CAR_Public/020820.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, August 20, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 165

                              Headlines

APARTHEID REPARATIONS: Judge To Decide If Suit States Cause Of Action
ARIZONA: Lawsuit Over Alternative Fuels Granted Class Certification
ARKANSAS: Seventeen School Districts Face Lawsuit For Overtime Pay
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Cardinal Dismissed Priests, Shielded Them From Police
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Probe, Lawsuits Over Accounting Practices

CONNECTICUT: Harassment Suits Spur Better Training For Prison Workers
COVENTRY HEALTH: Discover in RICO Suit To Commence September 2002 in FL
DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION: EEOC 90% Successful In Resolving Bias Suits
ENRON CORP.: Smaller Lawsuits Take Small Steps To Sue In State Court
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Drop Bias Suit After Court Refuses Certification

GEORGIA: Jury Says Atlanta's Water Bill Charges Are Legal And Fair
GENERAL SERVICE: Omaha Court Grants Class Certification To Civil Suit
GREAT ATLANTIC: Faces Several Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits in NJ
HAWAII: State Seeks Dismissal Of Public Employee Pension Fund Lawsuit
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Group Files Suit Alleging Predatory Lending

ILLINOIS: Judge Delays Settlement Pending Search For Additional Assets
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Workers Allowed To Examine Promotion, Compensation
PLAZA TOWER: Eight Plaintiffs Opt Out Of Suit Over Building Conditions
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Hedge-Fund Executive Withdraws From Shareholder Suit

REPEATER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Global Motion To Dismiss Suit in S.D. NY
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Nears Settlement With Workers Over Overtime Wages
TRANSMETA CORP.: Court Sets Hearing on Certification, Summary Judgment
TURNSTONE NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Derivative Suit
TURNSTONE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Asked To Show Cause V. Dismissal of Suit

TURNSTONE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WALT DISNEY: Shareholders File Suit Over Pooh Merchandising Dispute

*Shareholder Suits: A Possible Early Warning Of Accounting Fraud

                     New Securities Fraud Cases    

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ANDRYX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
AON CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
AON CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL

CAPITOL ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
CAPITAL ONE: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
CITIGROUP INC.: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CITIGROUP INC.: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA

INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
                            

                              *********


APARTHEID REPARATIONS: Judge To Decide If Suit States Cause Of Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Chasey, in New York, must decide if the class action,
brought by US lawyer Ed Fagan, charging three German banks with
supporting the former racist apartheid regime of South Africa,
constitutes a cause of action, the Evening Standard (London) reports.  
The three banks are:

     (1) Dresdner Bank,

     (2) Deutsche Bank and

     (3) Commerzbank

The banks are among several companies targeted by Mr. Fagan, who won
prominence by pressing Swiss banks into compensating the relatives of
Holocaust victims.  Mr. Fagan has accused the banks, as well as several
Swiss banks and American corporations, such as IBM, of loaning billions
of dollars to South Africa when international sanctions were in place
because of apartheid.

Some critics say that Mr. Fagan's action is raising false hopes in
South Africa, where about 21,000 victims of apartheid are still waiting
for state compensation, as recommended by the country's Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in 1998.

Another US lawyer, Michael Hausfeld, is also planning a class action
against about 50 international companies, which he has accused of
collaborating with the apartheid regime.

"What is probably one of the grossest violations of human rights was
imposed by apartheid," Mr. Hausfeld said.  "It left a wake of victims
that has never been accounted for by those who assisted and furthered
the commission of the crime."


ARIZONA: Lawsuit Over Alternative Fuels Granted Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 28,000 consumers who bought a vehicle or applied for benefits
under Arizona's botched alternative-fuels program could be eligible for
damages now that their lawsuit has been certified as a class action,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rebecca Albrecht certified that
the plaintiffs in one lawsuit have a class action claim against
Arizona.  Consequently, the state could be facing damages of $25
million to $100 million, said Robert Carey, the attorney who sought the
class action certification.

Attorney General Janet Napolitano's spokeswoman said it was premature
to speculate about the impact of the ruling, since the judge has not
ruled on the merits of the case.  The ruling disappointed Governor Jane
Hull as well.

As many as 22,000 applications were in the pipeline when the state
curtailed the alternative-fuels program in late 2000, because of
skyrocketing costs.  Another 6,575 vehicles had been purchased using
the program's incentives, tax subsidies and grants that at times
amounted to more than the sales price.

When the program was ballooning out of control, the price tag was
nearing $800 million.  Lawmakers cut out all but those buyers who had
received their vehicles, and refused to pay for expensive add-ons to
the vehicles.  That action brought the eventual cost down to about $120
million, not counting any damages from lawsuits.


ARKANSAS: Seventeen School Districts Face Lawsuit For Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventeen Arkansas school districts, from eastern Arkansas to the
state's southwest corner, face federal court lawsuits from hourly
workers claiming they were not paid the overtime to which they are
entitled, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Little Rock lawyer Jesse Gibson filed the lawsuits and said they claim
that the employees are due pay at a time-and-a-half rate for at least
144 overtime hours.  Some of the overtime pay is due for performing
duties beyond their job descriptions, Mr. Gibson said.  "This is an
attempt to get the working class of Arkansas an honest day's pay for
their work," he added.

Affected employees include cafeteria workers, bus drivers, custodians,
teachers' aides and secretaries, who worked at the school districts
between June 1999 to July 2000.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Cardinal Dismissed Priests, Shielded Them From Police
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with allegations that parish priests sexually had abused minors,
the Los Angeles Archdiocese under Cardinal Roger Mahony withheld
information from police for many years and allowed clerics facing
prosecution to flee to foreign countries, internal records and
interviews show, the Akron Beacon Journal (OH) reports.  In addition,
the archdiocese is facing a class action, filed last month, seeking
millions of dollars in damages.

At the same time, Cardinal Mahony has been more aggressive than many US
bishops in dismissing members of the clergy.  According to newly
obtained information, the cardinal, in the last decade, quietly removed
17 priests from ministry, who either had admitted or credibly had been
accused of molesting minors.

In recent months, as the Roman Catholic Church has struggled to contain
the clergy sex abuse scandal, Cardinal Mahony has taken a stance as an
outspoken reformer on a mission to oust all sex offenders from the
priesthood.  However, an examination of sexual abuse cases during his
tenure in Los Angeles since 1985, shows that the archdiocese also
worked to keep a growing problem from the eyes of the public and the
hands of the law.

The Los Angeles Times examination found that five parish priests fled
the country and one disappeared after learning of revealed complaints
that they sexually abused underage victims.  Two of the clergymen left
after a top aide to Cardinal Mahony told them of allegations, and a
third was told to join the priesthood in the Philippines. Of the six,
two are fugitives.

Police complained in two cases that church officials had hampered
criminal investigations by refusing to cooperate.  In one inquiry, Long
Beach police say, they were turned away from archdiocese headquarters
when they asked for help.  "The door was shut in our face," said
Detective Randi Castillo, a 26-year veteran, who led an investigation
in the mid-1990s of a popular pastor who allegedly molested at least 10
altar boys.

