CAR_Public/020814.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Wednesday, August 14, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 160

                           Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Says Court's Asylum Seekers Ruling Controls Only Two Cases
CONNECTICUT: Standards & Programs After Suit Bring Child Abuse Decline
EFS NATIONAL: TN Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Over Rate Changes
GATEWAY INC.: Fairness Hearing For $10M Settlement Set For September
GEORGIA: Sect's Voting Lawsuit Against Putnam County, State Dismissed

HI/FN INC.: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Suit Settlement
Hi/FN INC.: CA Court Grants Demurrer, But Gives Leave To Amend Suit
ILLINOIS: Chicago Board of Trade Nears Restructuring As Suit Dismissed
INTEL CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Over DSP Acquisition
INTEL CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Consumer Suit in IL

JNI CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
JNI CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA State Court
JNI CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
LOCKHEED MARTIN: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
PEROT SYSTEMS: Building Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY, TX

PEROT SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PROTON ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
UNITED STATES: Navy Chaplains Sue Over Religious Bias, Await Ruling
WYETH: Expects Additional Suits To Be Filed Over PREMPRO Hormone Drug

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
AON CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
AON CORPORATION: Howard Smith Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in CA
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Howard Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

MSC INDUSTRIAL: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
PERKINELMER INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MA
RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
XCEL ENERGY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN

                           *********

AUSTRALIA: Says Court's Asylum Seekers Ruling Controls Only Two Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's federal government has rejected claims that thousands of
asylum seekers' cases will have to be reviewed as a result of two High
Court rulings, according to a report by The Age (Australia).  In two
judgments, the High Court found that two ethnic Chinese Indonesian
nationals had been denied procedural fairness when their cases went
before the Refugee Review Tribunal, the appeal body for asylum claims.

Refugee groups and the Federal Opposition yesterday called for an
overhaul of the refugee determination system amid claims that the High
Court rulings would affect 7,600 asylum seekers who were part of the
class actions related to the two cases, as is the usual result in a
class action.  These people have been living in the community on
bridging visas, after arriving as students or tourists, unable to work
or receive benefits while the cases are before the courts.

Federal attorney General Daryl Williams said the decision was of a
technical nature and may not have wider implications.  "It is wrong to
suggest that the whole system was criticized . It was just in these two
cases, particular issues arose as to the way the process was followed,"
Mr. Williams said.   Mr. Williams also observed that the judgments will
be reviewed by the Immigration Department to determine whether changes
to the refugee determination system were needed.

The lawyer behind the class actions, Adrian Joel, said any further
legal challenges would face a rocky ride through the courts because the
post-Tampa legislation, which passed last year, limits access to
judicial reviews.

The coordinator of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Center, David
Manne, and the Refugee Council of Australia have called for cases to be
heard by more than one Refugee Tribunal member, as is currently the
case.

The Refugee Council wants a judicial inquiry into the whole operation
of the tribunal.  "We need to know whether this is just the tip of the
iceberg," Council spokeswoman Margaret Piper said.


CONNECTICUT: Standards & Programs After Suit Bring Child Abuse Decline
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention programs have helped reduce child abuse and neglect by 46
percent in the past few years in Connecticut, state child welfare
officials say, according to a report by the Associated Press Newswires.  
The new programs, incorporating new standards, aim at preventing an
environment in which abuse and neglect thrive.  

The new approach is part of a plan that would allow the state's
Department of Children and Families (DCF) to be released from federal
oversight.  A federal consent decree has been in effect for 11 years
following a 1989 class action accusing the state of failing to
adequately protect children in its care.

State Rep. John Thompson, D-Manchester, a member of the Legislature's
Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Children, said a
recent report by the federal monitor who implements the federal
oversight program, showed progress by DCF.  "The reduction in child
abuse and neglect is good news," Rep. Thompson said.  "It could be
better."

The DCF confirmed 10,908 cases if abuse and neglect in the fiscal year
that ended June 30 - that is down from 14,003 cases in fiscal year
2000.  In 1997, 20,112 children were abused or neglected.

