---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Wednesday, August 28, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 170

                           Headlines
             
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Prevail in Insurance Fraud Suit in FL
AZRIEL FEUCHTWANGER: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Tel Aviv Court
COMMERCE INSURANCE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in Auto Insurance Suit
DONNELLY CORP.: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger With Magna in Michigan Court
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suits for Fraudulent Business Practices in AZ

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit Over Tamoxifen Co-Payments in CA Court
FIRST DATA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Petition For Writ of Certiorari
FIRST DATA: Working For Settlement of Consumer Suit in CA State Court
FIRST DATA: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit Pending in E.D. NY
INTEL CORPORATION: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over Pentium 4 Claims

JACK IN THE BOX: Trial in Overtime Suit To Commence January 2003 in CA
MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Inter-Connect Fees in Tel Aviv Court
NATIONAL AUSTRALIAN: Allegedly Involved In Controversial Enron Deal
NETWORK 1: Settles Automated Clearing House Interpleader Lawsuit in MD
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Withdraws Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit in CA

NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal CA of Derivative Suit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Refuses Request For Expedited Discovery
OKLAHOMA: Date Set For Black Officers' Bias Trial v. City Of Tulsa
PURDUE PHARMA: WV State Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Oxycontin
SELECT COMFORT: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in MN Court

THQ INC.: Trial in Securities Suit Set for November 2002 in C.D. CA
UNITED STATES: Indian Reservation Landowners Sue Indian Affairs Bureau
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Continue Settlement Protest At USDA  
UNITED TRUST: Seventh Circuit Appeals Court Reinstates Employees Suit
                    
                  New Securities Fraud Cases  

AON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
CORRPRO COMPANIES: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
CROSS MEDIA: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CRYOLIFE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in GA

DUANE READE: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in FL
ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in FL
EL PASO: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MARTHA STEWART: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARTHA STEWART: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NICOR INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL

PEMSTAR INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
PEMSTAR INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
WALT DISNEY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
WALT DISNEY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

WALT DISNEY: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

                           *********


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Prevail in Insurance Fraud Suit in FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida State Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the class
action against American Medical Security Group, Inc. alleging that the
Company did not follow Florida law when it discontinued writing certain
health insurance policies and offered new policies in 1998.

Plaintiffs claim the Company wrongfully terminated coverage, improperly
notified insureds of conversion rights and charged improper premiums
for new coverage.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the Company's renewal
rating methodology violates Florida law.

A bench trial on the liability issues of the case was held in March
2002, and in April 2002, a judgment was rendered against the Company.
The damages portion of the lawsuit is expected to be heard before a
jury in September 2002.


AZRIEL FEUCHTWANGER: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Tel Aviv Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Feuchtwanger Investments controlling shareholder Azriel
Feuchtwanger faces a shareholder class action filed in Tel Aviv
District Court by a Feuchtwanger Investments shareholder, Nussbaum-
Arigi Upholstery, which holds 440 shares in the company.

The suit alleges that Mr. Feuchtwanger violated the company's law by
not offering to buy 5 percent of the other shareholders' stakes, upon
reaching a 25 percent stake in the company.  The claim asks the court
to require Mr. Feuchtwanger to pay the other shareholders the sum they
would have received from him had they sold then, according to a
www.haaretzdaily.com report.

The suit further alleges that Mr. Feuchtwanger reached a 22.08 percent
stake in the company in January 2001.  Three months later the board of
directors approved a private allocation for him, and he began to pick
up little blocs on the market floor until he reached 25.02 percent.
He did not then approach the remaining shareholders and offer to buy 5
percent of their holdings.

Mr. Feuchtwanger has not yet filed a defense, www.haaretzdaily.com
reports.


COMMERCE INSURANCE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in Auto Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts state court allowed limited discovery to proceed in the
class action filed against The Commerce Insurance Company.  The
lawsuit, titled "Elena Given, individually and as a representative of
all persons similarly situated v. The Commerce Insurance Company,"
alleges damages as a result of the alleged inherent diminished value to
vehicles that are involved in accidents.  

In April 2002, the trial judge in that case entered partial summary
judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of whether the Massachusetts
automobile policy covers her claim, ruling that the plaintiff would be
entitled to reimbursement under the policy if the plaintiff were able
both to prove that her vehicle suffered "inherent diminished value" in
the accident and to quantify the amount of such diminution in value.