The archdiocese routinely failed to report errant priests to
authorities until 1997, when a new law compelled clergy to disclose all
such allegations.  Before the legislation was passed, a top aide to the
Cardinal discouraged at least three alleged victims from going to
police.

Now, Cardinal Mahony and the archdiocese are bracing for possible
indictments of 15 current and former priests on felony sex charges,
according to law enforcement sources.

In a series of interviews, the Cardinal said the archdiocese has worked
closely with law enforcement on a wide range of issues over the years,
he added the authorities long have known about nearly all of the sexual
abuse cases involving priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese.  The
allegations often were reported to police, Cardinal Mahony said, by
therapists, teachers and victims.

"There was no sort of policy on my part that we would not cooperate
with law enforcement," the cardinal said.  Because reporting was not
mandated until 1997, "This was not an area of responsibility for the
church.  We always made sure that people knew that they themselves were
the ones who should make the report or should contact police.  We also
have cases, if I might say so, where the police did not do much about
it either," he added.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley called the Cardinal's
characterization "disingenuous."  Mr. Cooley states, "The historic
culture of the archdiocese in cooperating with local law enforcement
has been inadequate and flawed."

Based on a review of internal archdiocese records, police reports and
lawsuits, the Times identified 32 parish priests and one deacon who,
since Cardinal Mahony's arrival in 1985, have been accused of molesting
minors.  Seven of the clerics were dismissed by the cardinal in
February, six fled, three have been convicted of sex crimes and 17 are
under criminal investigation by law enforcement.

The Times examination also included more than 100 interviews with
church officials, law enforcement, alleged victims and their attorneys.

Cardinal Mahony, 66, leader of the nation's largest archdiocese, said
that all priests in his archdiocese who have molested minors have been
dismissed or suspended.  However, the cardinal will not disclose their
names.

In all of the 17 cases, Cardinal Mahony took away their authority to
wear clerical garb and administer the sacraments, the archdiocese said.  
Most of the priests live on their own or with relatives.  Some still
receive monthly stipends and benefits, it added.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Probe, Lawsuits Over Accounting Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications Inc., the nation's fourth-largest cable
television company, has a number of woes. Nine class actions have been
filed against it, most recently by noted law firms Stull Stull & Brody,
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, Schatz & Nobel and The Law Offices
of Mark S. Henzel.  Some accuse the Company of improper accounting
practices and others of artificially inflating its subscriber count.  
Charter officials also say that the federal prosecutors, who are
investigating the Company for how it accounts for some of its expenses,
according to a report by the Associated Press Newswires.

A recently filed class action, brought by shareholders in federal court
in East St. Louis, Illinois, is accusing the Company of issuing a
series of false and misleading statements to the market from 1999
through July of this year.  The lawsuit said, among other things, that
the Company issued quarterly reports that inappropriately boosted
earnings by improperly capitalizing the firm's labor costs.  

The suit further alleged that the Company also artificially inflated
its subscriber count by listing internet-only subscribers as cable
customers.

This lawsuit is but one filed against the Company after a recent Forbes
magazine article in which a Merrill Lynch analyst questioned how the
company accounts for some internet subscribers.

The Company, controlled by billionaire Paul Allen, also has received a
grand jury subpoena from the US Attorney's office in St. Louis, seeking
documents related to how the company accounts for costs for current and
disconnected cable TV subscribers.  St. Louis-based Company serves more
than 6.8 million customers in 40 states.

"We are taking this very seriously and cooperating fully," said Charter
spokesman David Anderson, when queried about the subpoena.  Mr.
Anderson said the Company denies any wrongdoing.

In February, the Company announced a change in accounting for customers
who don't pay their bills.  The Company said it had tightened its
collection policy and procedures relating to those customers, and that
it expected to disconnect approximately 120,000 "marginal" customers
from its basic customer account in the first quarter of 2001, a number
that later rose to 145,000.

Analyst Juli Niemann of RT Jones in St. Louis said there is an
increasing uneasiness about debt the Company took on through a series
of mergers, combined with a leveling out in the number of new cable
subscribers.  The company has reported $17.6 billion in debt.


CONNECTICUT: Harassment Suits Spur Better Training For Prison Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A week after 15 female prison guards filed sexual harassment lawsuits
against Connecticut's Department of Correction (DOC), the agency
brought in a state-funded women's rights group to improve training, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The DOC recently held sexual harassment training sessions for about 70
department employees, from custodians to guards, who, in turn, will
begin training the 7,000 other correction department employees.

Two lawsuits were filed in US District Court, in Bridgeport,
Connecticut, claiming that DOC officials did not do enough to stop the
sexual harassment by male prison guards.  Two prison workers recently
were fired for inappropriate relationships with female inmates, and
three top-ranking supervisors were placed on leave pending
investigation of a birthday party that included a cake shaped like male
genitalia.

Sexual harassment training is not new to the DOC, but this week is the
first time the department has teamed with the state's Permanent
Commission on the Status of Women.  The DOC says, however, that the
recent lawsuits and its new partnership have nothing to do with one
another.  DOC officials say that DOC supervisors have had to attend
sessions on topics including sexual harassment and diversity since 1993
and for all employees, since 1997.

Antonio Ponvert, an attorney representing the DOC's approximately 1,800
female in its class actions, gave some praise to the recent efforts,
but added that it was only a small step in the right direction.  The
department's training sessions on sexual harassment have historically
been a joke, Mr. Ponvert says.  The climate during the sessions, he
says, is more junior high than state penitentiary, with the instructor
pleading for quiet, and a video tutorial that elicited giggles and
grunts.

One thing was clear. The recent controversy surrounding the lawsuits
seemed to be on all the participants' minds.  Nevertheless, the
instructor did not discuss the lawsuits.  "We don't have the tools or
the complete knowledge to discuss those cases," said Barbara
Potopowitz, the official from the Permanent Commission on the Status of
Women, who led the training.

Apparently, focusing on the particularized situations and where and how
everybody copes with the specifics, has yet to be formulated and
grappled with.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Discover in RICO Suit To Commence September 2002 in FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action suit against Coventry Health Care, Inc.
and 11 other managed care organizations and healthcare may commence in
September 2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO) and the "prompt pay" statutes in
certain states, various state law tort claims, and breach of the
physicians' provider contracts for failure to pay claims in accordance
with the contractual provisions.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the amended suit and to compel
arbitration.  These motions are pending as is the motion of the
plaintiffs to certify a class.  It is not known when a ruling on these
motions will be issued.

As a result of the disposition of the appeal filed by some of the other
defendants, the Court of Appeals has lifted its prior order, staying
discovery and subject to the discretion of the trial court, discovery
may go forward starting September 30, 2002.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome, management believes
this suit is without merit and intends to defend its position
vigorously.


DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION: EEOC 90% Successful In Resolving Bias Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A five-year internal case analysis by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) found that the agency successfully resolved nine out
of ten discrimination lawsuits that it litigated, The Kansas City Star
reports.

Case data from 1997 through 2001, in which the EEOC challenged
employers on behalf of individuals or classes of workers showed that
the federal agency:

     (1) obtained $589.9 million in monetary recovery through the
         administrative enforcement process and $409.7 million in
         relief money through litigation;

     (2) recovered an average monetary benefit per lawsuit of  
         $263.945; and

     (3) filed 1,963 lawsuits, slightly less than one-third in behalf
         of a class of workers and sightly more than two-thirds in
         behalf of individuals.

A breakdown of the EEOC's filings over the five years showed the kinds
of litigation that made up the filings, namely:

     (i) sex discrimination - 30.1%;

    (ii) retaliation allegations - 22.2%;

   (iii) race - 13.5%;

    (iv) disability - 12.8%;

     (v) age - 8.2%;

    (vi) national origin - 7%;

   (vii) religion - 4.3%;

  (viii) equal pay - 1.6% and

    (ix) color - 0.25%

The agency review, requested by commission Chairwoman Cari M.
Dominguez, found that 91 percent of its employment discrimination
lawsuits were "successfully resolved through consent decrees,
settlement agreement and favorable court orders."


ENRON CORP.: Smaller Lawsuits Take Small Steps To Sue In State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Another step by Enron-related defendants to stop small lawsuits in
state court failed again, as Judge Olen Underwood, the administrative
judge for the state judicial region that includes Houston, refused a
request by Enron's board of directors to join the six smaller lawsuits
in Harris, Galveston and Washington counties, the Houston Chronicle
reports.

If the request had been affirmed by the judge, the small cases would
likely have been brought together under one judge in Houston, where
they likely would have been sucked into US District Judge Melinda
Harmon's federal court in Houston, where Judge Harmon oversees two
would-be-class-actions (a conglomeration of about six dozen cases) on
behalf of shareholders and former employees of Enron, which are
scheduled for trial in December 2003.

Judge Underwood's ruling means that it is still possible that one of
these smaller cases, most likely the one in Brenham, could go to trial
before the federal class actions in Judge Harmon's court. The state
court ruling is part of a hard-fought struggle between the dozens of
defendants in the Enron cases, who generally want to keep all the
lawsuits against them in one place, and a handful of Texas plaintiffs'
attorneys whose Enron cases have not been pulled into federal court.  
The plaintiffs' attorneys can gain some leverage for their clients if
they keep the lawsuits on a separate track, where the climate also is
more favorable to class actions than in federal court.

The defendants won the last round of this struggle last week when the
Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Judge Harmon properly
ordered the law firm of Fleming & Associates to stop filing Enron-
related lawsuits in various Texas counties and obtaining injunctions
against former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay and others.

G. Sean Jez, a lawyer in the Fleming firm, has the Brenham case on
behalf of a dozen investors who bought Enron stock after Mr. Lay gave a
speech to a civic club in that community.  That case, against Arthur
Andersen and some of its partners and three former top Enron
executives, is set for trial in March 2003.

Mr. Jez told Judge Underwood that this is not about getting his clients
an advantage over the federal court plaintiffs.  "All we are trying to
do is get our clients just compensation, just get our folks to trial."  

Robin Gibbs, attorney for the Enron board, argued that litigation
against the company is so massive it will involve hundreds of
depositions and millions of documents.  Mr. Gibbs said that to allow
cases to continue without pulling them together is too much of a burden
for the defendants.

However, Andrew Mytelka, the lawyer for American National Insurance
Co.'s fraud lawsuit against Enron and Andersen executives, said it
would be unfair to lump the cases together.  His case is in Galveston
and is beginning discovery - it is scheduled for a September 2003 trial
date.  As for duplicating depositions or paperwork, Mr. Mytelka said
the lawyers with small suits will be happy to piggyback on the
depository of information in the federal class actions.  "We are not
opposed to coordination.  We are not crazy," he said.

Defense lawyers voiced the hope that if more state cases are filed, and
not legally drawn into the federal case, that Judge Underwood would
reconsider grouping the state cases together.  Judge Underwood ruled
that the defendants may file another such motion in the future.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Drop Bias Suit After Court Refuses Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs alleging Ford Motor Credit Co. discriminates against
Hispanic car buyers have dropped their lawsuit.  Attorneys for the
group asked that the case be dropped, the Detroit Free Press reported,
after a federal judge in Chicago refused to grant the case class action
status.

Class action status would have allowed additional Hispanic buyers with
similar allegations against Ford to join the lawsuit.  Washington, D.C.
attorney Cyrus Mehri said he asked for the dismissal because it was in
the plaintiffs' best interests, according to the Associated Press
Newswires.

The lawsuit was based on an analysis of Ford loan data by a
statistician working for the plaintiffs.  The loan data itself was
provided by Ford and covered the years 1997 through 2001.  The
statistical analysis of the loan data claimed the alleged
discrimination caused Hispanics to pay roughly $266 more per loan than
non-Hispanics with similar credit histories.

The Company claimed the statistical analysis was flawed in that it
included only data on roughly six million active or open loans.  Data
on more than 2.2 million loans that were paid off or closed were
omitted from the report, thereby skewing the findings, the Company
said.


GEORGIA: Jury Says Atlanta's Water Bill Charges Are Legal And Fair
------------------------------------------------------------------
The jurors came from north Fulton County, but they sided with Atlanta,
when they ruled Atlanta is not illegally overcharging people outside
its borders for the water it supplies them, according to a recent
report by the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

The verdict stunned Pitts Carr, the lawyer who had filed the class
action in Superior Court for the aggrieved residents of the section of
unincorporated north Fulton County who claim Atlanta's charges for
their water are arbitrary and unreasonable.  Atlanta has been supplying
water to that section of north Fulton County at a rate 34 percent more
than its charges to city residents.  The plaintiffs in the class action
demanded a refund of $31 million.

The jurors were primarily from Roswell and Alpharetta because their
water does not come from Atlanta, therefore, their water bills were not
at stake.  However, the aggrieved customers were their north Fulton
neighbors, which Mr. Carr thought might give his clients an edge.

The lawsuit argued that Atlanta had illegally charged an arbitrary and
unreasonable rate.  Atlanta argued it can charge nonresidents more to
recoup costs going back to when it established the water system in
1875.  The city also claimed expenses to maintain the water system,
including paying lawyers to fight the lawsuit.

Fulton County had joined the group bringing the class action.  Fulton
County Attorney O.V. Brantley said the county would try to override the
jury verdict by asking the judge to issue an injunction to block the
higher rates, because it was not clear whether a jury should decide if
a rate is arbitrary.  However, she said, "I would assume he will take
the jury verdict into consideration."

Mr. Carr, plaintiffs' attorney, said there may be no appeal, because
the law is so vague on how to define `arbitrary.'  He said appellate
courts had given little guidance on the issue, and this was the first
case of its kind in Georgia.