DCF Commissioner Kristine D. Ragaglia credited community-based early
intervention and prevention programs for the improvement.  DCF's
Project SAFE has provided substance abuse treatment to thousands of
parents since 1995, Ms. Ragaglia said.  She also credited other state
programs such as Healthy Families, which teaches young, at-risk parents
skills for childcare and parenting.  Families can receive up to six
months of support after a child is born.

An in-home family counseling program that serves youths with substance
abuse problems and who are involved in the juvenile justice system also
has helped reduce abuse and neglect, the commissioner said.

DCF has expanded community services for parents, including helping them
manage children with behavior problems.  Additionally, DCF-funded
clinics and emergency mobile response teams have served more than
40,000 children with behavior problems in the last 21 months.  Other
prevention programs include SAFE Homes, which provides care and
assessment for children removed from their homes for the first time for
safety.

These programs and statistics give a good face to the concept of
prevention.  Whether Connecticut's DCF, therefore, is ready to be
released, or shortly ready, from federal oversight will be
instructive to watch.


EFS NATIONAL: TN Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Over Rate Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at
Memphis granted final approval to a settlement proposed by EFS National
Bank relating to the class action filed against it.

The suit alleges that certain of the Bank's rate and fee changes were
improper under Tennessee law due to allegedly deficient notice.  The
suit was filed on behalf of over 100,000 merchants who were subjected
to the allegedly improper rate and fee changes over a several-year
period.

In May 2002, the parties entered into a settlement agreement relating
to this litigation and received preliminary approval from the trial
Court.  On August 6, 2002, the trial court rejected the only objection
filed against the settlement agreement and gave the settlement
agreement its final approval.  The objector has not yet indicated
whether he will appeal, but he has 30 days from the date of final
approval to do so.

The maximum amount of the credits and payments by EFS National Bank
under the settlement is $37.6 million, payable over a five-year period.  
A portion of such amount will be used to pay plaintiffs' counsel and
certain claims administration expenses.


GATEWAY INC.: Fairness Hearing For $10M Settlement Set For September
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California set for September 9,2002, the fairness hearing for the
US$10.25 million settlement proposed for the consolidated securities
class action pending against Gateway, Inc., one of its former officers,
and one director, for alleged violation of federal securities

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial performance in securities
filings and in statements to the public, and purport to be class
actions on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between April
14, 2000 and February 28, 2001.

In September 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit,
which the court granted on February 2002.  The court, however, allowed
the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  Subsequently, the parties
and insurance carriers reached a settlement in which the Company denied
all allegations and does not admit any liability.  

The Company's Board of Directors and two of its officers also face two
shareholder derivative suits in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, and in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.  The suits allege that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and
wasted corporate assets. Both of these derivative lawsuits have now
been dismissed, conditional on the approval of the federal settlement
described above.

Although the settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court,
there can be no assurance the settlement will be finally approved and
if it is not, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in defending the lawsuits or if unsuccessful, that insurance
will be available to pay all or any portion of the expense of the
lawsuits.


GEORGIA: Sect's Voting Lawsuit Against Putnam County, State Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action accusing Putnam County voting officials of
selectively purging members of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors
from the county voting rolls has been dismissed, the Macon Telegraph
reports.

US District Court Judge Duross Fitzpatrick of the Middle District of
Georgia signed a dismissal order stipulated to by the plaintiffs and
the Putnam County Board of Registrars.

While county officials call the dismissal a victory, the attorney
representing the Nuwaubians, David Buffington, said it was a pragmatic
decision by his clients who were concerned with the election last year.  
"They don't see any practical purpose in pursuing it any further," Mr.
Buffington said.  "It doesn't mean if the same thing happens again
during the next big election cycle . that a civil suit might not be
brought again."

"They are walking away from this case, and we are letting them," said
Frank Ford, an attorney representing Putnam County.  "It would not be
worth it for us to go after costs."

The lawsuit threatened to postpone Putnam County's July primary last
year, after the county Board of Registrars challenged the residency of
196 people registered to vote in Putnam County.  Of those 196
challenged, some 120 were removed from the voter rolls by the board.  
The purge of the voter rolls took place during several hearings in the
weeks prior to the election.  However, 27 of the 120 removed were added
back to the list and able to vote in the primary.