Subsequently, the Massachusetts Division of Insurance issued an
Advisory Ruling in which it stated, among other things, its position
that the policy does not cover claims for "inherent diminished value."  
In July of 2002, the trial judge allowed for limited additional
discovery in the case, stayed the trial, and granted the Company's
motion to have the appellate court review the issue of whether the
Massachusetts automobile policy provides coverage for inherent
diminished value.  

The Company will continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff's claim
for diminished value coverage, relying in part on the Advisory Ruling,
and also intends to vigorously contest any effort to certify the class.


DONNELLY CORP.: Faces Lawsuit Over Merger With Magna in Michigan Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donnelly Corp. faces a class action filed in the Oakland County,
Michigan Circuit Court, on behalf of holders of the Company's stock.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Magna International Inc. and

     (2) Magna Mirrors Acquisition Corp.

The suit alleges that the Company's board of directors, by entering
into the merger agreement, dated as of June 25, 2002, with Magna
International Inc. and Magna Mirrors Acquisition Corp., violated their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders and that Magna aided and
abetted such breach.  

The complaint also alleges that the draft prospectus/proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the proposed merger failed to provide all material information
concerning the proposed transaction.  

The Company has not yet filed an answer or responded to this complaint,
but believes that the plaintiffs' claims are completely without merit.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suits for Fraudulent Business Practices in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces two virtually identical lawsuits pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, one of
which is a class action.

The two suits assert that certain of the Company's business practices,
including those relating to the Company's contracts with pharmaceutical
manufacturers for retrospective discounts on pharmaceuticals and those
related to the Company's retail pharmacy network contracts, violate
fiduciary duties that the Company allegedly owed to certain of its
clients.  The purported class consists of health benefit plans that are
self-funded by an employer client.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and will
vigorously defend them.  The Company's motion to transfer the class
action to a different forum is pending.

Although the ultimate outcome of these cases is uncertain, a
determination adverse to the Company could result in changes in its
business practices with respect to its formulary and rebate programs
and its retail pharmacy network contracting, and/or an award of money
damages, either of which could have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations, financial position and/or cash flow from
operations.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit Over Tamoxifen Co-Payments in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Contra Costa.  The suit was filed
on behalf of Beverly Dubrin, who asserts she was improperly charged
brand drug co-payments for the cancer drug Tamoxifen in violation of
certain statutes in California regulating trade practices and consumer
protection, as well as a common law claim for unjust enrichment.

The complaint asserts that Tamoxifen is a generic drug for which a
lower co-payment should have been charged.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and will
vigorously defend this matter.


FIRST DATA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Petition For Writ of Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of
certiorari relating to the settlement of a class action against First
Data Corporation, and its subsidiaries, notably Western Union Financial
Services, Inc.

In 1998, five putative class actions based on similar factual
allegations were filed in United States District Courts, a California
state court and a Texas state court, alleging that an undisclosed
"commission" is charged by the Company or its subsidiaries when
consumers transmit money to Mexico, in that the exchange rate used in
these transactions is less favorable than the exchange rate that the
Company or its subsidiaries receive when they trade dollars in the
international money market.  The plaintiffs assert that the Company and
its subsidiaries violated the law by failing to disclose this
"commission" in advertising and in the transactions.

Some of the plaintiffs also assert that the Company or its subsidiaries
have discriminated against persons who use their services to transmit
money to Mexico, in that the difference between the market exchange
rate and the exchange rate used by Western Union in the Mexico
transactions is greater than the difference between the market and
exchange rates used by the Company or its subsidiaries when
transmitting funds to other countries.

The parties to some of these actions later reached a proposed
settlement.  Under the proposed settlement, the Company established a
charitable fund for the advancement of Mexican and Mexican-American
causes in the amount of $4 million.  Western Union also will issue
coupons for discounts on future money transfer transactions to Mexico
to its customers who transferred money from the US to Mexico between
January 1, 1987 and August 31, 1999.

In addition, the Company will issue coupons for discounts on future
Western Union transactions to customers who transferred money to Mexico
from January 1, 1988 to December 10, 1996 using the MoneyGram service
because MoneyGram was previously operated by a subsidiary of the
Company.  The proposed settlement also includes reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as well as the costs of settlement notice and
administration.

