of AOL Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE:AOL)
between January 11, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and the common law and seeks to recover damages.  The suit
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, AOL (and later AOL
Time Warner) made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact,
including affirmatively misstating AOL and AOL Time Warner's revenue
from online advertising sales by including in such revenues sums
received as one-time payments in connection with the termination of
contracts for online advertising.

The complaint further alleges that AOL artificially inflated its online
advertising revenues for fiscal 1Q 01 by counting in such revenues
$16.4 million in online advertising that AOL required an enterprise
called 24dogs.com to purchase in order to settle a legal dispute, and
that AOL Time Warner artificially inflated its revenues from online
advertising sales by including in such revenues sums that AOL Time
Warner received in connection with selling online advertising for
online auction site eBay.

The complaint further alleges that defendant Ernst & Young, LLP
violated the federal securities laws by certifying AOL Time Warner's
financial statements as incorporated in AOL Time Warner's Annual Report
for its fiscal year 2001 filed with the SEC on March 25, 2002 even
though it knew (or recklessly failed to discover) that AOL Time Warner
had counted in revenue sums received in connection with selling online
advertising for online auction site eBay.

When The Washington Post revealed the foregoing on July 18, 2002, AOL
Time Warner stock dropped to as low as $11.75, down from its class
period high of $58.51.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher J. Gray by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110 by Phone: 212-608-1900
or by E-mail: classaction@lovellstewart.com


AOL TIME: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AOL Time Warner,
Inc. (NYSE: AOL) between April 18, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.  
The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) Stephen Case,

     (2) Michael Kelly,

     (3) Richard Parsons and

     (4) Gerald M. Levin

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 April 18, 2001 and April 24, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company, the synergies
derived from the merger of America Online Inc. and Time Warner, Inc.  
and the Company's prospects and earnings projections.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Merger was not generating the synergies as
         represented by defendants;

    (ii) that the Company was experiencing declining advertising
         revenues; and

   (iii) that the Company had failed to properly write down the value
         of more than $50 billion of goodwill, thereby artificially
         inflating its reported financial results and rendering its
         published financial statements materially false and misleading
         and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On April 24, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued
a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter
of 2002, and revealed that it would be taking a "one-time, non-cash
charge that reduced the carrying value of the Company's goodwill by
approximately $54 billion."   Following this announcement, Company
stock closed at $19.30 per share, a decline of more than 66% from a
Class Period high of $56.60 per share.

During the class period, prior to the disclosure of the true facts
about the Company, Company insiders sold their personal holdings of AOL
Time Warner common stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds in
excess of $250 million.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: AOLTimeWarnercase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


DUKE ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Duke Energy
Corporation (NYSE: DUK) securities between April 2, 2001 and May 17,
2002.  The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Company:

     (1) failed to disclose that it was engaging in electricity trades
         involving simultaneous purchases and sales of power at the
         same price;

     (2) overstated the Company's revenues in its public Securities and
         Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and elsewhere by including
         in such revenues sums received in connection with such
         simultaneous purchases and sales of power; and

     (3) failed to disclose that the Company did not have in place
         sufficient management controls to prevent Company's traders
         from engaging in simultaneous purchases and sales of power at
         the same price.

The complaint further alleges that Deloitte & Touche violated the
common law by certifying the Company's financial statements and by
allowing its unqualified opinion to be incorporated by reference into
Company filings with the SEC despite the fact that such financial
statements and filings were materially misleading in that they
materially overstated the Company's revenues by counting as revenue
sums received in connection with simultaneous purchases and sales of
power at the same price.

After the foregoing became known to the public, the complaint alleges,
Company stock tumbled to as low as $32.89 on May 21, 2002, down from a
class period high of $47.74.

For more details, contact Ms. Linday Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414
or by E-mail: DUK@bernlieb.com.  


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Flextronics
International, Ltd. (Nasdaq:FLEX) and certain of its senior officers,
alleging violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October 2,
2001 and June 3, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges the defendants with violation of Sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that during the
class period, the Company consistently represented that its business
was thriving, that it was using the difficult market conditions to
increase market share and revenues, and that it expected to continue to
do so in the foreseeable future.

Defendants failed to disclose during the class period that the
Company's business was experiencing a number of adverse factors which
were negatively impacting its business and which would cause it to
report declining financial results, materially less than the market
expectations defendants had created.  Specifically defendants failed to
disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by negative trends in its markets;

     (2) many of the Company's customers were experiencing severe
         financial difficulty such that it was highly foreseeable that
         they would be unable to complete anticipated sales, thereby
         causing the Company to suffer a decline in its revenues; and

     (3) though the Company had taken restructuring charges of almost
         $400 million in the second fiscal quarter of 2002, the period
         ended September 30, 2001, purportedly to finalize the
         Company's restructuring, defendants knew that as a result of
         the adverse business conditions the Company was experiencing,
         further restructuring would be necessary.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703
by Fax: 877-370-7704 by E-Mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants Flextronics International, Ltd. (Nasdaq:FLEX) on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock October 2,2001 and June 4,
2002, inclusive.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Michael E. Marks, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board of Directors,

     (2) Michael McNamara, President of American Operations of the
         Company, and

     (3) Robert R.B. Dykes, President of Systems Group and Chief
         Financial Officer of the Company

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 or
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


MIRANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Mirant Corporation
(NYSE: MIR) securities between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.  The
action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 19, 2001 and May 6, 2002.