HI/FN INC.: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the US$9.5 million
settlement of the securities class action pending against Hi/FN, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between July 26, 1999 and October 7, 1999, alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws
in connection with various public statements made during the class
period.  

In August 2000, the court dismissed the complaint as to all defendants,
other than Raymond J. Farnham and the Company.  In February 2001, the
court certified the purported class.

On May 15, 2002, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
to settle all claims in the consolidated securities class action.  The
settlement amount is US$9.5 million, comprised of US$6.8 million in
cash that was contributed by the Company's insurers and US$2.7 million
to be settled by the Company.

The Company will issue a minimum of 270,000 shares of Hifn common stock
and make up any shortfall to the extent that the trading price falls
below $10.00 at the time of settlement by issuing additional common
stock or cash.

On June 10, 2002, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the stipulation of settlement and providing for notice and an
opportunity to object to the shareholder class.  The settlement is
subject to final court approval, which is scheduled for August 30,
2002.  If the settlement is disapproved or terminated and the action
proceeds, the Company intends to defend the action vigorously.


Hi/FN INC.: CA Court Grants Demurrer, But Gives Leave To Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara granted
Hi/FN, Inc.'s demurrer asking for the dismissal of a shareholder
derivative class action charging the Company and certain of current and
former officers and directors of:

     (1) violations of California Corporations Code Section 25402,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty and

     (3) waste of corporate assets

The Company also faced a similar shareholder derivative suit filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On June 7, 2002, the federal court entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the federal
derivative action without prejudice.

The Company later filed a demurrer relating to the state derivative
suit, which the state court sustained, with leave to amend, on the
ground that plaintiff had failed to plead facts showing that he was
excused from making demand on the Company's board of directors.  The
court also ordered limited discovery relating solely to the issue
whether demand is excused.  The court did not rule upon the demurrer to
the derivative complaint filed by the individual director defendants.

The Company and the individual director defendants believe the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend the action vigorously.


ILLINOIS: Chicago Board of Trade Nears Restructuring As Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A US judge helped clear the way for the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT)
to become a "for-profit" exchange by dismissing a class action brought
by some of CBOT's members, the Financial Times reports.  The lawsuit,
filed two years ago by about 700 "associate" CBOT members, had been
holding up the progress of the CBOT towards demutualizing and
converting exchange membership into shares.

Nick Neubauer, CBOT chairman, said that pending other approvals,
including that from the Securities and Exchange Commission, CBOT could
be functioning on a for-profit basis by the first quarter of next year.

The lawsuit against the CBOT, which trades US Treasury bond futures and
grain futures products, alleged that an independent committee
recommending how many shares members would get if CBOT demutualized had
too much control over the process.

The associate members who filed the suit also said they believed their
allocation was unfair compared with the number of shares that full
members would have received.  Under the current plan, full members
would effectively retain five times as many votes as associate members.

Demutualization long has been seen as a pre-requisite for consolidation
among Chicago's three derivatives exchanges.  One of the reasons co-
operation among the exchanges makes sense, according to CBOT Chairman
Neubauer is because "in today's environment some of the things we do,
like electronic trading, can be better done in cooperation with
others."

Chicago's derivative exchanges have lagged behind their European and
Asian rivals in moving away from being run in their members' interests.  
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which demutualized in 2000, has made
the most progress and plans an initial public offering of shares in the
fourth quarter of this year.


INTEL CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Over DSP Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed in its entirety a securities class action filed
against Intel Corporation, relating to its acquisition of DSP
Communications, Inc.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 14d-10 in connection with the acquisition.  The complaint
alleged that the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary at that time,
CWC, agreed to pay certain DSP insiders additional consideration of
$15.6 million not offered or paid to other stockholders.  The alleged
purpose of this payment to the insiders was to obtain DSP insiders'
endorsement of the Company's tender offer in violation of the anti-
discrimination provision of Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 14d-10.

