CAR_Public/020730.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, July 30, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 149

                           Headlines

ANDRO LITIGATION: Six States Accuse Manufacturers of False Marketing
ARGENTINA: Italian Court Orders Argentine Government Assets Embargoed
BUENA VISTA: CO Officials Admit Inmates Served With Contaminated Beef
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyer Pursue Settlement For Sexual Abuse Victims
ENRON CORP: Merrill Lynch Banker Refuses To Testify In Securities Probe

EUROPEAN UNION: Tells Member States To Prevent Sex Harassment at Work
FASTFOOD LITIGATION: NY Man Sues Four Chains For "Causing Bad Health"
INSURANCE INDUSTRY: CVS, Wal-Mart Sued Birth Control Expenses Insurance
OHIO: NY Foundation Agrees To Fund Racial Profiling Suit Settlement
PARTSBASE INC.: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set For September

PHILADELPHIA: Ruling Over City Trash Pickups Favors Condominium Owners
PHILADELPHIA: Suit V. City Over Local Public-Access Channels Dismissed
PHILADELPHIA: City To Refund $3.4 M Collected As Personal-Property Tax
SAINT-GOBAIN: Stocks Plunge After Asbestos-Related Charges Surface
SOUTH DAKOTA: ACLU Sues On Behalf of Students Over Drug-Dog Search

TOBACCO LITIGATION: WV Smokers Ask For New Medical Monitoring Trial

*Corporate Oversight Bill Passes, Paving Way To Limit Corporate Abuse

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERADA HESS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
CAPITAL ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in CA
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

KNIGHT TRADING: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
KNIGHT TRADING: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in NJ
PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt & Anderson Commences Securities Suit in MN
RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SONUS NETWORKS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in MA Court

                           *********

ANDRO LITIGATION: Six States Accuse Manufacturers of False Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Makers of a dietary supplement named androstenedione, more commonly
known as andro, face several class actions filed on behalf of six
states, alleging they falsely marketed the drug as an alternative to
anabolic steroids, CNN.com reports.  Companies named as defendants
include:

     (1) AST Sports Science,

     (2) Impact Nutrition Inc.,

     (3) Natural Supplement Association Inc.,

     (4) Cytodyne Technologies Inc.,

     (5) General Nutrition Cos. Inc.,

     (6) Twin Laboratories Inc.,

     (7) Vitamin Shoppe Industries,

     (8) Bodyonics Ltd.,

     (9) Genetic Evolutionary Nutrition LLC,

    (10) Kaizen Inc.,

    (11) Met-RX USA Inc.,

    (12) Natrol Inc.,

    (13) Mass Quantitities Inc.,

    (14) Muscletech Research and Development Inc.,

    (15) Muscletech Inc.,

    (16) Vitamin World Inc.,

    (17) Basic Research Ltd. Liability Co.,

    (18) Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc.,

    (19) Nutraceutics Corp. and

    (20) Weider Nutrition International Inc.

The suits have been filed in Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, New
Jersey, California and Colorado courts, while a seventh suit is
expected soon in Illinois.  The suits charge the Company with
committing fraud because andro does not work and are being filed on
behalf of all people who have bought andro products from the companies.

The suits further assert that the Companies claimed their andro
products "are legal and are proven to be effective."  Plaintiffs' co-
counsel Vincent Lynch says, "We believe the makers and sellers of andro
are caught in a Catch-22.If andro works, they are criminally liable,
and if andro doesn't work, they are liable for civil damages."

Several studies have said that andro does not lead to higher
testosterone levels or increased muscle growth when used according to
direction labels, CNN.com reports. A study conducted at Iowa State
University and published in The Journal of the American Medical
Association in 1999 found no difference in muscle strength or
testosterone levels in men taking 300 milligrams of andro daily vs. men
taking a placebo.  Another study, published in the Archives of Internal
Medicine in 2000, said that taking andro does not promote muscle growth
or increase strength.

One of the defendants, AST Sports Science Inc., had "no comment at this
time" about the suits, a spokesman told CNN.  "We have more than 20
plaintiffs already," according to John Goldsmith, a partner in the
Trenam Kemker law firm, which is filing a suit in West Palm Beach.


ARGENTINA: Italian Court Orders Argentine Government Assets Embargoed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Rome ordered an embargo on Argentine assets in response to a
claim filed by holders of defaulted Argentine bonds in Italy, two
Buenos Aires-based newspapers reported, according to a recent report by
Reuters English News Service.  The Argentine newspapers are El Cronista
and Ambito Financiero.

Several class actions have been filed by holders of Argentina's
publicly traded debt in a number of countries that are awaiting the
start of debt-restructuring negotiations.  The Italian court order also
freezes Argentine government real estate and other assets in Italy as
well as Italian aid contributions to the International Monetary Fund
destined for Argentina.

The ruling would be the first foreign order to freeze Argentine
government assets after the South American country defaulted, in
January, on part of its $133 billion foreign debt.  Neither Argentine
Economy Ministers officials nor Italian court officials were
immediately available for comment.


BUENA VISTA: CO Officials Admit Inmates Served With Contaminated Beef
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado state officials admitted that hundreds of inmates at the Buena
Vista Correctional Complex and two other state prisons were fed
meatloaf made with E. coli contaminated beef.

The beef, processed by ConAgra, Inc., was recalled June 30 because of
E. coli contamination. It became the second-largest recall in US
history in July, when the company expanded it to 18.6 million pounds.

The state's Department of Corrections told the Associated Press that
about 2,500 pounds of recalled ConAgra ground beef was given to
inmates.  Only those at Buena Vista were knowingly served the meat, at
lunch on Saturday, the Department of Corrections added, but they
insisted that none of the inmates became ill from the meat.

"The decision to cook it was because they could prepare the meat
safely," corrections department spokeswoman Alison Morgan told AP,
adding that no disciplinary review was expected.

According to the Denver Post, Buena Vista inmates told prison officials
that they found recalled meat in a kitchen freezer Saturday.  Warden
Tony Reid reportedly ordered it cooked and served.  Corrections
supervisors learned of the matter when contacted by the Post.   

As a result of the inquiry, the department will issue a written policy
mandating the return of all food products subject to recall, Ms. Morgan
said.  "It clearly was an erroneous decision to serve the recalled
beef," Dan Hopkins, spokesman for Gov. Bill Owens, told AP.  "The
executive director of corrections has assured the governor's office
that such lapses will not occur in the future."