"All the other jurisdictions have worked things out to everybody's
satisfaction," Mr. Carr said.  "But given the factious situation here,
that didn't happen."


GENERAL SERVICE: Omaha Court Grants Class Certification To Civil Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation giving
Class action status to plaintiffs who have filed civil suits against
General Service Bureau Inc., Omaha's oldest bill-collection agency, the
Omaha World-Herald reports.  US District Judge Joseph Bataillon of
Omaha, in a memo and order, issued recently, certified as a class those
consumers who paid the charges to the bill collection agency since May
1997.

A preliminary estimate of the plaintiffs is 2,800 Nebraskans, but one
of the attorneys estimated that the number of plaintiffs could increase
to 5,000.

The lawsuit accuses the company of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Laws by suing for
and collecting unauthorized charges for attorney fees, interest and
court costs on collection suits, which it settled with consumers
without obtaining a judgment.  Under Nebraska law, those charges are
not authorized without a court judgment.

The lawsuit contends that the practice of collecting unauthorized "suit
Charges" violates fair debt-collection laws by seeking and collecting
amounts including interest, fees and costs not expressly authorized by
the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Faces Several Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company faces several securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, charging the Company and certain of its officers and
directors of federal securities violations.

The suits purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising out of the Company's accounting practices, and allege that
the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning
its financial results.

The Company also faces a shareholder derivative suit filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County against the Company's
Board of Directors and certain of its executive officers.  The suit
alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the
Company and its stockholders by failing to establish and maintain
adequate accounting controls and mismanaging the assets and business of
the Company.

While the outcome of these claims cannot be predicted with certainty,
the Company does not believe that the outcome of any of these legal
matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


HAWAII: State Seeks Dismissal Of Public Employee Pension Fund Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Hawaii has asked the court for dismissal of a class action
seeking to force the state to pay $346.9 million into the public
employee pension fund, according to a report by the Associated Press
Newswires.

The class action was filed by Hawaii's Organization of Police Officers,
which says that money was diverted from the Employees Retirement System
in the late 1990s to help balance the state budget.  The lawsuit claims
that diversion of the funds was unconstitutional.

State Senate Vice President Colleen Hanabusa said that the state
constitution simply says that there is a contractual obligation to make
sure benefits are provided.  "How we provide these benefits is within
the purview of the Legislature," said Senator Hanabusa.

In its motion seeking dismissal of the union's lawsuit, the state said
the Legislature and Governor Ben Cayetano did nothing wrong when they
decided in 1998 to limit the state's annual contribution to the fund.  
The system pays the pensions for nearly 30,000 former state employees.  
The fund had investments with market value of just more than $8 billion
as of June 30.

Honolulu Circuit Court Judge Gary Chang scheduled the motion hearing
for October.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Group Files Suit Alleging Predatory Lending
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A national community group brought its campaign against alleged
predatory lending by mortgage giant Household International to
Massachusetts by suing the Company in state court.

The class action filed by the Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now, or ACORN, is similar to others filed in California and
a national suit filed in Illinois.  It accuses the Company, which, it
says, has made an estimated $500 million in refinance loans in
Massachusetts since 2000, of violating state laws and regulations
designed to prevent charges from piling up against poor homeowners.

ACORN alleges the Company violated regulations forbidding lenders from
charging more than five percent of a loan in points and fees and
interest rates that "significantly deviate from the norm."

ACORN's Chris Leonard says that "Household is the biggest.  They are
the biggest, baddest predatory lender in the country, and in some ways,
so goes Household, so goes the industry."

The lawsuit was filed in Suffolk Superior Court and seeks to rescind
such loans and collect damages.  Mr. Leonard said most Company
borrowers in recent years would probably be eligible to join the
lawsuit.


ILLINOIS: Judge Delays Settlement Pending Search For Additional Assets
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A $10 million class action settlement now hangs on whether a
multimillionaire Canadian con man is telling the truth about how much
money he has left, according to a report by the Belleville News-
Democrat (IL).

James Blair Down is accused of bilking as many as 414,000 people in
several countries, most of them seniors, out of as much as $200
million.  He also has served a six-month federal prison term in the
United States for his fake lottery pool scheme.

The Madison County Court already has frozen $65 million of Mr. Down's
Canadian money and property, but lawyers who brought the lawsuit made
an out-of-court settlement for $10 million.

"Why aren't these (the frozen) assets part of the settlement?" said
attorney Jody Pope of New York City, who represents three older victims
who object to the terms and amount of the settlement.  The settlement
has drawn national attention and criticism from the legal community and
the media.  A reporter from The New York Times joined St. Louis
reporter in the courtroom this week.

Judge Nicholas Byron of the Madison County Circuit Court delayed
signing the settlement for the second time, which would have as many as
42,000 American victims sharing $6 million.  The remaining $4 would be
split evenly between lawyers' fees and administrative costs.

Judge Brody said, "If there are more assets out there, be assured I
will sustain the objection to this settlement and we will go to trial."  
The judge has allowed three more months for lawyers to find out if Mr.
Down has more money and property than he has revealed.  They also will
do more searching for American victims.  About 4,000 victims have
turned up since lawyers began running television and magazine ads.  The
next hearing is set for November 7, in Edwardsville.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated amended
securities class action filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from April 28, 1999 through December 6,
2000.

The suit names as defendants the Company, two of the Company's officers
and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000
secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
         commissions paid to the underwriters;

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined
         prices; and

     (3) false analyst reports were issued.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in other
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in
1999 and 2000.  Those cases have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and its affiliated individual defendants
(as well as all other issuer defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the claims against it, and intends to defend itself vigorously.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Workers Allowed To Examine Promotion, Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a group of employees and former employees suing Johnson &
Johnson for discrimination won an early court battle recently,
permitting them to cast a wide net within the Company for information
about its promotion and compensation policies, The Star Ledger (Newark,
NJ) reports.

Johnson & Johnson's lawyers had argued it was more practical for the
defendants to collect information in stages, beginning with two
subsidiaries where employees are alleging they encountered
discrimination.

The New Brunswick-based company has an oft-quoted credo promoting
fairness and social responsibility.  It has more than 34 separate
companies operating in the United States.  The company employs more
than 13,000 people in New Jersey.

In June, Johnson & Johnson's lawyers asked a US District Court judge in
Newark for a protective order limiting the information that could be
collected as part of the lawsuit.

If evidence of discriminatory practices was found at the first two
companies, then the search for information could be expanded to other
companies.  They described the request for information as "unduly
burdensome and far reaching."

However, Judge Nicholas Politan, who presided over the arguments in
June, disagreed.  "All things being equal," said Judge Politan,
"Permitting a broader range of discovery will present a more complete
and reliable picture of the effects of J&J's practices."  Judge Politan
agreed with the plaintiff's attorney, that limiting the search would
result in "an unacceptable gerrymandering" of the data.

Cyrus Mehri, an attorney representing three individuals bringing the
class action, described the judge's ruling as a "giant step in our
journey for justice."