The Company moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in its
entirety on July 8, 2002.


INTEL CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Consumer Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation was named as a defendant in a class action filed in
the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, alleging
that the defendants' advertisements and statements misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that
use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than
systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and competitors'
processors.

The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hewlett-Packard Co.,

     (2) HPDirect, Inc. and

     (3) Gateway Inc.

The plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit should be treated as a
nationwide class action.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.  While management, including internal
counsel, currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these
proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall
trends in results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent
uncertainties.


JNI CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JNI Corporation filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
consolidated securities class action pending against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

Six virtually identical suits were commenced in April 2001, on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period between
October 16, 2000 and January 24, 2001.  The suits uniformly alleged
that during the class period, the Company made false statements about
its business and results causing its stock to trade at artificially
inflated levels.  Based on these allegations, the cases allege that the
Company and the others named in the cases violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  

The suits were later ordered consolidated in February 2002.  On March
25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and amended
complaint, alleging a new class period of July 13, 2000 through March
28, 2001 and adds alleged claims under Securities Act of 1933 arising
from the Company's secondary public offering in October 2000.

As of July 1, 2002, the motions are under submission with the court for
decision.  The Company believes that these cases are without merit
and intends to defend the cases vigorously.


JNI CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JNI Corporation and certain of the present members and former members
of its board of directors face two shareholder derivative class actions
pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.

The first suit was commenced in October 2001 by an alleged stockholder
of the Company, Richard Grosset.  The suit alleges that the present and
former members of the Company's board failed to adequately oversee the
activities of management and, as a result, the Company allegedly made
false statements about its business and results causing its stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels.  Based on these allegations, the
plaintiff alleges that the present and former members of the Company's
board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company.

The Company filed a demurrer to the suit, which the court granted in
February 2002, but with leave to amend.  The plaintiff then filed a
first amended complaint in March 2002.  On March 22, 2002, the Company
filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint and the hearing on the
demurrer was set for April 12, 2002.

On April 12, 2002, the court entered an order sustaining the demurrer
and giving the plaintiff leave to file another amended complaint.  On
April 29, 2002, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May
31, 2002, the Company filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint.  
On the same day, Sik-Lin Huang, an alleged stockholder of the Company,
filed a motion to intervene in the case as a plaintiff.

On June 21, 2002, the court sustained the Company's demurrer and
dismissed Mr. Grosset as a plaintiff because he is no longer a
stockholder of the Company.  The court, however, granted Mr. Huang's
motion to intervene and ordered him to file a complaint in
intervention.  Mr. Huang filed a complaint in intervention on July 5,
2002.

The other lawsuit was commenced in May 30,2002, by an alleged
stockholder of the Company, repeating the allegations of Mr. Grosset's
lawsuit.  The lawsuit also adds allegations that the defendants caused
or allowed the Company to falsely reports its results for the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2001.  These additional allegations relate to the
Company's May 20, 2002 announcement that it would restate its financial
statements and file an amended report on Form 10-K.

The Company believes that these two suits lack merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.


JNI CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JNI Corporation faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants the underwriters on the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Company's public offerings.  This case is among the over 300 class
action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York that have come to be known as the
IPO laddering cases.

The complaint in this case was served on the Company on June 20, 2002.  
The Company believes that this case lacks merit and intends to defend
the case vigorously.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the consolidated amended securities class action charging
Lockheed Martin Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.

The Company moved for the suit's dismissal and on July 22, 2002, the
court granted the motion.  In general, the court found that the
plaintiffs had failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that the
Company knew that the alleged false statements were false when made.

Specifically, the court dismissed with leave to amend the suit's
allegations that the Company publicly announced false or misleading
expectations about anticipated results in a variety of areas, including
the sale of F-16 aircraft to a foreign government in 1998, expected
deliveries of C-130J aircraft in 1998, and earnings projections.