In December 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted final approval of the proposed settlement
and entered a final judgment.  In approving the settlement, the court
permanently enjoined the continued prosecution of the other actions.  
Some of the class members who objected to the settlement in the
respective actions appealed the final judgment approving the
settlement.

In October 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal court.  The class members
who filed the appeal subsequently filed a petition for rehearing and
petition for rehearing en banc in the Court of Appeals.  The petitions
were denied.

In January 2002, the same class members who appealed the judgment
petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari
seeking review of the judgment approving the settlement.  On April 22,
2002, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of
certiorari.

In light of the United States Supreme Court's denial of the petition
for a writ of certiorari, the courts in the remaining three actions
above have entered orders dismissing the actions.  If the dismissals
are not appealed, the Company will implement the proposed settlement,
which will result in the resolution of all claims asserted against the
Company in all five of the above actions.


FIRST DATA: Working For Settlement of Consumer Suit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation is working on a proposed settlement for the
class action filed in California state court, against it and
subsidiaries Western Union Financial Services, Inc. and Orlandi Valuta.  

The suit was filed on behalf of those persons who have used Western
Union's or Orlandi Valuta's services after August 31, 1999 to transmit
money from California to Mexico, or who have used the Western Union or
Orlandi Valuta money transfer services to transmit money from
California to Mexico and have opted out of one of the nationwide
settlements discussed in the federal suit.

The parties to this action have executed a memorandum of understanding
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims.  The proposed
settlement, which is subject to further negotiation between the
parties, is expected to provide:

     (1) Western Union and Orlandi Valuta will issue coupons for
         discounts on future money transfer transactions from
         California to Mexico to their respective customers who
         transferred money from the US to Mexico between January 1,
         1987 and March 31, 2000;

     (2) the Company also will make a payment of $1.5 million
         to be distributed to charitable organizations that assist the
         Mexican and Mexican-American communities in the State of
         California;

     (3) injunctive relief requiring Western Union and Orlandi Valuta
         to make additional disclosures regarding their foreign
         exchange practices and to include a provision in new and
         renewed contracts with agents in Mexico prohibiting the
         imposition of an undisclosed charge on recipients of money
         transfers; and

     (4) reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as well as the
         costs of settlement notice and administration.

If the parties reach a final agreement as to a proposed settlement, it
will be submitted to the Court for approval.


FIRST DATA: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit Pending in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation is working to settle a consolidated class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against it and its subsidiary, Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. asserting claims on behalf of a putative worldwide
class.

The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Western Union impose an
undisclosed "charge" when they transmit consumers' money by wire either
from the United States to international locations or from international
locations to the United States, in that the exchange rate used in these
transactions is less favorable than the exchange rate that Western
Union receives when it trades currency in the international money
market.

Plaintiffs further assert that Western Union's failure to disclose this
"charge" in the transactions violates 18 U.S.C. section 1961 et seq.
and state deceptive trade practices statutes, and also asserts claims
for civil conspiracy.

The parties to this action have executed a memorandum of understanding
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims.  The proposed
settlement, which is subject to further negotiation between the
parties, is expected to provide:

     (1) Western Union (and, with respect to money transfer
         transactions from the US other than California to Mexico,
         Orlandi Valuta) will issue coupons for discounts on future
         international money transfer transactions to customers who
         transferred money from the US to certain countries other than
         Mexico between January 1, 1995 and approximately March 31,
         2000 (for certain services, Western Union will issue coupons
         for transactions conducted as late as December 31, 2001), from
         anywhere in the US other than California to Mexico between
         September 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 (again, for certain
         services, Western Union will issue coupons for transactions
         conducted as late as December 31, 2001), from countries other
         than Canada to the US between January 1, 1995 and March 31,
         2000, and from Canada to the US between January 1, 1995 and
         approximately July 31, 2002;

     (2) injunctive relief requiring Western Union and Orlandi Valuta
         to make additional disclosures regarding their foreign
         exchange practices; and

     (3) reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as well as the
         costs of settlement notice and administration.

If the parties reach a final agreement as to a proposed settlement, it
will be submitted to the Court for approval.


INTEL CORPORATION: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over Pentium 4 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
A small group of PC buyers filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
against Intel Corp., Gateway and Hewlett-Packard, charging that the
firms misled consumers by claiming the Pentium 4 microprocessor is the
best-performing computer chip on the market, The San Francisco
Chronicle reports.

