CAR_Public/020819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Monday, August 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 163

                           Headlines

ARGOSY GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Certify Gambling Companies Suit
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Tells Court There Are No Plans For Dissolution
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE INC.: Suit Demands Steeltex Tire Recall
CALPINE CORPORATION: Faces Fifteen Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
CANNONDALE CORPORATION: Recalls 1,300 Bicycles Due To Defective Stems

CAVAGNA NORTH: Recalls 6,100 Safety Relief Valves For Fire, Burn Hazard
CNA FINANCIAL: Ex-Workers File Suit For Overtime Wage Law Violations
DPL INC.: Corrects Earnings Statements To Comply With SEC Deadline
GERMANY: Will Legislate Personal Liability For Corporate Executives
IKON OFFICE: Salt Lake Workers Pension Account Suit Gets Court Approval

INDONESIA: Family Group Threatens To File Lawsuit Over Virginity Survey
MARIN MOUNTAIN: Voluntarily Recalls 1T Mountain Bikes For Injury Hazard
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Business Trust Transactions
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Investors Suit Set For March 4, 2003
PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

PSS WORLD: Seeks Wage Violations Suit Transfer To FL Federal Court
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in TX
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Suit For Consumer Law Violations in PA Court
SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Columbine Drug Suit May Become Class Action

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

360NETWORKS INC.: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Chitwood Harley Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CAPITAL ONE: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA

ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in NJ
MERCK & CO.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

NICOR INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
XCEL ENERGY: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
XCEL ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court

                           *********

ARGOSY GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Certify Gambling Companies Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Las Vegas, Nevada federal court refused to certify as a class
action the lawsuit filed against Argosy Gaming and 41 of the country's
largest gaming operators, two gaming equipment suppliers, and four
gaming distributors,

The suit alleges that the companies engaged in a course of fraudulent
and misleading conduct intended to induce people to play their gaming
machines based upon a false belief concerning how those gaming machines
actually operate, as well as to the extent to which there is actually
an opportunity to win on any given play.

The plaintiffs are currently appealing this denial.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Tells Court There Are No Plans For Dissolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the month does not mean the end of beleaguered accounting
firm Arthur Andersen, LLP, the Company told the court recently in court
papers.  In a motion filed in federal court, the Chicago-based firm
gave the first indication of its plans after August 31, when it will
have to close its audit practice, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Andersen's motion stems from a dispute with the lead plaintiffs in a
class action brought by Enron Corporation shareholders, in which
Andersen is a defendant.  The plaintiffs fear that Andersen plans to
sell off its assets and spread the proceeds among its partners, making
it difficult for the plaintiffs to collect any damages should they win
their case.

While claiming that Andersen is an ongoing entity, the firm's
spokesman, Patrick Dorton, did not say what kinds of business Andersen
would be involved in after August 31.  Almost all of the firm's US
offices will close over the next few weeks, with only a skeleton staff
left to service remaining consulting assignments and continue working
on the mass of litigation against the firm.  Many observers believe
Andersen will be forced to file for bankruptcy under the weight of
legal claims arising out of the financial reporting problems related to
its auditing of high-profile companies.


BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE INC.: Suit Demands Steeltex Tire Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California lawyer filed a lawsuit demanding that Bridgestone
Corporation's US unit recall 27.5 million Steeltex tires, which he
claims suffers from a tread-separation defect similar to the one that
led to a massive recall of its tires two years ago, Reuters English
News Service reports.

The suit seeks class action status and could cost Bridgestone/Firestone
Inc., the US unit of Japan's Bridgestone, up to $2.75 billion to recall
roughly 27.5 million Steeltex R4S, $4SII and A/T tires, attorney Joseph
Lisoni told reporters at a recent news conference.

The lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in Riverside County,
east of Los Angeles.  The suit is patterned on the landmark 1999
lawsuit in Oakland, California, in which a judge ordered Ford to fix
two million cars that stalled.

A national consumer advocacy group has hailed the lawsuit as an
important tool in calling attention to a "stealth defect tire" whose
danger to motorists, it said, is as great as that posed by Firestone's
now discredited Wilderness tire.

"The problem with tracking these problems in the Steeltex . is that it
is not associated with a particular make and model (of automobile),"
Clarence Ditlow, a spokesman for the Center for Auto Safety in
Washington, DC, told Reuters.

The Wilderness tire was the standard equipment on the Ford Explorer and
several other sport utility vehicles.  About 20 million Wilderness
tires were recalled, 14 million by Ford and 6.5 million by Firestone.

Mr. Ditlow said, "The Steeltex is the utilitarian version of the
Wilderness.  They are just as bad."

However, a Bridgestone/Firestone spokeswoman has said that Steeltex
tires are perfectly safe and had been tested by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from September 2000, through
April 2002, with no defects being found.  The study "clearly indicated
there was no indication of any type of manufacturing or design defect,"
said the spokeswoman.

The NHTSA closed the investigation after determining that only one
death and eight injuries had resulted from Steeltex tread separations.  
The agency concluded in a report, "Claims of tread separation are not
necessarily evidence of a tire defect.  Tread separations can also
result from external factors, such as tire injury or poor maintenance."

The NHTSA report also determined that the complaint levels recorded
between the summer of 2000 and the summer of 2001, "were influenced by
the public's greater sensitivity to tire failures in the wake of the
substantial media coverage" of the Wilderness recall.

The plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Lisoni has accused Bridgestone of
cutting a deal with the Bush administration to close the investigation
with no finding of fault in order to preserve the Company's financial
health.

Consumer advocate Clarence Ditlow, addressing the agency's
characterization of the reason for the increase in Steeltex tire
complaints, said the claims of the attorney Joseph Lisoni were not far-
fetched.  "The fact that there was a government investigation and they
did uncover high complaint rates, suggests that there is a problem that
was not addressed," he said.  "As a consumer advocate.I am increasingly
concerned that the government does not have the resources or the
willpower to do adequate investigations."