The court also dismissed with leave to amend allegations that certain
individual defendants engaged in illegal insider trading, and the
suit's allegations that the Company made false statements regarding the
expected number of satellite launches in 1998, and anticipated savings
projections from cost-cutting programs.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Building Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY, TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation faces several securities class actions
charging the Company, Ross Perot and Ross Perot, Jr. with violations of
Rule 10b-5, promulgated under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended,
and, in certain of the cases, allege common law fraud.  The suits are:

     (1) Herbert Condell v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of New York,

     (2) Richard J. Dowling v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District of New
         York,

     (3) Robert Markewich v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

     (4) Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

     (5) Lori Will v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and

     (6) June Zordich v. Perot Systems Corp., et al., in the United
         States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
         Sherman Division.

These suits allege that the Company's SEC filings contained material
misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to the
Company's activities related to the California energy market.

The Company believes the claims against it are without merit and will
vigorously defend itself in these cases.  The Company does not believe
that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operation or cash
flow.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation faces a consolidated securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The lawsuit involving the Company focuses on alleged
improper practices by certain investment banks in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in February 1999.

The suit charges the Company, as well as certain of its current and
former officers and certain investment banks, with violations of Rule
10b-5, promulgated under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The lawsuit alleges that certain investment banks, in exchange for
allocations of public offering shares to their customers, received
undisclosed commissions from their customers on the purchase of
securities and required their customers to purchase additional shares
of the Company in aftermarket trading.  The lawsuit also alleges that
the Company should have disclosed in its public offering prospectus the
alleged practices of the investment banks, whether or not the
Company was aware that the practices were occurring.

The Company believes the claims against it are without merit and will
vigorously defend itself in these cases.  The Company does not believe
that the outcome of this litigation will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operation or cash
flow.


PROTON ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Proton Energy
Systems Corporation filed a consolidated amended suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and several of its officers and directors as well as against
the underwriters who handled the Company's September 28, 2000 initial
public offering (IPO).

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and including
December 6, 2000, allege that the Company's IPO registration statement
and final prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed commissions
allegedly received by the underwriters from investors to whom the
underwriters allegedly allocated shares of the IPO.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in
the complaints and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.  
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful,
and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position and results of operation in
the period in which the lawsuits are resolved, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).


UNITED STATES: Navy Chaplains Sue Over Religious Bias, Await Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty current and former Navy chaplains across the country are claiming
Methodists, Lutherans and other traditional Protestants in leadership
positions are using their power to discriminate against other faiths,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The chaplains have joined in a federal religious discrimination lawsuit
against the Navy, and are waiting for a judge to decide if their
lawsuit may be reviewed as a class action, thereby permitting still
others with complaints to join the group.

Navy chaplain Gary Stewart, stationed at New River Air Station, is a
lieutenant commander.  He say he believes he was temporarily relieved
of his chaplain duties at the Great Lakes, Ill., training base because
of the way he said a prayer in his own worship service.  "Our motto is
cooperation without compromise, but I was told to compromise or I would
never see another promotion," chaplain Stewart said.

Chaplain Stewart said there is a leadership group, of more senior
status, who are more traditional than some of the other Protestant
faiths and who are known as liturgical Protestants.  They are using
their leadership positions "to control accession, promotions, transfers
and selections to admiral by placing their representatives on the
selection boards," Chaplain Stewart asserted.

At least eight local Navy religious leaders, who claim unfair treatment
within the Chaplain Corps, have persuaded US Rep. Walter B. Jones, D.-
N.C., to investigate their complaints.

Lt. Cmdr. Dave Wilder, a chaplain at Camp Lejeune, has said, like
chaplain Stewart, that worship services he has led have been
scrutinized.  For example, when he tried to offer a glass of grape
juice as an option to wine for those in his congregation who might not
be able to tolerate wine, he was ordered to eliminate the grape juice.  
Mr. Wilder also alleges that while stationed in Okinawa, Japan, a more
senior chaplain interrupted his service and relieved Wilder of his
leadership in front of his congregation.

The plaintiffs hope to use the Navy's own documents in their court
action.  They are pursuing a report from an investigation commissioned
by former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, undertaken because of
complaints within the Chaplain Corps.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have asked for the document but are told that it
does not exist, chaplain Stewart said.  He says that some high level
officers claim to have seen it, however, and will testify to its
contents.