The complaint asks that the lawsuit be certified as a class action, and
that according to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, actual damages, attorneys' fees and other costs should be less
than $75,000 per class member.

Intel's flagship line of computer chips is "less powerful and slower
than the Pentium III and/or the (Advanced Micro Devices) Athlon," the
plaintiffs charged in a 49-page complaint filed in the Third Judicial
Circuit Court in Madison, Illinois.

The lawsuit was originally filed June 3, in Madison County, but
subsequently was moved to the US District Court in the Southern
District of Illinois, on July 31.   The case came to light in a recent
issue of PC World magazine.  The lawsuit names five consumers as
plaintiffs (three in Illinois; two in Missouri) who have purchased
either Pentium 4-based PC systems or the chip itself in order to build
the computer at home.

Since the first Pentium 4 chip was released in November 2000, more than
55 million have been sold, said Shane Rau, an analyst at IDC research
firm.  "The thin is that Pentium 4 is the highest-performing PC
microprocessor on the market, period," said Intel spokesman Chuck
Molloy.

Aaron Zigler, an attorney at the law firm Carr Korein Tillery in St.
Louis, filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs.  According to
the lawsuit the defendants violated the California Legal Remedies Act
and the California Business and Professions Code when they falsely
claimed the Pentium 4 as the most powerful processor.  The complaint
also added the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act, in the event the court rules California laws do not apply.

Dean McCarron, an analyst at Mercury Research, said the Pentium 4 chip
does handle less work per megahertz than the Pentium III, but that is
offset by the fact that the clock speed can be ramped up much higher in
the newer line than the older one.

"The lawsuit is essentially trying to say that the megahertz is a
measure of performance, and it's not," Mr. McCarron said.  "Basically,
what you have is someone making a lawsuit because reality did not live
up to their assumptions."

Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight 64, agreed saying the
plaintiffs "have a tough road to hoe.I think the courts are going to be
very wary . of tackling how computer performances should be measured."


JACK IN THE BOX: Trial in Overtime Suit To Commence January 2003 in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action against fast food chain Jack In The Box has
been set for January 17, 2003 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Diego County.

The suit was commenced in April 2001 by Robert Bellmore and Jeffrey
Fairbairn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.  The complaint
alleges that salaried restaurant management personnel in California
were improperly classified as exempt from California overtime laws,
thereby depriving them of overtime pay.

The Company believes its employee classifications are appropriate and
is vigorously defending this action.  The parties began mediation in
late July.  A motion for class certification is scheduled for September
13, 2002.


MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Inter-Connect Fees in Tel Aviv Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRS Communications, Ltd. faces a class action filed in Tel Aviv
District Court in Israel, in the total amount of NIS 600 million
(US$125 million).

The suit, which also names three other cellular operators in Israel,
involves the inter-connect fees that were collected from the customers
of the other operators with regard to phone calls that were made to
voice recorder applications through the cellular operators' dialing
numbers.

At this stage, the Company cannot estimate the impact this claim will
have on it.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIAN: Allegedly Involved In Controversial Enron Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
National Australian Bank was allegedly involved in a controversial
$US400 million deal with Enron Corp., now being sued in two class
actions filed on behalf of thousands of Americans who lost their money
in the company, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

The deal, given the name of Firefly, is described in one of the legal
claims as a scheme to move hundreds of millions of dollars in
borrowings off Enron's books in 1998 and 1999.  A claim filed in
Houston by leading class action lawyers, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, describes Firefly, along with other similar schemes, as
"manipulative devices."

The class action says of these "devices" that "Enron sold assets to
these entities at inflated prices that Enron never could have obtained
in arms-length transactions with third parties, resulting in phony
profits while hiding billions of dollars of debt."

National Australia Bank's (NAB) involvement in the Firefly deal has
only surfaced after hundreds of confidential internal bank documents
were released by a congressional committee investigating the Enron
scandal a few weeks ago.

Copies of the documents, which the US banks were forced to produce
under subpoena, were made available to the Herald.  Among these
documents is an internal memo from the US Citicorp group naming NAB as
a member of two groups of lenders.

According to the memo, the lending for the Firefly deal was arranged by
New York investment banks Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette, Chase and BT in
1998.  Other members alongside NAB were major German banks Bayerische
Landesbank and Commerzbank.

A second group, which lent $US300 million, for a deal called Pilgrim,
involved NAB along with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, First Union
and ABN.