Mr. Lisoni said he decided to file the suit after Firestone rejected
his demand that the tires be recalled as part of the settlement of
another Steeltex lawsuit - a case that involved a 1992 rollover
accident in Barstow, California, that killed two people and injured
nine.

Firestone paid an undisclosed sum to settle the case, Mr. Lisoni said.  
"All we want to do is get these tires off the road.  And sometimes we
have to take the law into our own hands when the government watchdog
agencies are not there for us."

The latest class action was filed on behalf of Roger Littell of
Riverside, California, who has seen five Steeltex tires on his 1999
motor home disintegrate, and on behalf, as well, of all other owners of
Steeltex tires nationwide, Mr. Lisoni said.  Mr. Littell is a racing
car enthusiast and was involved in road testing Firestone tires between
1955 and 1974.

The lawsuit contends the tires contain a lamination defect that can
cause the tread to separate from the rest of the tire, "in a matter of
seconds, leading to the tire's total destruction."  Mr. Lisoni said
that, "Without question, millions of people are currently at risk who
are riding the roads on Steeltex tires."


CALPINE CORPORATION: Faces Fifteen Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation faces fourteen securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 6,2001 and December 13,2001.

The suits allege that, during the purported class periods, certain
senior Company executives issued false and misleading statements about
the Company's financial condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.

The Company expects that these suits, as well as any related actions
that may be filed in the future, will be consolidated by the court into
a single securities class action.

In addition, a fifteenth securities class action was filed in May 2002.  
The underlying allegations in the above suit are substantially the same
to those in the above-referenced actions.  However, the suit is brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's 8.5% Senior Notes due February
15, 2011 from October 15, 2001, through December 13, 2001.  

The above suit alleges that, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Prospectus Supplement dated October 11,
2001, for the 2011 Notes contained false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition.  This action names the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the 2011 Notes offering as defendants.

The Company expects that this action will either be consolidated with
the above-referenced actions or will proceed as a parallel related  
action before the same judge presiding over the other actions.

The Company considers the allegations against the Company in each of
these lawsuits to be without merit, and intends to defend vigorously
against them.


CANNONDALE CORPORATION: Recalls 1,300 Bicycles Due To Defective Stems
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannondale Corporation is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,300
bicycles with defective stems.  The stem can break away from the
bicycle, causing a loss of control, falls and serious rider injuries.  
The Company has received four reports of stems breaking, including one
minor injury.
        
The recalled stems are black and have the model name - 3T ZEPP XL
printed in white on the sides of the body of the stem.  The faceplate
also has "3T" printed in white at the front of the stem.  The stems
were installed on 2002 and 2003 model year Cannondale bicycles.  The
recalled stems were manufactured in Italy by 3T (Tecno Tubo Torino)
and distributed by parent company, Gruppo, SPA.  
        
Authorized Cannondale Bicycle dealers nationwide sold the stems
from March 2001 through July 2002 for between $3,400 and $5,000
(includes the cost of the bicycle).     
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) BIKEUSA or visit
the Company's Website: http://www.cannondale.com


CAVAGNA NORTH: Recalls 6,100 Safety Relief Valves For Fire, Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cavagna North America, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 6,100
safety relief valves manufactured by Omeca, of Bresia, Italy.  These
valves, imported by Cavagna, are designed to relieve excess pressure in
large propane tanks, typically the 500- to 1,000-gallon size.  The
recalled valves can have sharp internal edges that can cut into gasket
seals in the valves, causing a propane gas leak. This poses a risk of
fire or burn injuries.
        
The Company has received 18 reports of leaking valves.  No fires or
injuries have been reported.
        
The valves, model 66-1031, are approximately 7-inches long.  Writing on
the valve reads "OMECA 66-1031."  Only valves that contain year and
batch codes of "99.02," "99.16," "99.27," or "99.28" are included in
the recall.  The valves from these batch codes were installed on tanks
that were refurbished or manufactured after May 1999.
        
The valves were sold to propane processors and distributors nationwide
from May 1999 through May 2002 for between $10 and $15.
        
LP distributors, LP tank owners and propane gas users with recalled
valves should immediately contact the Company to schedule an
appointment to have the safety relief valve replaced at no charge.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866-422-8246
between 9 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday.


CNA FINANCIAL: Ex-Workers File Suit For Overtime Wage Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two former CNA Financial Corporation employees are seeking class action
status in lawsuits against the Company over overtime pay, according to
a regulatory filing recently released, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The lawsuits, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of
purported classes of CNA employees, said that they should have been
compensated for overtime work at a rate of one-and-a-half times their
base hourly wage over a four-year period.

The Company, which is based in Chicago, said in its quarterly report
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that, in June, it had
filed a response to the lawsuit denying its material allegations.  The
Company also said that it intends to defend itself vigorously.

"The outcome will not materially affect the equity of the company,
although results of operations may be adversely affected," CNA said in
its response.


DPL INC.: Corrects Earnings Statements To Comply With SEC Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Company DPL Inc. is having a busy time, as it faces two class
actions, and is now scrambling against a deadline as it rewrote its
financial reports to comply with a federal order requiring executives
to swear to the accuracy of their earnings statements, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The Company announced the correction of its statement on Wednesday,
August 14, just meeting a deadline set by the federal Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Company is one of 947 companies - all with
revenues exceeding $1.2 billion - ordered by the government to submit
the sworn statements from their CEOs and chief financial officers.

At the insistence of its outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the
company announced that it cut 2001 profits by $19 million, or 16 cents
a share, and raised reported profits for the first half of this year by
$23 million, or 20 cents per share.

DPL, the parent company of Dayton Power and Light Co., also revealed
the holdings of its $1 billion financial portfolio for the first time
on Wednesday.  "The level of interest in the details of these
investments has increased dramatically as a result of national topics,"
said Arthur Meyer, the Company's vice president for legal and corporate
affairs.  "In response to that level of interest, we decided to provide
it."