It is unclear how many Buena Vista prisoners ate the meat, Ms. Morgan
said, but about 850 of the 1,230 inmates come to lunch each day. Some
guards also may have eaten it, she said, according to the Associated
Press.  There was no listing for Warden Reid's home telephone number,
and he did not immediately return a message left at the prison by The
Associated Press.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyer Pursue Settlement For Sexual Abuse Victims
------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who represents nearly 120 alleged victims of sexual abuse by
priests, says he is optimistic about settlement talks with the Roman
Catholic Church, despite a breakdown of similar negotiations in
Massachusetts, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Peter Hutchins, who has filed a class action against the Diocese of
Manchester, has been negotiating with church lawyers since May, hoping
to avoid a trial, which, he says, would be emotionally costly for his
clients.  "This is the type of case that needs to be resolved to
everyone's benefit and to hurt the least number of people possible,"
Mr. Hutchins said.  "This is the type of situation where a trial does
not help anyone."

Lawyers for some 240 alleged abuse victims in Massachusetts have been
in similar talks for the past 30 days, but, recently, Roderick
MacLeish, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said he is
proceeding with litigation and will try to force the Archdiocese of
Boston to release records on 73 priests accused of abuse.

The failure of settlement talks in Massachusetts has not dimmed Mr.
Hutchins' hope that agreement can be reached in New Hampshire, where,
he said, negotiations began much earlier in the process than they did
in Massachusetts.  The longer lawyers wait before entering into talks,
the more resentment can build, making settlement less likely, according
to Mr. Hutchins.

Mr. Hutchins does admit that some people may want a trial in order to
force the church to be more open about how it has handled abuse
allegations against priests in the past.  However, he says that is not
his priority.

"I am not representing these victims for the purpose of forcing the
diocese to come forward with information, which is something people may
think they should have done ages ago," said Mr. Hutchins.  "My job is
to represent people who were hurt and to seek restitution for them."

A pretrial hearing for the class-action lawsuit had been scheduled for
July 18, but was delayed until August 13 because of the talks.  Mr.
Hutchins said that, unlike the Massachusetts lawyers, he will not put a
time limit on his talks with the church.

Despite Mr. Hutchins' optimism about the negotiations, he knows he must
also be prepared for a court fight.  Last month, he asked a judge for a
$30 million lien against the diocese, and he is learning about canon
law in preparation for deposing church leaders.

Recently, Mr. Hutchins announced that he has signed on a star expert
witness, the Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, a Dominican priest and expert on
church sex abuse issues.

"I believe strongly in the cases; I believe strongly in my clients,"
Mr. Hutchins said.  "Like any case, if the two sides can get together,
they settle; if they don't, you litigate.  It is just that simple."


ENRON CORP: Merrill Lynch Banker Refuses To Testify In Securities Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch put one of its investment bankers on leave last Friday
after he said he would not testify before the US Senate's Permanent  
Subcommittee on Investigations, at a hearing set for this Tuesday, in a
probe of Enron Corporation's collapse and allegations that Merrill
Lynch worked side-by-side with the now bankrupt Enron, Reuters English
News Service reports.

Merrill Lynch placed Schuyler Tilney on administrative leave after Mr.
Tilney informed the Company that his attorney advised him not to
testify before the subcommittee.  Mr. Tilney was subpoenaed after a
hearing last Tuesday on Enron's links to two other Wall Street banking
giants, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Inc. and Citigroup Inc.

"Without the support and assistance of major financial institutions,
Enron could not have engaged in the extent of the deceptions that it
did," said subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin, in a statement.  This
conclusion is set forth, as well, in the massive class action filed by
Enron investors, in April, against former Enron executives and a number
of banks, including the investment bank of Merrill Lynch.  

The conclusion is the sum result of a number of allegations in the
lawsuit's complaint saying that the defendant banks, including
Merrill Lynch, engaged in key roles in Enron's special purpose
entities, among other acts of deception.  The lawsuit charges that the
investment bank:

     (1) played a key role in creating and funding the LJM2 partnership
         central to many of Enron's questionable ventures;

     (2) allowed some of its top executives, including Mr. Tilney, to
         invest personally in the LJM2 venture;

     (3) knew LJM2 was designed to keep debt off Enron's balance sheet
         to help inflate its perceived profits and thereby boost its
         stock price;

     (4) reaped enormous profits from banking and advisory fees for the
         extensive work done for Enron;

     (5) helped Enron create the troubled Azurix water venture; and

     (6) was lead underwriter in several Enron public offerings.

Further, the lawsuit alleges Merrill Lynch "provided investment banking
services to Enron, helped structure and finance one or more of Enron's
SPEs (special purpose entities) while its security analysts were
issuing extremely positive reports on Enron."

The relationship between the information obtained by investigations set
in motion by governmental agencies and the information set forth in the
many lawsuits launched by investors, has been a reciprocal one.  For
example, as a result of Eliot Spitzer's dramatic discovery of the Wall
Street research analysts' activities, investors were able to file their
class actions.  In turn, much of the information appearing in the
earlier Enron lawsuits provided the initial groundwork for the series
of congressional hearings conducted by both House and Senate
committees.


EUROPEAN UNION: Tells Member States To Prevent Sex Harassment at Work
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent landmark decision, the European Union Parliament equated
sexual harassment with discrimination and has decreed that member
states must establish laws that would prevent harassment in the
workplace, the Inter Press Service reports.

The Parliament has issued a binding directive, meaning that EU members
are obligated under the terms of the EU treaty, which all members have
signed, aimed at implementing the decision.  The directive tells
members to develop their own national frameworks for interpreting and
enforcing a new sexual harassment law.  This directive extends the
scope of a 1976 directive on equality in the workplace, and establishes
guidelines for sanctions and legal action, as well as for compensation,
with no upper limit.  Women's groups in the member nations are taking
up the cause of getting an EU directive that orders the use of the
class action as a vehicle for pursuing implementation of the sexual
harassment laws the member nations must now enact.

In addition, employers in the member nations will now be obligated
under the terms of the EU treaty to adhere to the directive and set up
preventive measures against sexual harassment and to provide "equality"
reports.  The directive also instructs member nations to establish
agencies, similar to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to
promote equality and enforce anti-discrimination laws, while adding new
safeguards for workers wishing to take family leave.