A spokeswoman for NAB in Melbourne, said the bank "would not knowingly
participate in any off-balance-sheet financing structures that had the
principal aim of manipulating a company's balance sheet or their profit
and loss statement."

Up to this point, NAB has not been sued in the Houston class action or
the one file on behalf of New York and Florida pension funds.  It is
not known whether the leading US and European banks arranging the loans
or Enron kept junior syndicate members like NAB fully informed of Enron
conditions.

A lawyer acting for the New York and Florida pension funds, Andrew
Entwistle, told the Herald the question for NAB was what it was told by
the lead banks and Enron, and when.  "There is no question that those
deals were part of  'off balance sheet' deals to enhance Enron's
reported financial condition," Mr. Entwistle said.  "What were they
(the banks) told in the presentations on the deals?"  

The NAB spokeswoman said she could not comment about the
representations made to NAB by the lending syndicates.

On November 30, 2001, NAB told the Australian Stock Exchange that its
total secured and unsecured exposure to Enron was $200 million.

So far, all the banks named in the lawsuits - the lead "players"
(JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Credit Suisse First Boston and CIBC) -
including the major US lenders, have publicly denied that they acted to
deceive investors or disguise Enron's borrowings.  However, neither the
US Congress nor the angry shareholders are accepting this.

According to chief investigator for Congress Robert Roach. "The
evidence is that Enron would not have been able to engage in the
accounting deceptions it did, involving billions of dollars, were it
not for the active participation of major financial institutions
willing to go along with and even expand upon Enron's activities."

US Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission
investigators are also probing the role of the bankers as part of the
Enron investigation.  An announcement last Wednesday that a senior
Enron executive, Michael Kopper, has pleaded guilty to fraud and is
informing on other Enron executives, will assist those inquiries.


NETWORK 1: Settles Automated Clearing House Interpleader Lawsuit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network 1 Financial Corporation entered into a binding settlement
agreement with The Columbia Bank relating to the class action
interpleader lawsuit the bank filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, Northern Division.

The bank filed the suit in April 2000 and deposited with the court
approximately $6.0 million.  The Fund was on deposit with the Bank as
the result of a computer file sent through a computerized debit and
credit system, known as the Automated Clearing House, on behalf of the
originators of the computer file.  

The interpleader lawsuit filed by the Bank alleged, among other things,
that the Originators of the File did not have the authorization of the
accountholders whose accounts were debited by the file in accordance
with the rules governing the ACH Network and that the Originators of
the File were negligent in that they originated and processed an
unauthorized ACH file.

The interpleader lawsuit sought the Court's assistance in determining
the rights of the parties to the Fund, recovery of legal costs incurred
by the Bank and discharge of the Bank from any liability that may arise
from the File.  The Originators of the File have filed counterclaims
with the Court under various theories including:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) conversion and

     (3) tortious interference with contract and with prospective
         business relations

Effective April 24, 2002, the parties dismissed, with prejudice, all
claims and counter claims.  Also during April 2002, the Bank received
$150,000, representing refunds that it paid to persons who had their
accounts debited, and $189,000, representing partial reimbursement for
its attorney's fees and expenses.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Withdraws Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Associates, Inc. withdrew its motion to dismiss a securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Prabhat Goyal and

     (3) Peter Watkins

The suit, filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
the Company's stock between July 19 and December 26, 2000, asserts
causes of action (and seeks unspecified damages) for alleged violations
of Exchange Act Section 10(b)/ SEC Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section
20(a).

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues and
earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the Company's class
period financial statements were false and misleading and failed to
comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's consolidated complaint
on October 29, 2001.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss was
held on April 16, 2002.  On April 26, 2002, the parties stipulated to
the withdrawal of defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court then
entered an order approving the withdrawal of defendants' motion to
dismiss.  

On June 24, 2002, the court entered an order approving the parties
stipulation setting forth a schedule for the filing of a first amended
consolidated complaint and the briefing of defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal CA of Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuit pending against
Network Associate, Inc.'s officers and directors appealed the dismissal
of the suit by the Superior Court in Santa Clara County.  The suit
names the Company as a nominal defendants and asserts claims against:

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Peter Watkins,

     (3) Prabhat Goyal,

     (4) Leslie Denend,

     (5) Virginia Gemmell,

     (6) Edwin Harper, and

     (7) Enzo Torresi.