Attorney Stanley M. Chesley of Cincinnati says he believes DPL
officials scrambled to make changes in its financial statement in order
to meet the federal deadline, because the Company's chief executive,
Allen M. Hill, otherwise would have been unable to truthfully endorse
the previous earnings statement.

Mr. Chesley recently filed a class action against DPL, claiming that
the company, its officers, directors and accountants disguised the true
nature of high-risk investments totaling more than $1.3 billion.  A
similar lawsuit was filed against DPL on behalf of Buckeye Electric Co.
Retirement Plan and investors, who bought DPL stock during the last
seven years.

Both lawsuits stem from DPL's announcement in July that it wrote off
$155 million in failed Latin American investments during the second
quarter.

Reacting to pressure from investors and analysts, DPL also disclosed
the 27 investment firms that manage DPL's private equity funds and the
500 companies in the utility's $1 billion investment portfolio as of
June 30.

Mr. Meyer, the Company's vice president for legal and corporate
affairs, said the disclosure had nothing to do with the lawsuits.


GERMANY: Will Legislate Personal Liability For Corporate Executives
-------------------------------------------------------------------
German corporate executives whose firms are found to have submitted
statements or reports that mislead the equity market can expect to face
personal liability charges, no matter who wins the September general
election, say politicians from both the left and the right, according
to the National Post.  The government is also discussing a proposal to
allow small shareholders to launch class actions against company
directors, a move the conservatives tend to dismiss as impossible given
Germany's legal system.

All of Germany's main political parties are drawing up plans to hold
company directors personally liable if their firms deliberately mislead
investors in their mandatory statement to the market, a move long
called for by shareholder lobby groups.  The purpose, the aim, is to
help restore German investor confidence, which has been hit by large-
scale insolvencies in Germany and accounting scandals in the United
States.

Both Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's ruling Social Democrats and the
conservative opposition want private shareholders to be able to claim
compensation from individual board members if they can prove a company
deliberately misled the market.  Currently, shareholders can lodge a
claim against only the company as a whole.

A shareholder suing the company as a whole is not considered an
effective remedy.  "At the moment, any shareholder who takes action
against the company is taking action against himself, as it is the
company that pays," said Christian Arns, a spokesman for the Justice
Ministry.  Therefore, the need for legislation that enables a
shareholder to hold a director personally liable.

Conservative proposals stop at holding directors personally responsible
for making misleading mandatory statements - information that must be
made available to investors because it could affect the firm's share
price.

However, the current government also wants the directors to be held
personally liable for accounting irregularities and misleading company
reports.  The government is also considering a proposal that would
allow small shareholders to bring class actions against company
directors.  Some conservatives have dismissed the idea out of hand,
noting that would be contrary to Germany's legal system.

"For legal reasons that would not be possible," said one party
official.  "Our legal system is built on an individual right to sue.  
Class actions would go against that."

All these proposals for increased personal liability within the
corporations come as the deadline looms in the United States for
executives at nearly 1,000 companies to take a "clean-book pledge"
required by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, by signing off
on their firm's financial statements.

The highest profile corporate meltdowns have come from across the
Atlantic, involving Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and the like, but
Germany itself has not been immune to corporate scandal.  Reinhild
Keitel, board member of shareholder lobby group SdK, says the country
has had its small WorldComs and Enrons, just not as spectacular as in
the United States.  She points to, as illustration, the exclusion of
Comroad AG from the Neuer Market growth bourse in April because of
false accounting.  The traffic information systems firm said a special
audit had revealed that 98.5 percent of sales reported in its 2001
annual report did not exist.

"These plans are right, if a little belated.  Only with personal
liability is the deterrent big enough," Ms. Keitel said of the measures
being proposed by the respective parties.  "The proposals have to be
seen in the context of a deep, deep crisis of confidence in the stock
market," she added.


IKON OFFICE: Salt Lake Workers Pension Account Suit Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Pennsylvania approved the settlement of a class
action filed by Salt Lake City employees of Ikon Office Solutions,
whose retirement account contributions were matched with company stock
they could not sell until they turned 55, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The lawsuit began in Utah as a complaint by a Salt Lake City worker,
who alleged she lost her job after reporting accounting irregularities
at Malvern, Pa.-based Company.  Consequently, after investigation, the
lawsuit later was amended to allege the company had breached its
responsibility to 401(k) retirement plan participants, who saw the
company shares and their account balances plummet as a result of
alleged faulty financial statements.

"This is a significant case in that it is the first such resolution of
several lawsuits of this type," said David L. Wray, president of the
Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America.  He said the resolution in
favor of Company employees may provide a precedent that will bolster
the claims of plaintiffs in other lawsuits.  Under the settlement, the
employees will receive no money, but the Company will make important
changes to its 401(k) plan:

     (1) the company no longer will require employees to wait until age
         55 to sell shares received as a match to their own
         contributions, said Roger Hoole, who represented lead
         plaintiff Julia Whetman; and

     (2) although plaintiffs will receive no money in the settlement
         recently announced, they have been notified that they will
         receive part of an US$111 million settlement in a separate set
         of securities fraud cases settled by Ikon in late 1999, Mr.
         Hoole said.

Mr. Wray said companies legally can offer employees stock as a match,
just as the Company did and they can restrict the sale of shares they
provide as a match to employee contributions until employees reach a
certain age, as the Company did.

"The issue in all these lawsuits is not about plan design and
restriction in the sale of company stock," Mr. Wray said.  "The
critical issue is whether the company was acting prudently, (at the
given moment), on behalf of the employees."


INDONESIA: Family Group Threatens To File Lawsuit Over Virginity Survey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent survey which indicates that most female students in
universities in Yogyakarta are no longer virgins, has sparked a public
uproar in the sultanate city, angering many who have questioned the
study's validity and its motives, according to a report by The Straits
Times.  So angry are the study's critics that one critic, a family
planning group, has promised to bring a class action, along with other
groups, unless the survey's executive director retracts the conclusions
of the survey.