"This is a big leap forward in the European Union," says James
Passamano, an attorney and professor of European law at Rice University
in Texas.  "Before, it was up to individual member states to decide how
to enforce the broader notion of equal treatment as put forth in the
1976 directive.  But now, the European Union is saying,  'We view
harassment as a part of the equality issue.'  It is elevated to a
Union-wide concern and it requires member states to have uniform laws
and remedies."

European women's groups hailed the decision, as well, but suggested
that more work remains.  They are pushing for more comprehensive laws
that will allow class actions.  Right now, individuals can bring sexual
discrimination suits, but an organization cannot bring a suit on behalf
of a group of individuals.  Goals also include the incorporation of
gender equality into every aspect of a nation's governance.

Member nations have until 2005 to put laws on their books.  Meanwhile,
the new law allows individuals to seek legal recourse now in their
national courts by citing the EU law, which supercedes national law.

"The national courts of EU members are bound by the treaty to apply EU
law in a national court," said Professor Passamano.

The European Union is a political and economic union first established
in the 1950s.  With 15 member countries, the EU includes most nations
in Western Europe.  Currently, 13 Eastern and Southern European
countries are preparing for membership.


FASTFOOD LITIGATION: NY Man Sues Four Chains For "Causing Bad Health"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York man has sued four major fast food chains, claiming they
contributed to his obesity, heart disease and diabetes, his attorney
recently announced, according to Reuters English News Service.

The class action was recently filed in the Bronx Supreme Court and is
seeking unspecified damages against:

     (1) McDonald's,

     (2) Wendy's,

     (3) KFC Corporation, and

     (4) Burger King

The suit, filed on behalf of 56-year-old, five-foot-10-inch, 272-pound
maintenance worker Caesar Barber and others, estimates that millions of
Americans could be included in the claim.  The suit also requests that
the companies label individual products with fat, salt, cholesterol and
other dietary content, as well as warn users of possible health
effects.

New York attorney Samuel Hirsch, who is representing Mr. Barber, said
that consumers are not getting adequate warning about foods that could
cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and
elevated cholesterol levels.  "Fast food chains failed to disclose the
contents in terms of calories, fat grams and sodium.  Even when posted,
the information is not easily understandable to the public," Mr. Hirsch
said.

Plaintiff's court documents indicate that the cause of action relies on
impressive studies. For example, the Surgeon General's 2001 Report on
Overweight and Obesity, which state that if "left unabated, overweight
and obesity may soon cause as much preventable disease and death as
cigarette smoking."  Statistical data from such studies document the
measurable health affects and risks posed by ingestion of the typical
fast food products.

The court documents also give data concerning the effects of overweight
and obesity on the socio-economic life of the nation: direct costs,
such as diagnostics, preventive care and treatment and indirect costs,
such as value of wages lost by people unable to work due to illness or
disability, grounded in the diseases associated with ingestion of fast
food products.  The total estimated direct and indirect costs for year
2001 were given as $117 billion.

The plan of the cause of action as outlined in the court documents is
basically four-fold:

     (1) whether consumption of the food products produced by
         defendants caused, exacerbated or induced overweight or
         obesity and/or the diseases of diabetes, heart disease, among
         others;

     (2) whether defendants knew or should have known that consumption
         of its products cause, exacerbate or induce overweight,
         obesity and/or the diseases of diabetes, heart disease, among
         others;

     (3) whether defendants adequately warned consumers and users of
         its food products as to the effects ingestion of such food
         products could have on their health; and

     (4) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched at the
         detrimental expense of  the plaintiff and the class members.

National Restaurant Association executive Steven Anderson said that
"this lawsuit, which makes restaurants solely responsible for obesity
in America, swallows a simplistic notion - it is a blatant attempt to
capitalize on the recent news stories on the growing rates of obesity."

Mr. Barber, who has had two heart attacks, told MSNBC he did not
realize fried food was bad for him until three years ago, and that he
had been eating fast food for decades because it was convenient.  "I
did not find out how bad it was until 1999," he said.  "I ate a lot
because I was by myself."

Mr. Hirsch, who accompanied his client on the MSNBC show, said they
particularly wanted better labeling for the "real offenders - the Big
Macs and Big Whoppers.Now, you have to be a rocket scientist" to be
able to read labels that were deliberately designed to be confusing, he
said.

McDonald's spokesman Walt Riker called the claims "ridiculous," saying,
"Our menu features choice and variety with lots of options for
consumers."

In Miami, a spokesman for Burger King, bought by Texas Pacific Group
last week, Thursday, declined to comment as the matter is under
litigation, but referred calls to the National Restaurant Association.

"There are 858,000 restaurants and food service outlets in the country
serving a variety of food that will meet anyone's specific dietary
needs," said Mr. Anderson.  "The nutritional information usually
appears on a chart at the right of the counter and is as easily
understood as any nutrition label you would see at a retail store."

Mr. Anderson also said, "The important thing to remember is that there
is a certain amount of personal responsibility we all have . the issues
of obesity and nutrition are much more complicated than this and
involve factors such as genetics, medical conditions and the level of
physical activity."


INSURANCE INDUSTRY: CVS, Wal-Mart Sued Birth Control Expenses Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Paulding County, Georgia women have joined the growing national
debate over whether companies should offer insurance coverage for birth
control expenses, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

In federal court, in Atlanta, the two women are suing Wal-Mart and CVS
Pharmacy, seeking to represent the respective companies' employees in a
class action.  The two cases are making their way through court, even
while Congress is considering legislation to mandate nationwide
insurance coverage for birth control.  Both lawsuits hope to build on a
precedent set last summer by a federal judge in Seattle who upheld the
first legal challenge against employers who do not cover birth control.

National surveys indicate about 60 percent of the country's large-
company health plans cover contraceptives, with about a third of all
small-company plans providing the coverage.  Employers who deny the
benefit argue that required coverage of birth control will escalate
already rising insurance costs, leaving many workers uninsured
altogether.

Supporters of comprehensive birth control health care coverage say it
will help women avoid unwanted pregnancies and the costs associated
with them, not to mention the time away from work after babies are
born.

"This is an important benefit that has been denied to women," Atlanta
lawyer Larry Pankey said.  "It has been historically characterized as a
moral choice to take contraceptives, but I think we have come far
afield from that idea.  Contraceptives are now about preventive health
care."

Mr. Pankey's client, Amanda Mewborn, a 23-year-old single mother, has
sued CVS Pharmacy.  A cashier earning $8 an hour, Ms. Mewborn struggled
to pay the $32.59 a month for her birth control pills.   Ms. Meborn's
lawsuit said that CVS' denial of benefits is gender discrimination and
a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.  Two years
ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared that
employers violate the law by failing to cover contraceptives if they
cover other preventive treatments.