The suit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and professional negligence against the accountants.  In particular,
the complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a course of
conduct by which they improperly accounted for revenue from software
license sales, and that, as a result of their actions, certain of the
Company's financial statements were false and misleading and not in
compliance with GAAP.

The Company filed a demurrer to the complaint in May 2001, and a
hearing on the demurrer was held in June 2001.  The Court later
sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.  By order dated August 21,
2001, the court granted plaintiff limited discovery for purposes of
amending the complaint to meet the demand futility test imposed by
Delaware law.  Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on December
26, 2001.

The Company again filed a demurrer, which was joined by the individual
defendants, to the amended complaint on January 30, 2002.  A hearing on
the demurrer was held on March 8, 2002, after which the court entered
an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing
the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of
appeal in the California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District on
June 24, 2002.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Refuses Request For Expedited Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara refused to
grant plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery in the consolidated
class action filed against Network Associates, Inc. over its planned
acquisition of McAfee.com.

Several suits were commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, and the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming as defendants
the Company, certain of McAfee.com's officers and directors, and with
respect to the Delaware Court of Chancery actions, McAfee.com.  The
suits were later consolidated.

The amended consolidated suit complaint asserts claims against
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty on the grounds that:

     (1) the price at which the Company proposes to consummate the
         current exchange offer purportedly is unfair and inadequate,
         and

     (2) defendants purportedly have failed to disclose information
         material to assessing the propriety of the exchange offer.

In July 2002, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted plaintiffs'
request for expedited discovery and set a hearing on plaintiffs'
application for a preliminary injunction for July 23, 2002.  On July
19, 2002, after conducting additional due diligence and discovery,
plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction.

Another class action lawsuit was filed on April 9, 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  On
April 2, 2002, defendants removed the California state action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  
On April 4, 2002, plaintiff moved for an order shortening time on his
motion to remand the case to state court and for expedited discovery.

On April 8, 2002, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the California
case under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  By
order dated June 10, 2002, the California case was dismissed with
prejudice.  Subsequently, by stipulation filed June 20, 2002, the
parties in federal suit agreed for the action to be remanded to
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara solely for the
purpose of allowing plaintiff Justin Peyton to dismiss the action, and
the district court vacated the prior dismissal order as nunc pro tunc.

On July 1, 2002, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara against the
Company and various officers and directors of McAfee.com.  The
complaint generally alleges that

     (i) the defendant directors of McAfee.com are liable for breach of
         fiduciary duty because they failed to maximize the price of
         the Company's exchange offer, and

    (ii) defendant the Company aided and abetted these breaches of
         fiduciary duty by structuring the exchange offer in terms
         preferential to the Company.

On July 5, 2002, the plaintiff applied to the Court for expedited
discovery and an expedited hearing on its anticipated application for a
temporary restraining order.  The defendants opposed plaintiff's
application, and on July 9, 2002, the Court denied plaintiff's
application.


OKLAHOMA: Date Set For Black Officers' Bias Trial v. City Of Tulsa
------------------------------------------------------------------
A January 21 trial date was tentatively agreed upon, in the
discrimination class action filed by black police officers against the
city of Tulsa, the Tulsa World reports.  A scheduling order also is
expected to include a hearing sometime during the week of November 11
for the court to consider all pending motions in the case.

Meanwhile, local NAACP leaders have joined the fray by criticizing
Mayor Bill LaFortune's rejection of the proposed consent decree in the
case.  The NAACP is calling for a grand jury investigation into the
matter.

Joel Wohlgemuth, an attorney representing the city, is holding out hope
that the lawsuit could be settled short of a trial.  Therefore, he has
asked the court to include in its scheduling some provision for a
settlement conference, perhaps one involving US Senior District Judge
Lee West.  Judge West took part in the negotiations that led to the
filing of a proposed consent decree in April.

However, that document was rejected by US District Judge Sven Erik
Holmes last Friday, after Mayor LaFortune opted not to give the sort of
"unequivocal support" to the pact that Judge Holmes said was necessary
for the proposed agreement to work.

Still another circumstance has intervened to complicate the direction
in which this class action will be moving.  The Fraternal Order of
Police (FOP) is hoping to intervene in the case and  filed a motion
asking that the case be put on hold until it can fully pursue its
motion to disqualify Judge Holmes from presiding over it.