The study, which concluded that 97.5 percent of Yogyakarta's female
varsity students have lost their virginity, was conducted by the
Institute of Love and Humanity Studies (LSCK), a relatively unknown
research group linked to the Inonesian Islamic University.  The
Institute's executive director, Iip Wijayanto, blamed the high rate of
pre-marital sexual activities on the failure of the country's education
system to pay sufficient respect to religious values.

The survey has made headlines in Yogyakarta and drawn the attention of
the national media, causing the provincial government to react.   As an
initial measure, the provincial government is considering enacting a
law that would require boarding schools to impose night curfews.

The survey came up with such other startling conclusions as, for
example, that most of the sexual activities went on in the students'
boarding house rooms or rented homes and that 25 percent of 1,660
female students surveyed had had sex more than once and that 98
students had abortions.

Critics are accusing the survey of being biased and manipulative, and
some local leaders raised the possibility that it was politically
motivated, especially as it was revealed that the survey was led by a
proponent of Islamic law.

However, the strongest response and call to action came from Ms. Budi
Wahyuni of the Indonesian Family Planning Association in Yogyakarta.  
She told The Strait Times newspaper that "the executive director of
LSCK, Iip Wijayanto, said his goal with the survey is to improve the
method of religious preaching in Islam, which he said is not effective.  
But why did he have to focus on virginity, and not other pressing
issues like corruption or dishonesty?"

Ms. Budi Wahyuni said, "We want him to retract the survey; otherwise,
several NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and student groups will
file a class-action lawsuit, because we think that his study has hurt
our morale."


MARIN MOUNTAIN: Voluntarily Recalls 1T Mountain Bikes For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marin Mountain Bikes is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,000
Marin-brand, aluminum-framed mountain bikes.  The steer tube on the
front of these bicycles can break off from the two main tubes of the
frame causing the rider to lose control, fall and possibly suffer
serious injury.
        
The Company has received two reports of the steer tube breaking off,
resulting in two injuries that included broken bones, broken teeth,
cuts and abrasions.
        
The recall involves Marin-brand mountain bikes with aluminum frames.  
There are seven model bikes with 11.5-inch frames and one model with a
13.5-inch frame. The 11.5-inch bikes have the following model names:

     (1) Bobcat Trail,

     (2) Hawk Hill,

     (3) Palisades Trail,

     (4) Pioneer Trail,

     (5) Nail Trail,

     (6) Stinson and

     (7) Rocky Ridge

The 13.5-inch model has the model name Quake.  The model name is
written on the top tube of the mountain bikes.  To determine the size
of the frame (11.5-inch or 13.5-inch), measure from the center of the
crank arm to about 1 inch below the seatpost clamp.  One of the 11.5-
inch frame Marin models being recalled.

Independent bicycle stores nationwide sold these mountain bikes from
August 1998 through July 2002 for between $280 and $900.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-876-9840 between 9
am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Website:
http://www.marinbikes.com.


METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Business Trust Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metretek Technologies, Inc. faces a class action initially filed in the
United States District Court for the City and County of Denver,
Colorado.  The suit also names as defendants (collectively known as the
Metretek Defendants):

     (1) Marcum Midstream 1997-1 Business Trust (the 1997 Trust),

     (2) Marcum Midstream-Farstad, LLC (MMF),

     (3) Marcum Gas Transmission, Inc. (MGT),

     (4) Marcum Capital Resources, Inc. (MCR),

     (5) W. Phillip Marcum,

     (6) Richard M. Wanger and

     (7) Daniel J. Packard

The suit also names another group of defendants called the Farstad
Defendants:

     (i) Farstad Gas & Oil, LLC (Farstad LLC),

    (ii) Farstad Oil, Inc., and

   (iii) Jeff Farstad

The 1997 Trust is an energy program of which MGT, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, is the managing trustee, and Mr. Marcum, Mr.
Wanger and Mr. Farstad are or were the active trustees.  The 1997 Trust
raised approximately $9.25 million from investors in a private
placement in 1997 in order to finance the purchase, operation and
improvement of a natural gas liquids processing plant located in
Midland, Texas.

The suit alleges that the Metretek Defendants and the Farstad
Defendants, either directly or as "controlling persons," violated
certain provisions of the Colorado Securities Act in connection with
the sale of interests in the 1997 Trust.

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that his and the class's damages
resulted from the defendants allegedly negligently, recklessly or
intentionally making false and misleading statements, failing to
disclose material information, and willfully participating in a scheme
or conspiracy and aiding or abetting violations of Colorado law, which
scheme and statements related to the specification of the natural gas
liquids product to be delivered under certain contracts, for the
purpose of selling the 1997 Trust's units.

In May 2001, the court granted in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss by narrowing certain claims and dismissing the fourth claim for
relief, the allegation that the Farstad Defendants, Mr. Packard, MCR
and MGT are liable under Colorado law for giving substantial assistance
in further any of securities violations, as to all defendants except
MCR.  The court also granted a motion to dismiss the claims against the
Farstad Entities.

The Metretek Defendants filed answers to the suit, generally denying
its allegations and claims and making cross-claims against the Farstad
Defendants.  The Metretek Defendants have filed additional cross-claims
and third party complaints against the Farstad Defendants alleging
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and contractual indemnification and
contribution, among other claims.  The Farstad Defendants have filed
answers generally denying these claims and have asserted cross-claims
and third party counter-claims against the Metretek Defendants.  The
Metretek Defendants have denied the allegations of the Farstad
Defendants.

The court later granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a class
consisting of all investors in the 1997 Trust.  Ten investors,
representing a net investment of approximately $288,000, have opted out
of the class.  These investors are pursuing a separate lawsuit in
California.

A trial date had not been set in the suit and no significant discovery
had been conducted.


METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Investors Suit Set For March 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the investors' class action against Metretek Technologies,
Inc. has been set for March 4,2003 in the Superior Court in the State
of California for the County of San Diego.