The disagreement over the parameters of Mr. Mehri's discovery was an
early conflict in the lawsuit alleging Johnson & Johnson's policies
discriminate against African-American and Hispanic workers.

Ted Wells, lead attorney for Johnson & Johnson , said "It is important
to note, however, that the court's order does not address the merits of
the plaintiffs' claims."


MAINE: Blueberry Antitrust Lawsuit Allowed To Proceed To Jury Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine's wild blueberry harvest has swung into full production, and a
judge has ruled that an antitrust class action alleging price fixing by
four blueberry processors can proceed to a jury trial, according to a
report by the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME).

The lawsuit was filed in Knox County Superior Court by Nathan Pease, a
Knox County blueberry grower, against:

     (1) Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge,

     (2) Cherryfield Foods Inc. of Cherryfield,

     (3) Merrill Blueberry Farms Inc. and

     (4) Allen's Blueberry Freezer Inc. of Ellsworth.

Mr. Pease, who later amended his suit to include three other Knox
County growers, alleges that the four companies conspired to set
artificially low field prices for Maine's wild blueberry crop in 1996
through 1999.

Superior Court Justice Joseph Jabar ruled that Mr. Pease's addition of
the other growers to his lawsuit met the legal requirements for a class
action.  Judge Jabar also denied a motion for summary judgment by the
blueberry companies.

In denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment - which would
have ended the case - Judge Jabar said that while the plaintiffs had no
direct evidence that the companies agreed beforehand on the price they
would pay the growers, there was enough circumstantial evidence to all
the case to go to trial.

While price similarity is understandable in a highly competitive
market, an agreement not to solicit each other's growers would be an
allocation of markets, which is a violation of antitrust law.

Ed Flanagan, chief executive officer for Jasper Wyman & Son, said that
no such agreement exists and that the four companies do compete for
growers, particularly large growers or cooperatives that include large
numbers of growers.

Daniel Pileggi, a lawyer representing Merrill Blueberry Farms, said
that judges are justified in letting a case go to trial if they believe
there are any facts that could possibly support the plaintiffs'
allegations.

The class action against the four processing companies alleges that the
four companies process 85 percent of all wild blueberries grown in
Maine.  Unlike cultivated blueberries, where almost half of the annual
harvest is sold fresh, most of Maine's wild crop is processed for
commercial use.  This is usually done by individually quick-freezing
the berries within hours of the time the fruit leaves the field.  Fast
delivery to the defendant processor is critical.

The allegations in the lawsuit center on the way the majority of
Maine's 500-plus wild blueberry growers are paid for their annual
crops.  Historically, growers receive an initial payment of 25 cents a
pound when the fruit is delivered to the plant or a receiving station
for one of the companies.   That initial payment is to cover the
grower's harvest costs.

The field price - the total amount per pound that growers will receive
for that year's crop - is not determined until the harvest has been
completed and the fruit begins to sell - with most growers receiving a
supplemental  payment in the fall or winter.  The lawsuit alleges that
the four companies determine what that price will be among themselves,
and there is no negotiation with the growers, nor is there another way
for the growers to find a market for their family truth.


PLAZA TOWER: Eight Plaintiffs Opt Out Of Suit Over Building Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight employees of Orleans Parish District Attorney Harry Connick are
"outraged" that their lawsuit against owners of the Plaza Tower office
building was amended by their attorney to include their boss, saying
the change, filed recently, was done without their consent, The Times
-Picayune reports.  Meanwhile, about 15 more employees have joined the
lawsuit, bringing to 55 the number of Mr. Connick's workers who say
working conditions at the Plaza Tower led to health problems.

The district attorney's child-support enforcement division was moved
from the building's 32nd and 33rd floors in April to the former Amoco
building.  Mr. Connick cited concerns about the health and safety of
employees in making the move.

The eight employees will withdraw from a complicated and potential
class action filed months ago against the owners of the Plaza Tower.  
The district attorney's office workers represent only a portion
of the 700 plaintiffs who have signed on to the suit.

Most of the plaintiffs are employees of the Department of Health and
Hospitals or the Department of Social Services, both state agencies
that had offices in the Plaza Tower building. The state workers are
suing the building owners as well as their employers, claiming they
were made to work in unhealthy conditions.

Lead plaintiff attorney Robert Creely said that naming Mr. Connick in
his official capacity only, was necessary.  "It is not against Mr.
Connick personally - we did not make any specific allegations against
Mr. Connick.  The reason to sue Mr. Connick is to get to the funding
source.  Unfortunately, we have to go through him to get to the
individuals with a legal obligation to my clients."


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Hedge-Fund Executive Withdraws From Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hedge-fund executive Robert Poole withdrew as lead institutional
plaintiff in a shareholder lawsuit against Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc.
(PPD), saying he only recently had learned that his fund was part of
the suit, originally filed in June 2001, Dow Jones Business News
reports.

"Apparently, we have been losing cases in court, and we didn't even
know it," said Mr. Poole, chairman of San Diego hedge fund Bricoleur
Capital Management, which manages about $1 billion in assets.  "It was
never our firm's informed decision to participate in the first place."

Mr. Poole learned of his involvement in the lawsuit against PPD
inadvertently, when he called Randy Harp, PPD's chief operating officer
to express interest in meeting with him.  "He said, `I can't let you
visit, because you're suing us.'"  Mr. Poole said he thinks the
confusion occurred when 18 months earlier an employee of his hedge fund
had responded to questions from plaintiffs' attorneys during a phone
call the employee thought was simply an informational request.

Mr. Poole said his fund owned about 40,000 shares of PPD at the time
the suit was filed, but he later sold the stock when the Company began
battling with the Securities and Exchange Commission over accounting
issues.  Early last year the SEC said PPD's accounting practices for
certain sales commissions were improper because they treated advance
commission payments as assets instead of quarterly costs.  


REPEATER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Global Motion To Dismiss Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeater Technologies, Inc. filed a global motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Chris L. Branscum,

     (2) Kenneth Kenitzer,

     (3) Timothy Marcotte and

     (4) certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
         of its common stock

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 8, 2000, the effective date of
the Company's IPO, and December 6, 2000, alleges that that the Company,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO
violated the federal securities laws because the Company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

In August 2001, the suit was consolidated with other similar lawsuits
for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.  Judge Scheindlin held an initial
case management conference on September 7, 2001, at which time she
ordered, among other things, that the time for all defendants to
respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the court.  
Thus, the Company has not been required to answer the complaint, and
no discovery has been served on the Company.


In accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders at further status
conferences in March and April 2002, the appointed lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed amended, consolidated complaints in the IPO Lawsuits on
April 19, 2002.  Defendants then filed a global motion to dismiss the
IPO Lawsuits on July 15, 2002, as to which the court does not expect to
issue a decision until at least November 2002.  

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend against it vigorously.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Nears Settlement With Workers Over Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is close to reaching a nearly US$20
million settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by dozens of current and
former ship workers who claim the company cheated them on overtime pay,
The Wall Street Journal reports.  Miami cruise company, said in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement
could result in a charge of between nine cents and 10 cents a share.