Last month, after what it described as a "regular review of company
health benefits," CVS expanded its coverage to include contraceptives.  
Ms. Mewborn left her CVS job last month, but her lawsuit is very much
alive, Mr. Pankey said.  Ms. Mewborn, who wants to represent all CVS
female employees, seeks compensation for insurance coverage denied
before the drugstore chain changed its policy, the attorney said.

In a statement, CVS said Ms. Mewborn's lawsuit has no merit and that it
looks "forward to proving this point at the earliest possible
opportunity."

Lisa Smith Mauldin, 23, filed suit against Wal-Mart, wanting to
represent the company's workforce, which totals more than one million
people.  Wal-Mart, the country's largest retailer, denies its health
care plan discriminates against women.  "The plan is intended to cover
catastrophic illnesses and injuries," said Kris Howard, director of
Wal-Mart's insurance benefits.  "This means that the plan is designed
to cover medical needs such as broken bones and cancer, but not
elective choices such as plastic surgery or contraceptives."

In court filings, Wal-Mart accused the plaintiff of not concerning
herself with whether a court order mandating company-wide coverage of
birth control pills would lead to an increase in employee premiums or
deductibles or cause a cutback in coverage.

Dina Lassow, a lawyer with the New York-based National Women's Law
Center, which is supporting Ms. Mauldin's case, said Wal-Mart's plan is
discriminatory.  She takes issue with Wal-Mart's explanation of what it
covers and does not cover.  While the company excludes health care
coverage for drugs treating impotence and infertility, it does provide
coverage for blood pressure and cholesterol medication, Ms. Lassow
said.  "If you are covering other prescription drugs but not covering
contraceptive prescriptions, then you are discriminating on the basis
of gender," she said.

However, Wal-Mart's attorney, Mark Casciari, countered that blood
pressure and cholesterol medications are for treating problems, not
preventing them.  "There is no discrimination because the decision not
to cover the birth control benefit applies to men and women equally,"
the attorney said.

Ms. Mewborn's and Ms. Mauldin's lawyers are asking federal judges in
Atlanta to follow a precedent set in a lawsuit filed in Seattle.  In
that case, pharmacist Jennifer Erickson won a court order requiring
Bartell Drug Co. to include contraceptives in its health plan.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, in Seattle, wrote, "The exclusion
of prescription contraceptives creates a gaping hole in the coverage
offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and immediate health
care need uncovered."  Bartell Drug is appealing.

"I have seen women leave the pharmacy empty-handed because they cannot
afford to pay the full cost of their birth control pills," Ms. Erickson
testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee.  "Women should not have to file federal court lawsuits to
get their basic health-care needs covered."  The committee is expected
to vote on the bill's passage this summer.

Planned Parenthood, which represented Ms. Erickson in the Seattle case,
successfully lobbied the Georgia General Assembly in 1999, to extend
birth control coverage for all state employees and for workers with
individual and group insurance plans.  Self-insured plans, such as
those used by Wal-Mart and CVS and regulated by federal authorities,
were not covered by the legislation.

Leola Reis, vice president of Planned Parenthood of Georgia, says,
"Contraceptives have been proven to allow women to plan and space their
children.  That is a health care benefit."


OHIO: NY Foundation Agrees To Fund Racial Profiling Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Andrus Family Fund, a private New York foundation, agreed to
provide initial funding for one of the key programs in the
collaborative settlement of the class action against Cincinnati police,
the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The suit, filed last year by the Black United Front and the American
Civil Liberties Union, accused the police department of racial
profiling.  A collaborative settlement was later reached, which
included an agreement between the city and the US Department of
Justice.  However, a federal court still has to grant the settlement
approval.

The Andrus Family Fund, which promotes community reconciliation, will
allocate $75,000 for the Community Partnering Program, which will train
the community to work with police in solving problems and in studying
police practices and goals.  The Greater Cincinnati Foundation will
provide a matching $75,000 grant, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

"This program is very important," the Rev. Damon Lynch III, president
of the Black United Front told the Enquirer.  "It allows police and the
community to partner in community problem-solving. It helps community
residents identify the underlying issues of which crime may be a
symptom."

"This is really a big deal," said Al Gerhardstein, an attorney for the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "The most important thing we have to do
under the agreement is to make sure the community understands the shift
in policing we expect. That takes training."  Steve Kelban, executive
director of the Andrus Family Fund, said Cincinnati has the opportunity
to be a national trendsetter in resolving problems between the
community and police.


PARTSBASE INC.: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set For September
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the US$1.5 million settlement proposed by
PartsBase, Inc. for the securities class action filed on behalf of all
people and entities who purchased PartsBase common stock from the
company's initial public offering on March 22, 2000 to April 25, 2000,
has been set for September 20,2002, the South Florida Business Journal
reports.

The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo and The
Rosen Law Firm of New York announced the hearing in a press statement.  
At the hearing, the firms said a judge will determine whether the court
should approve a proposed settlement for $1.5 million plus accrued
interest. The firms also said the court will determine how or if it
should dismiss the litigation and whether the defendant should
reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for fees and expenses.

Shares in PartsBase closed up about 2 cents to about $1.24. The 52-week
low was 25 cents on Sept. 10. The 52-week high was $1.40 on July 23.


PHILADELPHIA: Ruling Over City Trash Pickups Favors Condominium Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court judge this week handed city condominium and cooperative
apartment owners a victory in their class action by ruling that they
are entitled to city trash pickups, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

In a summary judgment, US District Judge Berle M. Schiller said last
week that the city's rule calling for buildings with more than six
dwelling units to provide their own trash pickups, had no rational
basis.  The rule, he concluded, denied condominium and cooperative
apartment owners constitutional guarantees of equal protection under
the law.

Judge Schiller said condominium and cooperative owners were also
entitled to compensation for the costs that they had incurred in order
to have their trash picked up privately, but he did not say how much.  
One estimate is that the city saves $1.2 million a year by not hauling
condominium and cooperative trash.

The judge declined to include apartment buildings in his ruling,
stating that they are commercial ventures and that the city generally
does not pick up commercial trash.  Judge Schiller also declined to
overturn the $25-per-unit annual fee the city imposes on condominium
and apartment owners.

Judge Schiller's decision resolves the class action brought by the
condominium association at the Philadelphian, at 24th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue and by West Walnut Associates, owner of the
Manchester Apartments at 2800 Welsh Road.