Mr. Wilder admits that it is embarrassing that the group has had to
institute a lawsuit against the Chaplain Corps.  "You can't change the
Chaplain Corps overnight, but we would like to see a five-year plan.
The troops have a right to be ministered according to their faith
tradition."


WYETH: Expects Additional Suits To Be Filed Over PREMPRO Hormone Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical giant Wyeth faces several class actions relating to its
hormone replacement drug PREMPRO.  The suits arose after the Women's
Health Initiative (WHI) released its findings in July 2002, evaluating
hormone replacement therapy and the subset of the study involving use
of the Company's PREMPRO product.  This subset was stopped early
because, according to the predefined stopping rule, the increased risk
of breast cancer and cardiovascular events exceeded the specified long-
term benefits.

Four of the six putative class actions seek to represent a nationwide
class of all women who have ever purchased or ingested PREMPRO and
seek, on behalf of the class, purchase price refunds, personal injury
damage, medical monitoring expenses and an order requiring the Company
to inform the public of the reported risks of PREMPRO.

The other two putative class actions each seek to represent a class of
Pennsylvania women who have ingested the drug and seek purchase price
refunds and medical monitoring expenses on behalf of the class.

The Company expects that additional PREMPRO cases may be filed in the
future.  At this time, the Company is unable to determine any possible
range of loss relating to the PREMPRO litigation.  However, it believes
it has meritorious defenses against these claims and intends to
vigorously defend any PREMPRO litigation.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AOL Time Warner (NYSE:
AOL) between October 18, 2000 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company recognized
revenue on a variety of transactions in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles in an effort to hide the decline in advertising
revenues.  

When the true facts concerning the Company's recognition of revenue in
violation of GAAP were revealed in a Washington Post article on July
18, 2002, Company shares declined an additional 10% to close on July
18, 2002 at $12.45.  At the beginning of the class period, the
Company's common stock traded at approximately $47 per share.

For more details, contact Conor R. Crowley or Donald J. Enright by
Phone: 202-337-8000 or by E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or dje@ftllaw.com.


AON CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the US District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Aon
Corporation (NYSE:AOC), Patrick G. Ryan and Harvey N. Medvin.  The suit
was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between
May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which described the company's earnings and financial
performance.  The complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income by
         $27 million in 1999, by $24 million in 2000 and by $5 million
         in the first quarter of 2002;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

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

n August 7, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
shocked the market when it announced, among other things, that:

     (i) it had failed to meet analysts' expectations on its earnings
         for the second quarter by a wide margin;

    (ii) because of the slumping financial markets, it had canceled a
         spinoff of its insurance underwriting businesses to
         shareholders; and

   (iii) the SEC had began an investigation of its accounting and was
         questioning several items in the Company's accounts, including
         the reporting of investment write- downs, the timing of some
         costs and a reinsurance recoverable item and the decision not
         to consolidate certain special purpose vehicles.

The Company also stated that, if the SEC says it is necessary, it will
have to restate its earnings for the past three years, and reduce its
net income by $27 million in 1999, by $24 million in 2000 and by $5
million in the first quarter of 2002.  Following this report, shares of
the Company fell $6.43 per share to close at $14.77 per share, a one-
day decline of 30.3%, on volume of more than 20 million shares traded,
or more than twenty times the average daily volume.

For more details, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674
(toll-free), 203-564-1920 or by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com


AON CORPORATION: Howard Smith Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Aon Corporation (NYSE:AOC)
between May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period.  These false and misleading
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
the Company's securities, inflicting damages on investors.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith by Phone: 215-638-4847 or
888-638-4847 or by E-mail: LEGUL2000@aol.com.  


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased
securities of Charter Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHTR) between
November 9, 1999 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of Company revenue and earnings caused the Company's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The suit alleges that defendants overstated the Company's revenue,
failed to appropriately account for installation costs and artificially
inflated the number of subscribers for the Company's basic cable
services.  On July 18, 2002, when a Merrill Lynch analyst expressed
concerns about potentially misleading accounting practices, Charter's
stock fell more than 13%.