More than 60 service workers, including cooks, food servers, stewards
and busboys, sued the Company in US District Court in New York in 1999,
claiming the company did not pay them overtime wages for work beyond
their 70-hour workweek.   The plaintiffs requested class action
status covering up to 30,000 workers, said Paul Hofmann, an attorney at
Cappiello, Hofmann & Katz in New York, who is representing the crew
members.  The court has not ruled on the request.

As part of the proposed settlement, the Company would agree to abide by
its union agreement and pay overtime to all its employees.

The workers who sued claim the Company violated terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Royal Caribbean and the
Norwegian Seaman's Union, which represents the workers.  The workers
are generally expected to work 10 hours a day, seven days a week, Mr.
Hofmann said.  The workers who sued claim they often worked 14 hours to
16 hours a day and up to 118 hours a week, he said.

Under terms of the union agreement, Mr. Hofmann said the workers were
to be paid a premium ranging from less than $2 per hour to more than $4
an hour for overtime work.  The workers who sued drew base paychecks of
between $600 and $800 per month, he said.  Some workers, such as
bartenders, servers and stewards, also make tips from passengers.

Wage cases in the US courts against cargo-ship owners have been common
for ages, but cruise companies largely have escaped lawsuits because
they can claim exemption from US laws under international maritime
laws.

The four largest cruise companies that attract millions of American
travelers for luxury vacations are incorporated overseas - in Royal
Caribbean's case, in Liberia.  The Company's ships are flagged in
countries such as Liberia and the Bahamas.  Typically, when faced with
lawsuits, the cruise companies have argued cases against them should be
brought where they are incorporated or in the nations where their ships
are flagged.

In this case, Mr. Hofmann argued the Company was bound by its union
contract and by the federal Seaman's Wage Act, which allows ship
workers to pursue wage claims in the United States.


TRANSMETA CORP.: Court Sets Hearing on Certification, Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as
well as the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the securities
class action against Transmeta Corporation in September 2002.

The consolidated suit, which also names the Company's directors and
certain of its officers as defendants, was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
November 7, 2000 to July 19, 2001.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

In May 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and denied plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.  In June 2002,
defendants answered the second amended complaint as to the only
surviving claim.  In July 2002, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment relating to that claim.  Plaintiffs have moved for class
certification, and the Court is scheduled to hear defendants' motion
for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
September 2002.

The Company believes that the allegations in the second amended
complaint and the antecedent complaints are without merit and intends
to defend the consolidated action vigorously.


TURNSTONE NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court for the County of Santa Clara dismissed the
shareholder derivative lawsuit pending against Turnstone Networks, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging that the individual
defendants caused the Company harm by either making or permitting the
Company to make false and misleading statements between June 5, 2000
and January 2, 2001 and by permitting certain officers to profit from
stock sales during that period.

The complaint asserts claims against the individual defendants for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) waste of corporate assets,

     (3) abuse of control and

     (4) gross mismanagement of the Company

The Company demurred to the complaint on July 9, 2001.  In September
2001, a court order was issued sustaining the demurrer and granting
plaintiff limited discovery.  Subsequent to the completion of the
court-ordered discovery, plaintiff filed a first amended derivative
complaint alleging the same causes of action asserted in the initial
complaint.  The Company again filed a demurrer to the first amended
derivative complaint on January 10, 2002.

On February 22, 2002, Judge Jack Komar issued an order sustaining the
demurrer and granting plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.  
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2002.  The Company
filed a demurrer to the second amended derivative complaint on April
22, 2002.  On May 28, 2002, Judge Komar issued an order sustaining the
demurrer and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.


TURNSTONE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Asked To Show Cause V. Dismissal of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California asked plaintiffs in the class action suits against Turnstone
Networks, Inc. to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as
they failed to file one consolidated amended suit.

The litigation was commenced in March 2001 by the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of the
Company's September 21, 2000 secondary offering of common stock.  The
suit alleged that the defendants issued false and misleading statements
in the Company's prospectus issued in connection with the secondary
offering.  

At or about the same time, four other purported class actions were
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, alleging that the defendants made false or
misleading statements during the class period of June 5, 2000 through
January 2, 2001.

All five cases were consolidated on October 26, 2001, and by court
order dated December 3, 2001, Radiant Advisors, LLC was designated as
lead plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP were designated as
co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions.

The plaintiffs filed two separate consolidated amended complaints on
March 19, 2002.  On June 20, 2002, the court issued an order for
plaintiff to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed
with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to file one consolidated amended
complaint.

Plaintiff filed a certificate of counsel in response to the order on
June 27, 2002, and the Company filed its response on July 3, 2002.


TURNSTONE NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against Turnstone
Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York filed an amended suit, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
the underwrites of the Company's initial public offering of stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
in the initial public offering between January 31 and December 6, 2000,
alleges generally that the prospectus under which such securities were
sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to
discounts and commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300
cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently pending in
the Southern District of New York.  

Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not
predictable with assurance.  Consequently, management is unable to
ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability,
amounts which may be covered by insurance, or the financial impact with
respect to these matters.  However, management believes that the final
resolution of these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will
not have a material adverse impact upon the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


WALT DISNEY: Shareholders File Suit Over Pooh Merchandising Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit, seeking class action status and filed on behalf of the
shareholders in Walt Disney Co. accuses the Company of withholding
information about pending litigation over merchandise rights to Winnie
the Pooh, an action that harmed shareholders when the consequences
became known, Associated Press Newswires reports.

In 1961, Stephen Slesinger licensed Pooh merchandising rights to
Disney.  That license was renewed in 1983.  In 1991, Mr. Slesinger's
heirs sued Disney, claiming Disney owes them millions in unpaid
royalties on sales of some merchandise covered by such an accord in the
1983 renewal agreement.  That case is scheduled to go to trial in
March.

The shareholder lawsuit, recently filed in US District Court, claims
the Company concealed this information and the potential impact of it
until a May 2002 regulatory filing.  The lawsuit claims shareholders
first learned the consequences of a preliminary negative ruling in the
Pooh case in the May filing.  As a result of the ruling, the
shareholders claim the stock price fell nearly 42 percent, from $24.50
to $14.27, between May and August 5 - all of which allegations Company
officials deny.

Spokesman John Spelich said that "the lawsuit has no merit, and we will
defend ourselves vigorously, and are confident in the final outcome."

In the May regulatory filing, say shareholders in their lawsuit, the
Company said it would cost it "several hundred million dollars" and
impair its right to merchandise Pooh in the future if a preliminary
ruling by a Los Angeles judge hearing the Pooh case were to stand.  The
Company denies the charges in the initial Pooh suit by Mr. Slesinger's
heirs.

The shareholder lawsuit names Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner and
Chief Financial Officer Thomas Stagges as defendants, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.