The suit was commenced by 21 individual plaintiffs, including Michael
Mongiello and Charlotte Mongiello, trustees of the Mongiello Family
Trust and also names as defendants:

     (1) Marcum Midstream 1997-1 Business Trust (the 1997 Trust),

     (2) Marcum Midstream-Farstad, LLC (MMF),

     (3) Marcum Gas Transmission, Inc. (MGT),

     (4) Marcum Capital Resources, Inc. (MCR),

     (5) W. Phillip Marcum,

     (6) Richard M. Wanger,

     (7) Daniel J. Packard,

     (8) Farstad Gas & Oil, LLC (Farstad LLC),

     (9) Farstad Oil, Inc.,

    (10) Jeff Farstad,

    (11) United Pacific Securities, Inc.,

    (12) GBS Financial Corporation,

    (13) IFG Network Securities, Inc., and

    (14) numerous officers, directors, employees and brokers related to
         such brokerage houses.

The suit contains allegations against the Metretek Defendants similar
to those contained in the federal suit.  The net investment in the 1997
Trust by the Mongiello Plaintiffs is approximately $542,000.  The
Mongiello Plaintiffs' claims for relief include:

     (i) breach of fiduciary duty,

    (ii) sale of securities in violation of California blue sky laws,

   (iii) fraud and deceit,

    (iv) negligent misrepresentation and omission,

     (v) mutual mistake,

    (vi) rescission,

   (vii) negligence,

  (viii) fraud on senior citizens and

    (ix) declaratory relief

In October 2001, the court granted the motion by the Metretek
Defendants to dismiss the claims against Metretek Technologies, Mr.
Marcum and Mr. Wanger for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court
also granted a similar motion dismissing the claims against the Farstad
Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On November 5, 2001, MGT, MCR, MMF, Mr. Packard and the 1997 Trust, as
the remaining Metretek Defendants, filed an answer generally denying
the allegations and claims in the Mongiello Case.  On March 6, 2002,
the remaining Metretek Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
of the non-California resident Mongiello Plaintiffs on forum non
conveniens grounds.  On or about March 29, 2002, the California Court
granted this motion, dismissing the claims of 11 of the 21 Mongiello
Plaintiffs.

The net investment of the remaining Mongiello Plaintiffs is
approximately $288,000.  These remaining Mongiello Plaintiffs have
opted out of the suit.  Only limited discovery has been conducted.


PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
refused to dismiss the amended consolidated class action pending
against PSS World Medical, Inc.  The court also ordered the Company to
answer the suit by August 12, 2002.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's common stock at various times during the period between
October 26, 1999 and October 3, 2000, alleges, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning, among
other things, the Company's financial condition.  The plaintiffs
further allege that because of the issuance of false and misleading
statements and/or failure to disclose material facts, the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the class
period.

The suit arose from ten related class action complaints, the first of
which was filed in July 2001.  The suits were later consolidated and
following that consolidation, the lead plaintiffs served their amended
suit.  On May 14, 2002, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
suit, and, on August 1, 2002, the court entered an order denying that
motion and directing the Company to answer the suit by August 12, 2002.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the suit are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the claims.
There can be no assurance that this litigation will be ultimately
resolved on terms that are favorable to the Company.


PSS WORLD: Seeks Wage Violations Suit Transfer To FL Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. asked for the transfer of a class action filed
by three former and present employees to the United States District
Court in Jacksonville, Florida.

The suit, initially filed in the US District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana Division, allege that the Company
wrongfully classifies its purchasers, operations leader trainees, and
accounts receivable representatives as exempt from the overtime
requirements imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Wage Orders.  The plaintiffs seek court approval to proceed as a:

     (1) collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,

     (2) representative action under California's Unfair Competition
         Act, and/or

     (3) class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who
         have occupied any one of the three positions within the
         pertinent limitations period.

The Company will oppose this motion, though it is likely that the court
will tentatively approve a collective action and allow discovery on the
issue of who is eligible to participate in the collective action.  The
Company is vigorously defending against the claims and is working with
human resource personnel to collect personnel and payroll information
necessary to determine:

     (i) the employees who are potentially eligible to participate in
         the suit; and

    (ii) the extent of overtime liability, if any

There can be no assurance that this litigation will be ultimately
resolved on terms that are favorable to the Company.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for October
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of a gender discrimination class
action against Rent-A-Center, Inc. has been set for October 4, 2002, in
the United States District Court in East St. Louis, Illinois.

The first suit was filed by Claudine Wilfong and eighteen other
plaintiffs, alleging that the Company engaged in class-wide gender
discrimination following its acquisition of Thorn Americas.  The
allegations underlying Wilfong involve charges of:

     (1) wrongful termination,

     (2) constructive discharge,

     (3) disparate treatment and

     (4) disparate impact

In addition, the EEOC filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the
plaintiffs, which the court granted on May 14, 2001.  On December 27,
2001, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In December 2000, similar suits filed by Margaret Bunch and Tracy
Levings in the United States District Courtin the Western District of
Missouri were amended to allege class action claims similar to those in
the Wilfong case.  

In November 2001, the Company announced that we had reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the Bunch matter.  
Under the terms of the Bunch settlement, while not admitting any
liability, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $12.25 million to
the agreed upon class, plus plaintiffs' attorneys fees as determined by
the court and costs to administer the settlement subject to an
aggregate cap of $3.15 million.  On November 29, 2001, the court in the
Bunch suit granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set a
fairness hearing on such settlement for March 6, 2002.

In early March 2002, we reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs attorneys in the Wilfong case and the EEOC to resolve the
Wilfong suit and the Tennessee EEOC action.  The definitive settlement
agreement documents were filed with the Wilfong court in June 2002, and
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 19,
2002.

Under the terms of the Wilfong settlement, while not admitting any
liability, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $47.0 million to
approximately 6,000 female employees and a yet to be determined number
of female applicants who were employed by or applied for employment
with us during the period commencing on April 19, 1998 and ending on
June 19, 2002, plus up to $375,000 in settlement administrative costs.  
The $47.0 million payment includes the $12.25 million payment discussed
in connection with the Bunch settlement.  Attorney fees for class
counsel in Wilfong will be paid out of the $47.0 million settlement
fund in an amount to be determined by the court.