PHILADELPHIA: Suit V. City Over Local Public-Access Channels Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit from groups claiming the city has
violated their First Amendment rights because it does not ensure that
there will be local public-access channels on cable television,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

US District Judge Robert F. Kelly said the plaintiffs did not have the
standing needed to file the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs included the
National Organization for Women, Philadelphia Unemployment Project and
the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force.

Judge Kelly also ruled that the groups did not show that their rights
had been violated.  The groups had argued that the city violated their
right to free speech because it did not comply with its own law calling
for public access to cable.

Philadelphia is the largest city without a public-access channel.  The
city has used fees paid by the city's two cable providers, Comcast and
Urban Cableworks, to supplement its general fund, instead of putting it
toward public access.

City officials have said they fear that a public-access channel would
be used by "hate groups."


PHILADELPHIA: City To Refund $3.4 M Collected As Personal-Property Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two years ago, Philadelphia angered thousands of taxpayers by ordering
them to pay an obscure stock tax on holdings going back to 1996.
However, the city has reversed course. In order to settle a class
action, officials said the city plans to refund, with five percent
interest, the $3.4 million it collected from about 8,000 residents,
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Enacted in 1913 and levied by counties, the personal-property tax of $4
per $1000 in stock value was collected mainly on the honor system and
therefore widely evaded.  In 1996, Main Line billionaire Walter
Annenberg sued Montgomery County, arguing that the tax was
unconstitutional.  In June 2000, the state Supreme Court ruled that the
way the tax was being levied was illegal.

Counties had improperly been taxing stocks in out-of-state companies
but were exempting stocks in companies that had offices based in
Pennsylvania, the court decided.

There were a number of ways Philadelphia could fund the money for the
refund.  It decided to collect the tax on in-state securities for 1996
and refund taxes paid in 1993, 1994, and 1995.  The city would then use
what it collected in 1996, to pay the refunds.  However, this plan
failed. Out of the estimated $25 million owed, the city collected just
$3.4 million.  No refunds were paid.

However, 8,000 taxpayers who did pay the 1996 levy filed a class
action, charging, among other things, that they were being treated
unfairly.  This suit was settled with the $3.4 million collected for
1996.

This is a circular exercise that still leaves the city where it was
when it started, except poorer for the amount paid for interest.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Stocks Plunge After Asbestos-Related Charges Surface
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of building materials firm Saint-Gobain, one of France's oldest
and most respected companies, plunged as much as 30 percent recently,
as investors lost confidence upon learning of unexpected asbestos-
related charges, Reuters English News Service reports.

Saint-Gobain said it had booked 50 million euros ($50 million) in
charges (provisions) in the first half for US litigation risks linked
to asbestos.  It also reduced its forecast for 2002 net profit.  The
Company had said previously that its insurance was enough to cover
asbestos claims but took charges, it said, after seeing a new type of
US class action claim filed against a raft of companies together.  The
asbestos provisions and lower profit forecast sent the stock spiraling
to its lowest level in six years.

Another 50 million euros in charges are expected for the second half of
the year, and analysts said the firm would find it tough to soothe
jitters over the asbestos issue, which has plagued other companies,
such as Swiss conglomerate ABB.

Saint-Gobain, which can trace its origins back to 1665 and the court of
King Louis XIVth, had been one of the most resilient French blue chips
in a sliding market until recently, when it was hit with slowing demand
for products amid weak economic growth.

The claims, over which Saint-Gobain, arise out of asbestos usage by a
US subsidiary years ago.  "The big change is more in terms of
sentiment," an analyst at Morgan Stanley said.  "Saint-Gobain has
always denied that it was going to have any impact from asbestos in the
profit and loss (statement), and (has said) it was well covered by
insurance.  So we have seen a great change on that side," said the
Morgan Stanley analyst.

Investors registered concern about the Company's earnings after Saint-
Gobain expected net profit for 2002 to come in at roughly the same
levels as last year in contrast to the Company's earlier targeting a
growth of up to four percent in 2002 net earnings before capital gains.  
Many of Europe's construction-related shares took their cue from Saint-
Gobain's weaker outlook and slumped as well.


SOUTH DAKOTA: ACLU Sues On Behalf of Students Over Drug-Dog Search
------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of seventeen
elementary and high school students at the Wagner School, filed a class
action, accusing the school of confining them to their classrooms while
a German Shepherd dog, trained in the detection of drugs, sniffed the
students to determine whether or not drugs were on their person, the
Aberdeen American News reports.

The lawsuit, recently filed in US District Court, in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, asks the court to declare such activity a violation of the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches.  The lawsuit also
seeks unspecified damages and an order stopping the practice.

The court document says that one day in early May, Wagner Principal
Neil Goter announced over the school intercom that the school would be
in "lockdown" until further notice and that no student could leave the
classroom, even to use the restroom.

"Over the course of the next few hours, a number of local and federal
law enforcement officers toured a police dog, a large German shepherd,
through the classrooms of the Wagner school," the lawsuit's complaint
said.  A similar drug-dog search was conducted a few days later, the
lawsuit alleges.

The American Civil Liberties said in its class action that the Wagner
School Bard approved the search.  The school board is named as
defendant, along with former Wagner Police Chief Richard Volk and Neil
McCaleb, assistant secretary of Indian Affairs in the Interior
Department.


TOBACCO LITIGATION:  WV Smokers Ask For New Medical Monitoring Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys are seeking a new trial for some 270,000 West Virginia
smokers who lost the fight last fall for what could have been a
landmark medical monitoring program, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

A petition for appeal, filed in Ohio County Circuit Court, argues that
Judge Arthur Recht made a series of wrong decisions that gave four US
tobacco companies an unfair advantage with the jury.  The full appeal
likely will be filed with the state Supreme Court by mid-September.  
The suit claims that Judge Recht's errors included:

     (1) the exclusion of evidence showing that companies manipulated
         mechanized cigarette testing to produce lower tar and nicotine
         levels than a human smoker would inhale; and

     (2) the judge gave RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, Philip Morris and Brown
         & Williamson too much latitude in arguing that smoking is
         voluntary - an issue, say the plaintiffs, that should have
         been reserved for a separate phase of the trial;

Both these issues go to the heart of the difficulty in trying the case
- how to separate issues and behaviors that are common to all smokers
from those that are unique to an individual smoker.