*Shareholder Suits: A Possible Early Warning Of Accounting Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate directors and auditing firms may want to add another layer of
accountability, voluntarily imposed, by individuals like themselves,
who are in a position to prevent future accounting scandals, writes
Jonathan Krim of The Washington Post.  Surprisingly, they might find
substantial, and not so substantial but still useful, clues in a place
they typically revile, shareholder lawsuits.

Class actions alleging financial improprieties often preceded
scandalous revelations at several companies, including WorldCom Inc.,
Tyco International Ltd. and Rite Aid Corp.  Although the lawsuits did
not pinpoint the precise irregularities that have made recent
headlines, accounting and legal experts say they can serve as
harbingers of lax financial standards, which should receive attention
from those who should be exercising at least some of the attributes of
oversight, according to Mr. Krim.

Instead, and unfortunately so, shareholder suits often are treated as
nuisance actions, the experts contend, filed by predatory trial
attorneys seeking to capitalize on a company's financial troubles.

"What usually happens is that the lawsuits go to the legal department
of the corporation, and when they are mentioned, if at all, at board
meetings, it like swatting a fly or gnat," said Ralph Estes, emeritus
professor of accounting at American University and a longtime advocate
of more accountable corporate governance.

Professor Estes and others say word of such lawsuits should spur board
members and outside auditors to inquire more aggressively and seek
deeper financial reviews.

"Now, especially, boards need to ask more questions," said Peter
Gleason, chief operating officer of the National Association of
Corporate Directors.  "How did this issue make its way to a lawsuit?"

Rick Antle, an accounting professor at Yale University, said that
auditors "should not just balance the checkbook, but also audit the
company from a business point of view."

Shareholder lawsuits grew in popularity with the onset of the tech
bubble in the mid-1990s and its reversal of fortune in early 2000.  
When a company announced unexpected bad news, or its stock price
dropped after earnings failed to meet market expectations, attorneys
for shareholders would jump in to examine whether management had misled
investors before the news surfaced.  Lawsuits quickly followed, Mr.
Krim observed.

Companies fought back in Congress, arguing that the lawsuits often were
without merit and mere harassment.  Industry, at that point, won
changes to the law that made lawsuits more difficult to bring.

However, lawsuits still managed to be filed with regularity.  According
to the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse at Stanford University Law
School, 485 lawsuits were filed in 2001 and 174 through August 9 of
this year.

Representatives of the major accounting firms have said that they
respond to shareholder suits.  "If the auditors become aware of
information that they think may have an impact on the financial
statements, they are required to determine if the information is
accurate and reliable," said Chuck Landis, head of auditing standards
for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a trade
group.  "Maybe that means going to management, unless the lawsuit
alleges fraud by management.  Then, it might mean going to the audit
committee," according to Mr. Krim's article.

Attorneys for the shareholders, many of whom were federal securities
prosecutors, say that what actually happens is quite different.  "From
the time I was a criminal prosecutor, I would say, 'Why didn't you guys
do anything with the class-action lawsuit?'" said Kenneth Vianale, a
partner with Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.  "The answer was:
'That's just a class-action lawsuit.  We don't pay any attention to
that.'"

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was intended to
make it harder for shareholders to sue companies but, after a
significant drop in 1996, such class actions have climbed back to
previous levels.  A record 485 were filed in 2001, largely because of
a proliferation of lawsuits involving the allocation of shares in
initial public offerings.  Of the lawsuits filed last year, 309 or
nearly 64 percent, fell into that category.  The total for 2002,
through August 9 of this year, is 174.

                    New Securities Fraud Cases    

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against American
Express Company (NYSE:AXP), and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of American Express securities between
July 18, 1999 and July 17, 2001.

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, Mark D. Smilow, and/or
David C. Katz by Mail: 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


ANDRYX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Andrx Corporation
(NYSE: ADRX) between February 10, 2000 and August 12, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
against the Company and:

     (1) Elliot Hahn, Ph.D,

     (2) Angelo C. Malahias and

     (3) Alan P. Cohen

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 10, 2000 and August 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that the Company:

     (i) engaged in improper accounting practices which had the effect
         of materially overstating its reported earnings and
         understating its losses;

    (ii) issued materially false and misleading financial statements
         not prepared in accordance with GAAP; and

   (iii) lacked proper accounting controls and revenue recognition
         practices at its subsidiaries and which permitted its
         employees to commit accounting improprieties for a period of
         over three years.

On August 12, 2002, the Company announced that, as a result of its
internal audit process, management has learned that an employee at one
of its subsidiaries appears to have altered certain accounting records
pertaining to accounts receivable balances and aging relating to its
pharmaceutical and distribution operations, thereby potentially
affecting the Company's allowance for doubtful accounts.

Based upon its investigation, it appears that the Company's previously
announced net accounts receivable of $103.6 million as of June 30,
2002, may have been overstated by as much as $15 million relating to
the period from January 1, 1999 to date.

As a result of these accounting improprieties, the Company would be
required to restate earnings for prior years and/or account for these
misstatements as a charge in the current period.  In the aftermarket
trading on the date of the announcement of the accounting
irregularities, Company stock declined by 16% or $3.57 per share, from
$23.32 to $19.75.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or contact Kenneth Vianale or Tara Isaacson by
Mail: The Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by
Phone: 561-361-5000 by E-mail: Andrxcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


AON CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
certain officers and directors of Aon Corporation (NYSE: AOC), in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased 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 public 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.

On 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 Sherrie R. Savett, Stuart J. Guber or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of BellSouth
Corporation (NYSE:BLS) between January 22, 2001 and July 19, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia against the Company and:

     (1) F. Duane Ackerman,

     (2) W. Patrick Shannon and

     (3) Ronald M. Dykes

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 22, 2001 and July 19, 2002,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

According to the complaint, defendants reported quarter after quarter
of "record" financial results and financial growth despite a rapidly
deteriorating market for telecommunications companies. However,
unbeknownst to the investing public:

     (i) the Company had been recognizing advertising and publishing
         revenues, purportedly in connection with the performance of
         services for customers who had not been billed (phantom
         customers), and that $163 million of this revenue was required
         to be reversed;

    (ii) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles were violated because
         the transactions with "phantom customers" were not complete
         and there was not an "appropriate provision for uncollectible
         accounts."

On July 22, 2002, defendants revealed that the Company's earnings had
dropped by 67% for the second quarter of 2002, missing Wall Street
estimates.  The Company revealed that weak economic conditions in
Central and Latin America had been, and were continuing to have a
material, adverse impact on the Company's earnings and profitability.
In response to the Company's July 22, 2002 revelation, Company stock
dropped by more than 18% to $22 per share.  Company executives, privy
to the truth regarding the Company's financial condition, did not share
in these losses, having sold millions of dollars of BellSouth stock.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800/320-5081 or contact Kenneth Vianale or Tara Isaacson by
Mail: The Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by
Phone: 561-361-5000 by E-mail: BellSouthCase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


AON CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Aon Corporation
(NYSE:AOC) between May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Patrick G. Ryan, and

     (2) Harvey N. Medvin

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

As alleged in the suit, throughout the class period, defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (i) 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;

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

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

On August 7, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
shocked the market when it announced that:

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

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

     (c) the SEC had begun an investigation and questioned 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, Company shares fell $6.43 per share to close at
$14.77 per share, a one-day decline of 30.3%.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan Gross by Mail:
866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


CAPITOL ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, alleging that Capital One Financial Corp.
(NYSE:COF) misled shareholders about its business and financial
condition.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between
January 15, 2002 and July 16, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that the Company issued numerous press releases
regarding its performance during the class period which represented
that the Company was experiencing quarter after quarter of record
earnings and revenue growth while maintaining "stringent risk
management practices" and adequate loan loss reserves.