The settlement agreement contemplates the settlement would be subject
to a four-year consent decree, which could be extended by the court for
an additional one year upon a showing of good cause.  Also, under the
settlement agreement, the Company agreed to:

     (1) augment its human resources department and its internal
         employee complaint procedures;

     (2) enhance its gender anti-discrimination training for all
         employees;

     (3) hire a consultant mutually acceptable to the parties for two
         years to advise it on employment matters;

     (4) provide certain reports to the EEOC during the period of the
         consent decree;

     (5) seek qualified female representation on its board of
         directors;

     (6) publicize its desire to recruit, hire and promote qualified
         women;

     (7) offer to fill job vacancies within its regional markets with
         qualified class members who reside in those markets and
         express an interest in employment by the Company to the extent
         of 10% of the Company's job vacancies in such markets over a
         fifteen month period; and

     (8) take certain other steps to improve opportunities for women.

The Company has initiated many of the above programs prior to entering
into the settlement agreement.  Under the settlement agreement, the
Company has the right to terminate the settlement under certain
circumstances, including in the event that more than 60 class members
elect to opt out of the settlement.

The Wilfong settlement contemplates that the Bunch case will be
dismissed with prejudice once such settlement becomes final.  At the
parties' request, the court in the Bunch case stayed the proceedings in
that case, including postponing the fairness hearing previously
scheduled for March 6, 2002.  Similarly, the court in the Tennessee
EEOC action has stayed the proceeding in that case and the EEOC
has agreed to having the case dismissed once the Wilfong settlement is
finalized.

In June 2002, the Company separately agreed to contribute an additional
$2.0 million to a dispute resolution fund in which approximately 100
class members in Bunch will participate.  This dispute resolution fund
has been approved by the Bunch court and counsel to the plaintiffs in
Bunch support the dispute resolution fund and the Wilfong settlement
preliminarily approved by the Wilfong court.

Notices have been mailed to the Wilfong class members.  Members of the
class who do not wish to participate in the settlement have been given
the opportunity to opt out of the settlement.  While the Company
believes the proposed settlement is fair, it cannot give any assurance
that the settlement will be approved by the court in its present form.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
United States District Court in Texarkana, Texas, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 25,2001 through
October 8,2001.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the Company's financial performance
and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of 2001.

The Company anticipates that the court will consolidate similar actions
with this one.  The Company believes that these claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.  However, it cannot give
any assurance that it will be found to have no liability in this
matter.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Suit For Consumer Law Violations in PA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. faces a class action filed in Philadelphia State
Court, on behalf of a class of customers in Pennsylvania, alleging that
the Company violated the Pennsylvania Goods and Services Installment
Sales Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

The amended complaint asserts that the Company's rental purchase
transactions are, in fact, retail installment sales transactions, and
as such, are not governed by the Pennsylvania Rental-Purchase Agreement
Act, which was enacted after the adoption of the Pennsylvania Goods and
Services Installment Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Although the Company believes that these claims are without merit, a
recent trial court decision in a similar case to which it was not a
party held that rental purchase transactions in Pennsylvania are in
fact retail installment sales transactions not governed by the
Pennsylvania Rental-Purchase Agreement Act.

The Company strongly disagrees with this decision.  However, it cannot
give any assurance that it will be found to have no liability in this
matter and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this case.


SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Columbine Drug Suit May Become Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that claims Eric Harris's rampage at Columbine High School on
April 20, 1999, was triggered by the antidepressant Luvox, may be
converted into a class action on behalf of all Columbine victims, the
lawyer representing Columbine survivor Mark Taylor said, according to a
report by the Denver Post.

Mark Taylor, 19, is the last of the plaintiffs who filed suit against
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, maker of Luvox.  In April, the families of
three of the students backed out of the lawsuit and agreed not to file
future claims against the company.

However, John DeCamp, Mark Taylor's lawyer, said that he believes all
Columbine victims should be brought into the lawsuit.  Mr. Taylor, shot
seven times in the chest, arm and leg, claims that Luvox made Eric
Harris manic and psychotic and triggered the rampage that resulted in
the deaths of 12 students, one teacher and the suicides of Mr. Harris
and fellow Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold.

Mr. DeCamp said that US District Judge Clarence Brimmer made a series
of rulings in favor of Mr. Taylor and against the Company that
permitted Mr. Taylor's lawsuit to survive.  He referred particularly to
Judge Brimmer's ruling that Dr. Donald Marks might be an expert
testifying for Mr. Taylor.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Taylor claims that the Company failed to adequately
warn either the treating psychologist for Eric Harris or his general
practitioner of the risks and dangers of prescribing Luvox.  In a
preliminary report filed in US District Court, Dr. Marks said that in
his opinion the Company "acted in an unreasonable manner" by marketing
Luvox without prominent and adequate warnings about the risks of
akathisia (inner restlessness), suicide and homicide, in view of the
evidence of strong and likely causal relationship between SSRI
medications, of which Luvox is one, and these symptoms
(akathisia/suicide/homicide).

Judge Brimmer refused to throw out Dr. Marks' preliminary findings and
said the doctor would be allowed to review the thousands of documents
now kept in a vault at the federal courthouse.  In recent weeks,
lawyers representing the parties have spent more than 16 hours deposing
the parents of Eric Harris.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


360NETWORKS INC.: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of its client and purchasers of 360Networks, Inc.
(OTC: TSIXQ) securities during the period between November 8, 2000 to
June 28, 2001.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, the Company reported
strong year-over-year revenue growth.  Unbeknownst to investors,
however, as alleged in the suit, the Company was experiencing
diminishing revenue growth.

The complaint alleges that in order to create the impression that the
Company was continuing to experience growth, the Company engaged in a
series of reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the
purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable - the so-called dark fiber
swap.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these transactions, the
Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially
misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times.  The suit
names certain officers and directors of the company as defendants along
with the accounting firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Angela Wallis by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com
or awallis@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.com.