Healthy West Virginians with a five-year, pack-a-day habit sued the
tobacco companies for an industry-funded screening program which, they
argued, could lead to early detection of lung cancer, emphysema and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  The smokers said they were
entitled to free, routine medical monitoring because the cigarette
companies sold a defective product with no regard for their customers'
health.

The lawsuit, essentially structured as a product liability case with
medical monitoring as the proposed remedy for wronged consumers, was
the first of its kind to be tried in the United States.

The Supreme Court should address the "novel and complex" issues that
will give critical guidance to other class action product liability
cases in West Virginia, attorney Theodore Goldberg said.  "The trial
court was faced with the unenviable task of sailing in uncharted
waters, conducting a large, socially consequential trial that presented
multiple weighty legal issues that have not yet been fully explicated
in West Virginia case law," he added.

However, North Carolina attorney Jeff Furr, who represents R.J.
Reynolds, said recently that he was surprised the smokers "would raise
so many trivial issues that would clearly form no basis for a
reversal."  In exchange for having their case certified as a class
action, the smokers' attorneys made trade-offs that they now want to
rescind, Mr. Furr and William Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate
general counsel at Philip Morris, said.

"To be able to proceed as a class action, common issues have to
predominate.  They knew they would not be able to raise individual
issues.  They are trying to have it both ways," Mr. Furr said.  "They
want to proceed as a class and raise individual issues, and at the same
time prevent us from presenting individual defenses."

Judge Recht's jury instructions were 33 pages long.  The panel
ultimately concluded that cigarettes are not defective products and the
companies have not been negligent in designing or manufacturing them.  
The jury also concluded that tobacco companies should not be forced to
provide free medical checkups to people who are at risk of becoming
sick.  Instead they accepted the tobacco companies' oft-repeated
argument that smokers concerned about their health should quit.

Judge Recht did instruct jurors that reasons for smoking were
irrelevant, but the petition for appeal argues those instructions were
not frequent or strong enough to be effective.  The smokers say Judge
Recht further erred by:

     (i) Failing to decide, as a matter of law, that cigarettes are
         unsafe for their intended use, which would have avoided having  
         the jury make that decision;

    (ii) refusing to instruct jurors to consider whether the risk of a
         cigarette outweighs its benefit;

   (iii) failing to explain that a product can be "state of the art"
         and still be defective;

    (iv) failing to tell jurors that the costs and frequency of the
         medical testing were not to be given significant weight in the
         deliberations;

     (v) excluding evidence that that tobacco companies designed
         cigarettes for youthful smokers and targeted them in
         advertising; and

    (vi) excluding evidence about pain and suffering.


*Corporate Oversight Bill Passes, Paving Way To Limit Corporate Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By overwhelming majorities in both chambers, Congress approved sweeping
legislation cracking down on corporate abuses, making it easier to sue
companies and giving aggrieved shareholders a new way to get
compensated, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The House passed the bill 423-3, and hours later, the Senate gave its
yea by a vote of 99-0.  The bill has been sped on its way to President
Bush, who called it "a good piece of legislation."

The unusually quick action comes despite misgivings by many Republicans
over the bill's tough line on business.  However, the GOP fear of a
voter backlash in November, grounded in the continuing revelations of
deceptive accounting practices, which have, in turn, triggered a dive
in stock prices around the globe.  This election-year fear has forced
the Republicans to put aside their proclivities for what they consider
the business of America to be. Business, that is.

Overall, the legislation aims to stamp out deceptive accounting and
management practices by:

     (1) beefing-up criminal penalties for wrongdoers;

     (2) setting up deeper oversight;

     (3) holding top executives more directly responsible; and

     (4) requiring more-open books

An important feature of the legislation is that it eases the path for
injured parties to get compensation.  The bill establishes a
restitution fund for wronged shareholders, financed by fines from any
ill-gotten gains that securities regulators receive from penalizing
wayward executives.  The legislation also establishes a new regulatory
schema that offers new grounds for investors to go to court, and allows
them more time to do so.

These provisions are offered even as securities-fraud suits are already
booming, notwithstanding the 1995 law that Congress enacted with the
purpose of restricting such suits.

All of this has placed the president, despite his endorsement of the
bill, in an uncomfortable position.  Mr. Bush has spent much of his
political career trying to rein in what he perceives to be abusive
litigation.  As president, he has repeatedly pushed Congress to curb
class action lawsuits.

More recently, the president presented a new plan for limiting damages
in medical-malpractice suits.  "What we want is reasonable health care,
not rich trial lawyers," he said on a trip to North Carolina to promote
his proposal. He wants to limit the amount of time for filing
malpractice suits, cap punitive and non-economic awards at $250,000 and
encourage quick settlements.

The new legislation to curb corporate abuse could spur an increase in
lawsuits in several ways.  It extends the amount of time investors have
to file suits to two years from the one after they discover an alleged
fraud and extends to five years from the three after it occurs.

Authors of the bill did not intend that the legislation encompass acts
committed before the date it is enacted.  However, some plaintiffs'
lawyers say they may file new suits against companies, such as Enron,
to cover investors who bought stock in the company as long as five
years ago.  A securities-industry official, who views the legislation
as imperfectly written, said he thought the issue would be subject to
considerable dispute in court.

The longer time line also increases the likelihood that attorneys will
be able to unearth claims against auditors and bankers, not just
against the companies themselves.

In addition, the new requirements that corporate executives certify the
authenticity of financial statements or face criminal sanctions,
increase the odds of companies restating their earnings, a frequent
precursor to shareholder litigation.

Corporate lawyers who have been largely exempt from securities suits
since the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s also face potential
new liabilities.  Those will depend on the rules the SEC develops to
meet the legislation's mandate that it establish new professional
standards.  New enforcement powers and resources granted to the SEC
will enhance its ability to unearth wrongdoing that could spur more
lawsuits.

"Obviously, some lawsuits are going to spring up out of some of the
regulatory provisions, but only time will tell if it is going to be a
trickle or a torrent," said Patrick McGurn, a vice president at
Institution Shareholder Services, a proxy-advisory service in Maryland.  
"Clearly you will see more as a result, rather than less."  

Business groups and Republicans agree, calling the bill a potential
boon for plaintiffs' lawyers, who usually provide huge amounts of
political and financial support to allies in the Democratic Party.