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

On July 16, 2002, the Company revealed that it had entered into an
agreement with regulators, which required the Company to boost reserves
by $247 million in the second quarter of 2002, tie-up additional
capital and institute infrastructure reforms in order to deal
adequately with its high rate of growth, especially in the 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 the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices and the Company undertook a convertible
debt offering for $650 million on April 19, 2002.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Capital One Financial
Corporation (NYSE:COF) between January 15, 2002 and July 16, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Richard D. Fairbank, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Nigel W. Morris, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         Director, and

     (3) David M. Willey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
         Officer

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market during the class period.  
As alleged in the suit, throughout the class period, defendants issued
highly positive statements concerning the Company's earnings and
operations.

The press release failed to disclose that defendants were withholding
material information about the true nature of the Company's business
operations and the percentage of high-risk customers in its portfolio.  
By failing to take adequate reserves to cover loan losses, defendants
inflated the Company's earnings and thereby maintained the Company's
stock price at artificially inflated levels.

On July 16, 2002, the last day of the class period, defendants finally
revealed that nearly forty percent (40%) of the Company's loans were
made to high-risk borrowers.  Additionally, the Company revealed on the
same day that the Company, as part of a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with federal regulators, would need to increase the amount of its
loss reserves.  

This news stunned investors, and one day later, on July 17, 2002, it
caused a thirty-nine (39%) plunge in the Company's stock price in a
single day.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan Gross by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


CITIGROUP INC.: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE:C)
between July 24, 1999 and July 23, 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 the Company's business and financial condition caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors.

The suit alleges that defendants:

     (1) failed to disclose that Citigroup misrepresented a 1999
         transaction with Enron that was structured as a commodity
         trade but served the same purpose as a loan to help Enron keep
         $125 million in debt off of its books;

     (2) affirmatively misrepresented Citigroup's potential Enron-
         related exposure in its 2001 Annual Report and elsewhere; and

     (3) failed to disclose the true extent of Citigroup's potential
         legal liability arising out of its "structured finance"
         dealings with Enron.

The complaint alleges that when Wall Street learned about the foregoing
on July 23, 2002, after executives of Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase
testified before the US Senate regarding the transactions at issue,
Company stock plummeted $5.04 or 15.73% to close at $27.00, less than
half its class period high.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg or Lionel Z. Glancy by
Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.  


CITIGROUP INC.: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 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 stock of Citigroup (NYSE:C) during
the period from July 24, 1999 through July 23, 2002.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, as well
as its Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers.  The alleged
violations, according to the complaint, stem from materially false and
misleading statements made by the defendants during the class period
that materially misrepresented the Company's operations and liabilities
arising from those operations, thereby causing Citigroup shares to
trade at artificially-inflated prices.

Citigroup shares, as alleged in the complaint, quickly lost nearly 25%
of their value after congressional hearings and news reports began
focusing on Citigroup's hidden role in aiding Enron disguise certain
now-notorious financing transactions (including a $125 million
transaction in 1999 where a loan was disguised as a commodity trade).
After Enron's collapse but prior to these disclosures, Citigroup
misrepresented its potential Enron-related exposure by failing to
disclose the true extent of its potential legal liability arising out
of its finance transactions with Enron.

The complaint charges Citigroup with:

     (1) failing to disclose its participation in illegal and
         misleading financing schemes; and

     (2) making misstatements concerning its exposure to losses from
         the Enron affair.

As the complaint alleges, as a result of defendants' failure to
disclose the true nature of Citigroup's relationship with Enron,
Citigroup's stock price was artificially inflated during the class
period (trading as high as $57 per share). Upon news that the Senate
Committee found evidence that Citigroup was involved in Enron's
collapse, the stock fell to $27 on trading of 121 million shares.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Ori Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or
888-529-4787 by E-mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kmslaw.com


ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that that ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:ICN)
misled shareholders about its business and financial condition.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between May
31, 2001 and July 10, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the California-based Company's false
statements artificially inflated its stock to as high as $34.72 per
share.  Defendants reported favorable, but false and misleading,
financial results to the market and represented that ICN's 2002 results
would be extremely favorable as well, with revenues for specialty
pharmaceuticals exceeding $700 million. These positive but false
statements allowed the Company to complete a debt offering in 7/01 for
$400 million.

Also, as a result of ICN's inflated stock price, certain of the
defendants were able to sell 236,833 shares of their ICN stock for
proceeds of $7.35 million.  On July 11,2002, (before the market
opened), ICN pre-announced its Q202 results, including that revenues
were only $236 million compared to estimates of $257 million+ and that
earnings were only $0.15 to $0.20 per share compared to estimates of
$0.43.  ICN stock dropped upon these revelations, falling 53% to $9.30
on July 11,2002, on huge volume of 19.9 million shares, its steepest
decline ever.  In fact, ICN had pulled sales from future periods into
class period quarters to inflate sales.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of The Interpublic
Group of Companies, Inc. (NYSE: IPG) between October 28, 1997 and
August 13, 2002, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) John J. Dooner, Jr.,

     (2) Philip H. Geier, Jr.,

     (3) Sean F. Orr,

     (4) Frederick Molz,

     (5) Eugene P. Beard,

     (6) Richard P. Sneeder, Jr.,

     (7) David I. C. Weatherseed and

     (8) Joseph M. Studley

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 October 28, 1997 and August 13, 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 increasing net income and
financial performance.

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:

     (i) that, throughout the class period, the Company was overstating
         its net income by failing to expense certain charges which
         should have been expensed;

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

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

On August 5, 2002, the Company announced that it would be rescheduling
the release of its second quarter 2002 earnings "to accommodate the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors," which was interpreted by
the market to potentially involve the Company's accounting. In response
to the uncertainty surrounding defendants' announcement, investors sold
off shares of the Company, which dropped $4.69 per share, or 23.8%, to
close at $14.99 per share.

On August 13, 2002, the last day of the class period, the nature of the
Company's delay of its second quarter 2002 earnings release became
evident when the Company announced, among other things, that it had
"identified $68.5 million of charges, principally in Europe, which had
not been properly expensed," which will cause the company to restate
its previously issued financial statements going back to 1997 and
prior.

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


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc.
(NYSE:MSM) securities 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:

     (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

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.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  * * *