AOL TIME: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman & Kodroff filed a securities class action against AOL
Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE:AOL) on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period October
19, 2000 through July 17, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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 mask the decline in advertising
revenues.

The true facts were disclosed to investors, only after the Company's
common stock plummeted in value by more than 70% from its trading price
at the beginning of the class period ($46.91) to its trading price at
the end of the class period.

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.  On July 24, 2002, the Company then disclosed that
it is the subject of an SEC investigation concerning the Company's
accounting of advertising revenue.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.  


AOL TIME: Chitwood Harley Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of America Online,
Inc. between October 18, 2000 and January 10, 2001 and all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the securities of
AOL Time Warner between January 11, 2001 and April 24, 2002, against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by issuing
a series of materially false and misleading statements relating to the
nature of AOL Time Warner's business operations, which caused AOL Time
Warner's stock price to become artificially inflated.

The complaint alleges that by the start of the class period, AOL Time
Warner was required to take a substantial write down of the value of
its goodwill.  It did not do so, thereby artificially inflating its
financial results throughout the class period.

The complaint further alleges that the following factors, among others,
required that AOL Time Warner write down billions of dollars of its
goodwill earlier than it did:

     (1) a material decline in the advertising market: the Company was
         experiencing a dramatic decline in demand for advertising,
         which had typically represented 20% of the Company's revenues.
         The decrease in advertising revenues had been escalating since
         the fourth quarter of 2000;

     (2) in the months prior to the consummation of the merger, America
         Online, Inc. executives were advised that it faced the risk of
         losing more than $140 million in ad revenue the following
         year; and

     (3) the merger was not creating any synergies: the merger between
         America Online and Time Warner was not being effectively
         integrated and the Company lacked an effective plan to
         integrate the two companies.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts about the Company, insiders,
including several of the individual defendants, sold their personal
holdings of AOL Time Warner common stock to the unsuspecting public.  
In total, these sales generated more than $250 million in illicit
proceeds.

For more details, contact Nikole Davenport by Mail: 2900 Promenade II,
1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta GA 30309 by Phone: 888-873-3999 by
E-mail: nmd@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com.  


CAPITAL ONE: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, against Capital One Financial Corporation
(NYSE:COF), on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period from January 15, 2002 and July 16, 2002, inclusive.

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.

According to the complaint, 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 subprime
market.

In reaction to the announcement, Company 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
profited by selling a total of over $8.2 million in Company stock at
artificially inflated prices and the Company undertook a convertible
debt offering for $650 million on April 19, 2002.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Charter Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHTR) between
November 9, 1999 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the cable television Company, and two top
corporate officers made materially false and misleading representations
concerning the Company's financial condition during the class period.  
The suit alleges these 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, Company 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 the Company handles the impact of 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 Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net


ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, West Palm Beach, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Eclipsys
Corporation (Nasdaq:ECLP) between July 23, 2001 and June 27, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Robert Joseph Colletti,

     (2) Harvey J. Wilson, and

     (3) John T. Patton

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the class period.

According to the suit, throughout the class period, defendants issued
highly positive statements regarding the Company's acquisition of new
contracts for its information technology, in an effort to create the
impression that the Company's revenues were growing and the Company was
well positioned to generate strong profitability.

In making these announcements, defendants knew or recklessly ignored
that the Company was experiencing a decline in demand for its
information technology and that it had failed to sufficiently increase
it expenditures for research and development, costs necessary to
correct operational problems at the platform-level of its technology.  
This fraudulent course of conduct allowed Company insiders, including
the named defendants, to sell over 388,500 shares of Company stock and
pocket in excess of $9.69 million while privy to material adverse facts
regarding the Company's true financial status.

On June 27, 2002, defendants issued a press release announcing that
results for the second quarter of 2002 would fall short from the
Company's previous guidance. Instead of reporting a profit of $0.12 a
share, as investors were led to believe, the Company announced it would
report a net loss in the range of $0.07 to $0.10 per share.  In
response, the trading price of Company stock plunged nearly 50%,
trading at slightly over $6 per share.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan Gross by Mail: 1515
Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Insight Enterprises
Inc. (Nasdaq:NSIT) publicly traded securities during the period between
April 26, 2002 and July 17, 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 throughout the class period, defendants represented that the
Company would achieve sequential earnings per share (EPS) growth in Q2
2002.

The true facts, which were known by the defendants during the class
period but were actively concealed by the defendants, were as follows:

     (1) That in April 2002, the defendants learned that the Company
         was not on track to achieve Q2 EPS growth or Q2 EPS of $0.31
         -$0.35;

     (2) That the Company's United Kingdom operations required a
         massive restructuring;

     (3) That the Company's purchase of Action plc in Q4 2001 had not
         been properly integrated into the Company's operations and
         moreover was suffering from material adverse trends; and

     (4) That on or about May 1, 2002, defendants decided internally to
         send senior executives from its recently acquired Comark
         acquisition to the Company's Action plc division to try to
         solve the division's problems, including the effect of the
         adverse trends (reduced demand, greater than projected
         operating expenses and declining market share) which
         defendants became aware of by April 2002.

During the class period, defendants sold over $10 million worth of
their own Company shares at prices as high as $28 per share, or double
the price to which Company shares dropped as its true prospects began
to reach the market.

On July 17, 2002, the Company revealed that, contrary to prior
assurances by defendants of the Company's continuing revenue and EPS
growth, it would post sequential EPS declines, sending Company shares
into a free fall.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Johnson &
Johnson (NYSE:JNJ), and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of purchasers of Johnson & Johnson securities, between April 16, 2002
and July 18, 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 Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, and/or
David C. Katz by Phone: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-
mail: info@wynyc.com


MERCK & CO.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of the stock Merck & Company, Inc., (NYSE:MRK) securities
during the period from July 1, 1999 through and including June 21,
2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants overstated
Merck's revenues. The Company's operations are comprised of two
reportable segments: Merck Pharmaceutical and Merck's wholly owned
subsidiary, Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC.