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

As now revealed, during the class period, while the Company announced
quarter-after-quarter of outstanding growth, and assured investors that
problems in the California market had been properly accounted for, the
Company, in fact, failed to:

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

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

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

As a result, defendants' class period financial statements were
materially overstated, and failed to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Phone: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414
by E-mail: MIR@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all persons who purchased the securities of Mirant Corporation, (NYSE:
MIR) from January 19, 2001 through May 6, 2002, inclusive, against the
Company and certain individual officers.

The suit alleges that defendants artificially manipulated energy prices
in California, much like Enron, which led to investigations by the
Attorney General of California and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that while the Company announced
outstanding growth and assured investors that problems in the
California market had been properly accounted for, the Company violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by failing to take a charge to
earnings to account for the return of illegally obtained revenue and
the professional fees necessary to deal with the fraud investigations.

Defendants are alleged to have sold over $8 million of their stock at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, and to have used
the inflated stock price to acquire power plants in Jamaica and the
Philippines.  When the full extent of the Company's wrongdoing was
ultimately revealed on May 7, 2002, the price per share fell over 12%
to $9.75 per share, well below the class period high of almost $50 per
share.

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


MUTUAL RISK: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. (OTC Pink Sheets: MLRMF); (formerly traded NYSE: MM)
securities between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2002.  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company and its
most senior officers and directors disseminated materially false
financial statements for each of the Company's interim quarters during
that period and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001, which
materially overstated the Company's cumulative revenues and its net
income.  Defendants also made a series of other materially false and
misleading statements about the Company and its financial condition and
performance.  

As a result of the materially false and misleading statements and
omissions described herein, Company stock was inflated to an all-time
high of $23.75 per share.

The Company also represented in each of its quarterly and annual
filings with the SEC that the financial statements included therein had
"been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles" and "reflected all adjustments necessary for a fair
presentation of results for such periods."

In reality, each of the Company's financial statements violated the
general accepted accounting practices (GAAP) by understating reserves
for potential claims.  The financial results included in the Company's
SEC filings during the class period were thereby rendered materially
false and misleading.

Then, on April 2, 2002, the Company admitted that even its disastrous
Q4 2001 results (announced February 19, 2002) were not accurate,
putting the Company's shares into another "free fall," trading at just
pennies per share following the April 2, 2002 admission.

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


TELLABS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Tellabs, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TLAB) publicly traded securities during the period between
December 11, 2000 and June 19, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) its new products were enjoying strong demand;

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

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

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

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

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

In reaction to the announcement, the price of Company stock fell by
31%, from $23 per share on June 19 to $15.87 on June 20, representing a
75% decline from the class period high.

During the class period, one of the Company's officers sold a total of
80,000 shares of Company stock at prices between $64.25 to $65.38 per
share, grossing proceeds of more than $5.18 million.

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


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges FL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Uniroyal Technology
Corp. (Nasdaq: UTCI) from February 8, 2000 through May 13, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) George J. Zulanas, Jr. and

     (2) Howard R. Curd

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 February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

But for the Company's financial support, Sterling would probably have
been forced to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws.  Sterling was
a development stage company and not, as defendants touted, "a leading
developer of silicon carbide technology and materials."

Moreover, in order to materially inflate the Company's net worth and
further foster the illusion of growth, defendants agreed to pay an
inflated price for Sterling with materially overvalued stock serving as
currency.

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

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

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Vivendi Universal
(NYSE: V; Paris Bourse: EX FP) between February 11, 2002 and July 3,
2002, inclusive, against the Company and Jean-Marie Messier, former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

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

Specifically, prior to and during the class period, Mr. Messier took
the Company on an acquisition binge that, according to published
reports, resulted in the Company amassing approximately $18 billion in
debt as he turned the Company from a water concern into an
entertainment powerhouse.

Under Mr. Messier's leadership, Vivendi completed a $30 billion buyout
of Canada's Seagram and a $10.3 billion purchase of USA Networks Inc.,
the cable and entertainment company owned by Hollywood mogul Barry
Diller.  Concomitantly, Mr. Messier orchestrated a scheme to conceal
the severity of the Company's liquidity problems stemming from the
massive debt load incurred as a result of these, and other,
transactions.

In fact, only days before his ouster by the Company's Board, Mr.
Messier caused the Company to issue several press releases that falsely
stated that the Company did not face an immediate and severe cash
shortage that threatened its viability going forward absent an asset
fire sale.  It was only after the Company's board dislodged Mr. Messier
that the Company's new management disclosed the severity of the crisis
and that the Company would have to secure immediately both bridge and
long-term financing or default on its largest credit obligations.

As detailed in the Complaint, Mr. Messier failed to disclose the true
contours of the Company's cash crisis and his affirmative
misrepresentations to the contrary have given rise to an investigation
by French authorities concerning whether Mr. Messier disclosed in a
timely fashion that the Company was in dire financial straits.

Published reports also indicate that the Company is engaged in urgent
discussions with lenders to secure financing and is both considering
and negotiating the sale of assets.

For more details, contact Gregory Mark Nespole 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 Vivendi.


                              *********

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  * * *