The legislation for the first time sets up a formal system for
shareholders to recover some stock losses related to corporate
executives' wrongdoing.  The bill directs the SEC to funnel into a new
investror restitution fund all the fines it recovers from executives
whom the agency has accused of breaking securities laws.  Currently,
most of the money the SEC recovers goes to the US Treasury, instead of
the aggrieved investors.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERADA HESS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of Amerada Hess Corp. (NYSE:AHC) common
stock during the period between Feb. 9, 2001 and July 11, 2001.  

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 beginning in early 2001, the Company began
secret discussions to acquire Triton Energy Limited (Triton), in order
to obtain needed additional oil reserves and to significantly boost the
Company's crude oil production.

However, it immediately became clear to the Company's top insiders that
due to the demands of Triton's CEO and Triton's controlling shareholder
that if Amerada Hess was to acquire Triton, the Company would have to
pay an extremely high price of over $3 billion for Triton, a price in
excess of what standard valuation approaches would justify for Triton,
a price that would represent a very substantial premium over Triton's
stock trading price and a price that would require the Company to
borrow billions of dollars to finance the purchase of Triton.

Without disclosing these discussions and negotiations or the Company's
decision to offer to pay over $3 billion to acquire Triton, the top
insiders at Amerada Hess who were involved in, or aware of, the details
concerning the proposed acquisition of Triton, sold off huge amounts of
their Amerada Hess stock to avoid the losses they knew they would
suffer from the sharp decline in Amerada Hess' stock which they knew
would occur when the Triton acquisition was disclosed, and thus profit
from the artificial inflation in the price of Amerada Hess' stock that
persisted while they failed to disclose material information about the
proposed Triton acquisition.

By not disclosing that defendants were actively negotiating for the
acquisition of Triton, the Individual Defendants violated their duty to
"abstain" or "disclose" under the 1934 Act and pursued a scheme to
defraud and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Amerada Hess stock by selling off over 1.3 million of
their Amerada Hess shares at as high as $90 per share for proceeds of
$119 million.

On July 10,2001, after the Individual Defendants had completed their
stock sales, Amerada Hess disclosed it was acquiring Triton for $3.2
billion, $45 per share, a very large, over 50%, premium over Triton's
7/9/01 closing price of $29-29/32. Amerada Hess stock fell from $81-
11/16 on 7/9/01 to $77 on 7/10/01; to $74 per share on 7/12/01; and to
$70-19/32 per share on 7/18/01, a cumulative decline of well over 13%
in just seven trading sessions. By 9/26/01, just weeks after Amerada
Hess completed the Triton deal and disclosed it had had to borrow $2.5
billion to finance the transaction, Amerada Hess' stock fell to $59-
3/32 compared to its Class Period high of $90-13/32 in 5/01, a 34%
decline.

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


CAPITAL ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF) securities during the period
between January 15, 2002 and July 16, 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 the Company issued numerous press releases regarding its
performance during the class period which represented that the Company
was experiencing quarter after quarter of record earnings and revenue
growth while maintaining "stringent risk management practices" and
adequate loan loss reserves.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was in violation of federal guidelines regarding
adequate levels of capitalization and loan loss reserves and that it
was not effectively managing its rapid growth.

On July 16, 2002, the Company revealed that it had entered into an
agreement with regulators, which required the Company to boost reserves
by $247 million in the second quarter of 2002, tie-up additional
capital and institute infrastructure reforms in order to deal
adequately with its high rate of growth, especially in the sub-prime
market.

In reaction to the announcement, Company's stock plummeted by 39%,
falling from a $50.60 per share close on July 16 to $30.48 per share by
the close of July 17, on extremely heavy trading volume.  During the
class period, as alleged in the complaint, Company insiders, including
defendant Willey, profited by selling a total of over $8.2 million in
common stock at artificially inflated prices and the Company undertook
a convertible debt offering for $650 million on April 19, 2002.

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


DELOITTE TOUCHE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of persons who acquired the securities of AMRESCO, Inc. (OTC
Pink Sheets: AMMBQ) between March 29, 2001 and July 2, 2001.

The suit alleges that Deloitte & Touche and certain of the Company's
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by filing
false financial reports with the SEC during the class period.  The suti
alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that the reports
did not properly report impairment to the Company's assets in the Form
10-K, 10-Q and proxy statement during the class period.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 by Fax:
405- 239-2112 or by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of HPL Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: HPLAE) common stock during the period between July 31, 2001
and July 18, 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, on July 31,2001, the
Company completed its initial public offering (IPO) of 6.9 million
shares (including the over allotment) at $11.00 per share, raising net
proceeds of $69.1 million.  

The IPO was accomplished pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration
Statement filed with the SEC.  These documents represented that the
Company recognized revenue on sales to distributors only when the
distributors sold the software license or services to their customers.
Later, the Company reported favorable financial results for the 1stQ,
2ndQ, 3rdQ and 4thQ of F02.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the Company's favorable but
false financials and false and misleading statements, its stock traded
as high as $17.85 per share.  Defendants took advantage of this
inflation, selling 85,500 shares of their individual holdings.  Then,
on July 19, 2002, before the markets opened, the Company shocked the
market with news that it was investigating accounting irregularities
with respect to revenue recognition on shipments to distributors in
prior quarters that its CEO had been fired and its CFO had been
reassigned.  On this news, Company stock collapsed 72% to as low as $4
per share, before trading was halted.

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


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of HPL Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:
HPLAE) common stock during the period between July 31, 2001 and July
18, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a provider of yield optimization software solutions to
enable semiconductor companies to enhance efficiency in the production
process.

On July 31,2001, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO") of 6.9 million shares (including the overallotment) at $11.00
per share, raising net proceeds of $69.1 million.  The IPO was
accomplished pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration Statement filed
with the SEC.  These documents represented that the Company recognized
revenue on sales to distributors only when the distributors sold the
software license or services to their customers. Later, the Company
reported favorable financial results of the 1stQ, 2ndQ, 3rdQ and 4thQ
of F02.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the Company's favorable but
false financials and false and misleading statements, its stock traded
as high as $17.85 per share. Defendants took advantage of this
inflation, selling 85,500 shares of their individual holdings. Then, on
7/19/02, before the markets opened, the Company shocked the market with
news that it was investigating accounting irregularities with respect
to revenue recognition on shipments to distributors in prior quarters
that its CEO had been fired and its CFO had been reassigned. On this
news, Company stock collapsed 72% to as low as $4 per share, before
trading was halted.

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
or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


KNIGHT TRADING: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Knight Trading Group, Inc. (NYSE: NITE)
between February 29, 2000 and June 3, 2002 inclusive.  The action is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and Kenneth D. Pasternak (CEO and Director
of the Company).