Since Merck acquired Merck-Medco in 1993 and throughout the class
period, Merck and Merck-Medco have falsely inflated their reported
revenues by billions of dollars, in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  During the class period, Merck-Medco's
revenues have made up over 50% of Merck's total revenues.  

Merck-Medco revenues are purportedly derived from the filling and
managing prescriptions and health management programs. Consumers who
are members of pharmacy benefits plans and purchase prescriptions must
make a co-payment directly to the pharmacy. To artificially boost
Merck-Medco's apparent sales, defendants included consumer co-payments
for prescription drugs in its revenues, contrary to the revenue
recognition practices of two of Merck-Medco's biggest competitors and
in violation of GAAP.

As a result, Merck-Medco and Merck overstated the companies' total
economic activity, making it look more successful than it was in
reality.

According to a June 21, 2002 article in The Wall Street Journal,
neither company bills for the co-payments, gets billed for them, or
otherwise comes into contact with them. The Wall Street Journal
reported that Merck has not disclosed the actual co-payments charged
and estimated that Merck and Merck- Medco may have artificially
inflated their 2001 revenues by as much as $4.6 billion.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, investors
were damaged by purchasing Merck's common stock at artificially
inflated levels during the class period.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.spectorandroseman.com   


MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
lawsuit against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and the former head of its
Internet group, Henry Blodget, on behalf of purchasers of eToys, Inc.
(PNK: ETYSQ.PK) securities between June 27, 1999 and March 7, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that Merrill Lynch and its well-known
Internet stock analyst Henry Blodget violated the federal securities
laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading analyst reports
regarding eToys during the class period.

Based on e-mails and other internal Merrill Lynch communications, which
were made public as a result of the investigation conducted by the New
York State Attorney General, the suit alleges that defendants failed to
disclose a significant conflict of interest between their investment
banking and research departments.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Henry Blodget and other Merrill
Lynch analysts issued very favorable analyst reports regarding eToys to
the public when they allegedly knew that the positive recommendations
were unwarranted and false.  

The suit further alleges that, unbeknownst to the investing public,
Merrill Lynch's buy recommendations and price targets for these
companies were driven by its efforts to attract lucrative investment
banking business rather than by the companies' fundamental merits.

For more details, contact Adam T. Savett or Conor R. Crowley by Phone:
202-337-8000 by E-mail: ats@ftllaw.com or crc@ftllaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.ftllaw.com  


NICOR INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against defendant Nicor, Inc. (NYSE:GAS) on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from January 24, 2002 and July 18,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants reported false financial results and made false statements
about Company finances, business and prospects, including the Company's
handling of its gas cost performance-based rate (PBR) program and that
the Company manipulated its results through the PBR program in order to
inflate the Company's operating performance, causing the Company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.

The Company has now admitted that its revenue and earnings for at least
the 1stQ 2002 were materially overstated and will have to be restated.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.  


XCEL ENERGY: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of Xcel Energy, Inc. (NYSE:XEL) company stock from
January 31,2001 to July 26,2002, inclusive.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) James J. Howard,

     (2) Wayne H. Brunetti and

     (3) Edward J. Mcintyre

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 31, 2001 and July 26, 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 Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) which described the
Company's financial performance and the financial performance of NRG
Energy, Inc. (NRG), the Company's majority-owned subsidiary.

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

     (i) that the Company had engaged in "round-trip" energy trades
         that provided no economic benefit for the Company;

    (ii) that Xcel's and NRG's credit agreements with lenders contained
         cross-default provisions and covenants, the result of which
         was that in the event of a default by NRG, among other adverse
         effects, Xcel would lose access to $800 million in credit;

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

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

On July 25, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter, the period ended June 30,
2002, and disclosed that its earnings had declined and that it was
revising its earnings expectations for fiscal 2002.

In a conference call the next day, defendants disclosed the true extent
of the Company's liquidity and credit difficulties and its management's
inability to effectively remedy such difficulties stemming from the
operations of NRG.   

As reported in several business articles dated July 26, 2002, analysts
were horrified to learn that the liquidity and credit difficulties
extended to Xcel itself under the "cross-collateral default" provisions
Xcel and NRG had entered into with lenders.

On July 26, 2002, Xcel stock closed at $7.55, a more than 36% one-day
decline, on extremely heavy trading volume. Subsequently, on July 28,
2002, defendants disclosed that Xcel was being investigated by the SEC,
among other regulators, for engaging in "round-trip" or "wash"
transactions, which involve the simultaneous buying and trading of
power at the same price and same amount and provide no economic benefit
to the Company.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.  


XCEL ENERGY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Xcel
Energy, Inc. (NYSE: XEL) securities between January 31, 2001 and July
26, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 January 31, 2001
and July 26, 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 Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) that described the Company's
financial performance and the financial performance of NRG Energy, Inc.
(NRG), the Company's majority-owned subsidiary.

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

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

     (2) that Xcel's and NRG's credit agreements with lenders contained
         cross-default provisions and covenants, the result of which
         was that in the event of a default by NRG, among other adverse
         effects, Xcel would lose access to $800 million in credit;

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

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

On July 25, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, and
disclosed that its earnings had declined and that it was revising its
earnings expectations for fiscal 2002.  

In a conference call the next day, defendants disclosed the true extent
of the Company's liquidity and credit difficulties and its management's
inability to effectively remedy such difficulties stemming from the
operations of NRG. As reported in several business articles dated July
26, 2002, analysts were horrified to learn that the liquidity and
credit difficulties extended to Xcel itself under the "cross-collateral
default" provisions Xcel and NRG had entered into with lenders.

On July 26, 2002, Xcel stock closed at $7.55 per share, a more than 36%
one-day decline, on extremely heavy trading volume. Subsequently, on
July 28, 2002, Defendants disclosed that Xcel was being investigated by
the SEC, among other regulators, for engaging in "round-trip" or "wash"
transactions, which involve the simultaneous buying and trading of
power at the same price and same amount and provide no economic benefit
to the Company.

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