Additionally, a subsequent article in Forbes discusses a Credit Suisse
First Boston report that further amplifies these concerns and describes
how Charter handles the impact of "churn" -- labor and advertising
costs -- on the Company's balance sheet, by improperly capitalizing
approximately 30% of its installation labor costs over an extended time
period.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Howard Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired MSC Industrial Direct Co, Inc.
(NYSE:MSM) between November 4, 1999 and August 5, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period.  These false and misleading
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
the Company's securities, inflicting damages on investors.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith by Phone: 215-638-4847 or
888-638-4847 or by E-mail: LEGUL2000@aol.com.  


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action against MSC
Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE: MSM) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Company securities during the period between November 4, 1999 and
August 5, 2002, inclusive.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Mitchell Jacobson,

     (2) Sidney Jacobson,

     (3) Shelley Boxer,

     (4) Charles Boehlke,

     (5) David Sandler,

     (6) James Schroeder,

     (7) Dennis Kelly,

     (8) Raymond Langton,

     (9) Roger Fradin and

    (10) Philip Peller

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading financial statements and press releases concerning the
Company's revenues, income and earnings per share during the class
period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674
(toll-free), 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.levylawfirm.com


PERKINELMER INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired PerkinElmer, Inc.
(NYSE: PKI) securities between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.  The
action is pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

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 July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.

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

     (1) the Company was successfully growing its revenues and
         earnings,

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

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

The complaint further alleges that these, and other representations,
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing a decline in the demand for its
products, especially at its Optoeletronics division, the Company was
carrying tens of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory on its books
and the Company's expenses were soaring due to the spate of numerous
acquisitions and divestitures it had undertaken.

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

The full truth regarding the Company's business was not fully disclosed
until April 11, 2002, when the Company issued a press release revealing
that its reported earnings will be breakeven, instead of the figure of
$0.16-$0.17 per share that the Company had stated, on March 1, it
expects to earn, and that its revenues will decline in the first
quarter of 2002 because of weakness in all of its division.

In reaction to the announcement, Company stock plummeted by another
28%, falling from $16.70 per share on April 10, 2002 to $12.04 by the
close of April 11, on extremely heavy trading volume.  The individual
defendants and other Company insiders sold a total of 595,000 the
Company's common stock during the class period, reaping gross proceeds
in excess of $18.4 million and the Company completed a significant
acquisition using its common stock as currency.

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 by E-mail: PKI@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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: RSTN) securities between August 20, 2001 and June 5, 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 metropolitan area networking solutions that
enable service providers to convert raw bandwidth into profitable
services over legacy and next-generation infrastructures.

During the class period, defendants desperately sought to create the
impression that the Company had the ability to directly enter these
markets with a captive client base.  Thus, the Company, through, among
other things, its relationship with Hutchison Global Crossing, could
compete head-to-head with the dominant companies in the industry.  
Prior to its relationship with Hutchison, the Company was having
difficulty gaining operational momentum within these potentially
lucrative Asian markets.

The complaint alleges that each defendant was aware that the Company
would be unable to meet its projected Q2 02 to Q1 03 revenue and
earnings per share (EPS) targets unless they manipulated the Company's
revenue, earnings and receivables.  However, because the "appearance"
of growth was so critical to defendants' plan to inflate the price of
Company shares and sell their own shares and raise monies via its $150
million debt offer, defendants continued to maintain throughout the
class period that the Company would meet revenue projections and EPS
when, in reality, defendants knew that the Company could not achieve
their projections without attempting to fraudulently record revenue by
inducing clients who defendants knew did not have the ability to pay to
agree to take delivery of goods and that the Company was, in fact,
suffering from greater losses.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


XCEL ENERGY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Xcel
Energy, Inc. (NYSE:XEL) in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities
between January 31, 2001 and July 26, 2002.

The complaint charges the defendant with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that defendant issued
false and misleading statements, which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York, NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.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  * * *