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 during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's securities.

According to the Complaint, defendants, the Company and Kenneth D.
Pasternak, failed to disclose that the Company's traders had
systematically engaged in "front running," a practice in violation of
securities trading rules.  

When engaging in these practices, the suit alleges that the Company's
traders delayed customer orders while the Company's traders made
purchases in the same securities ordered by customers.  Only after the
Company's traders had made their own purchases would the Company
process its customers orders for the same stocks and other securities.

As the suit details, this practice of "front-running" had the effect of
inflating the prices of those stocks and thereby generated a windfall
profit to defendants as they collected profits that should have accrued
to the Company's customers.

On June 3, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
disclosed that both the National Association of Securities Dealers
(NASD) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were
investigating the Company's trading practices.  The following day, June
4, 2002, the market price of Company stock plummeted 28% from the prior
day's close.

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


KNIGHT TRADING: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the securities of
Knight Trading Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NITE) between February 29, 2000 and
June 3, 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
investing community during the class period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants failed to disclose and or
misrepresented that Company traders were engaging in a system of
trading-rule violations known as "front-running," in which customer
orders were delayed while defendant's traders made purchases in the
same stocks ordered by customers, thereby benefiting themselves at the
expense of their customers. This practice had the effect of inflating
the prices of those stocks and generating a windfall profit to the
defendants as they collected profits that should have accrued to
Knight's customers.

On June 3, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
disclosed that its trading practices were being investigated by both
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the National
Association of Securities Dealers.  Following this announcement, on
June 4, 2002, when the market opened for trading, shares of the Company
collapsed 28% from the prior day's close.

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


PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt & Anderson Commences Securities Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court of Minnesota on behalf of investors who
acquired shares of PEMSTAR, Inc. (Nasdaq:PMTR) between June 8, 2001 and
May 2, 2002 against individual directors and officers of PEMSTAR.

The complaint charges PEMSTAR and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that during the class [eriod defendants caused PEMSTAR's shares
to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false
and misleading statements.

The Registration Statement and Prospectus for the June 8, 2001
Secondary Offering were materially false and misleading when issued as
they misrepresented and/or omitted one or more of these adverse facts,
the disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements made not
false and/or misleading.

The suit alleges that in order to attract and maintain the appearance
of a diverse customer base, PEMSTAR:

     (1) executed orders from customers without industry track records
         or acceptable financial conditions, in fact, several were on
         the brink of bankruptcy; and

     (2) had an extremely liberal policy of accepting and holding
         inventory for and from existing and prospective customers
         (often without ever obtaining a written contract), the result
         of which was that PEMSTAR significantly increased its costs of
         doing business and was forced to write down obsolete
         inventory. In fact, a substantial amount of the Company's
         inventory was already obsolete.

Due to a lack of internal controls, reflected, but not acknowledged in
PEMSTAR's contracts with Datasweep:

     (i) PEMSTAR's "cash conversion cycle," or the amount of time
         between the purchase of inventory and the collection of
         payment, was dramatically lower than its competitors', which
         resulted in PEMSTAR having to write down material amounts of
         accounts receivables; and

    (ii) PEMSTAR's "days sales outstanding," the number of days PEMSTAR
         had to wait payment for sales, was dramatically lower than its
         competitors', which resulted in PEMSTAR having to write down
         material amounts of accounts receivables.

The complaint further claims that the facts, which were known to the
defendants but concealed from the public following the Secondary
Offering, were:

     (a) The Company was in violation of its financial loan covenants;

     (b) The Company's inventory and accounts receivables valuations
         were grossly overstated;

     (c) Defendants needed to keep the Company's shares artificially
         inflated to complete the Company's convertible offering;

     (d) The Company was then experiencing lower than projected
         utilization rates at the Company's higher cost locations which
         performed many of the Company's higher margin services,
         including engineering, New Product Introduction (NPI) and
         prototyping;

     (e) The Company's customers were being devastated financially in
         the severe "end-market" downturn;

     (f) The Company was actually selling back its inventory to
         original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) because, unbeknownst
         to shareholders, the Company was actually "holding" inventory
         from its OEMs without any written/binding agreement to
         perform; and

     (g) As a result of (a)-(f) above, the defendants' projections for
         the Company's third and fourth quarters of F02 were materially
         false and misleading.

On May 3, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "PEMSTAR
Revises Estimates for Fourth Fiscal Quarter 2002 Results and Announces
Private Placement of Up to $50 Million." On this news, the Company's
share price plunged more than 60% to $2.84 on May 6, 2002 on trading of
more than 4.5 million shares.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield by Phone: 888-253-5139
or 651-227-9990 by Fax: 651-297-6543 or by E-mail:
g.blanchfield@ralawfirm.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ralawfirm.com.  


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of purchasers of Riverstone Networks, Inc. ( NASDAQ National
Market: RSTN) securities between August 20, 2001 and June 5, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5).  The action
alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition and sales.  
Specifically, defendants misled the investing community concerning the
true effect that the downturn in telecom spending had upon the Company.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun or Timothy J. Burke by
Phone: 888-388-4605 or by E-mail: info@secfraud.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of all purchasers of the Sonus Networks, Inc. common stock
(Nasdaq:SONS) during the period from December 11, 2000 through January
16, 2002.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Sonus Networks and
nine of its senior executives who, during the class period, received in
excess of $120 million from their insider selling of Sonus shares at
artificially inflated prices.

The alleged violations, according to the complaint, stem from
materially false and misleading statements issued by the defendants
during the class period that:

     (1) misrepresented to the public the quality of certain of Sonus'
         networking products, and the (troubled) status and financial
         details of Sonus' relationship with one of its largest
         customers; and

     (2) caused the Sonus stock to trade at artificially-inflated
         prices.

On September 26, 2001, Sonus shares lost 50% of their value in one day
after the company revealed revenue shortfalls and hundreds of millions
of dollars in charges against earnings.  Sonus shares would further
decline as further details emerged concerning:

     (i) customer dissatisfaction with Sonus products; and

    (ii) Sonus' engagement in "dark fiber swap" transactions with Qwest
         (whose engagement in such swaps is the subject of an SEC
         investigation).

Prior to these disclosures, as detailed in the complaint, Sonus
executives received in excess of $120 million from insider selling at
artificially-inflated prices.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Ori Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or
888-529-4787 or by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.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  * * *