The FOP filed its recusal motion on August 14, claiming that Judge
Holmes' involvement in the 1998 negotiations to settle the case,
coupled with his comments and questions during the June and July
"fairness" hearings on the now-failed consent decree, reflect a
judicial bias in favor of the pact.  The police union intends to file
its petition seeking the judge's removal early next week, with the 10th
US Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Plaintiffs' counsel Louis Bullock said that his side is "all talked
out" and sees no need for the court to schedule settlement conferences.  
The city's attorney Joel Wohlgemuth said Mr. Bullock's position is
"regrettable," because the city believes the sides are not too far
apart and that settlement is possible.

The Tulsa chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) also has entered this complex state of affairs.  
Chapter president Pleas Thompson said that the chapter is considering
circulating a petition to convene a grand jury, which among other
things, would be asked to look into the legal fees associated with the
lawsuit.  The local chapter membership also voted to request legal
assistance from the national NAACP headquarters to assist the black
officers named in the lawsuit.

Mr. Wohlgemuth said he knew of no basis for convening a grand jury.  
"Rather than thinking about a grand jury, I believe they ought to
direct their efforts towards the resumption of settlement
negotiations," he said.


PURDUE PHARMA: WV State Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Oxycontin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit court, Greenbrier County, West Virgiinia
dismissed the class action filed against Purdue Pharma, LP relating to
its product, OxyContinr (oxycodone HCl controlled-release) Tablets.

Relying on "the established legal principle that a plaintiff cannot
recover when his own unlawful or immoral act caused the injuries in
question," Judge James J. Rowe decided the lawsuit brought by Brian
Allen, as administrator of the estate of his deceased spouse, Rebecca
Ann Allen, in the Company's favor.

In the seven-page written order, Judge Rowe held, "(The) Plaintiff and
Mrs. Allen circumvented all safety measures set forth by Defendant in
the form of warnings . (T)he use of OxyContinr in contravention of
those safety measures was the proximate cause of Mrs. Allen's death."

The Judge also noted, "The undisputed evidence shows that OxyContinr is
currently and always has been a Schedule II drug, subject to the
strictest regulation available.  In fact, OxyContinr can only be
prescribed by a physician who is licensed by the Drug Enforcement
Agency.(T)he various warnings" provided by the Company "clearly laid
out the possibility that (the plaintiff's) actions could lead to a
fatal  overdose."

Howard R. Udell, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Purdue
Pharma, reacted, "Judge Rowe's decision is crystal clear.  When you
ignore safety warnings and take an otherwise safe and effective product
in an irresponsible and illegal manner, no personal injury lawyer will
be able to help you cash in on your own misconduct by suing the
product's maker.  Any loss of life is a tragedy, but Judge Rowe's
ruling kept this personal tragedy from becoming a legal travesty."

"Baseless cases like this will not produce a quick financial windfall.   
The Allen decision strengthens our resolve to defend these cases
vigorously and to the hilt.  We have not settled one of these cases --
not one.  We have made a safe and effective product available for
patients who need it according to the medical judgment of their doctors
and we're not going to compromise medical care by caving in to baseless
litigation," Mr. Udell concluded.

Dr. Paul Goldenheim, Executive Vice President for Worldwide Research
and Development at Purdue Pharma, added, "Bad lawsuits can interfere
with good medicine, and this can lead to human suffering.  Because of
the groundless fears promoted by personal injury lawyers in pursuit of
a quick settlement, patients may be frightened into ignoring their
physicians' professional judgment.  Many patients tell us that they
'get their lives back' when their painful conditions are relieved
through prescription medications as part of an overall treatment
program."

The Allen case, in which Henry Jernigan and the Charleston office of
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP represented Purdue, is the most recent legal
victory for Purdue Pharma.  Including Allen, fourteen lawsuits against
the company have been dismissed to date.  The Company also has defeated
two motions for injunctive relief and defeated class certification in
the only case to address the issue of whether or not class action
status is appropriate for these kinds of claims.  The Company has
successfully thwarted efforts in numerous cases to defeat federal
jurisdiction and have cases remanded to state courts.


SELECT COMFORT: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation reached an agreement in principle to settle
a securities class action pending in the United States District Court
in Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between December 4,1998 and June 7,1999.

The suit, which names the Company and certain of its former officers
and directors as defendants, alleges that the Company and the named
former directors and officers failed to disclose or misrepresented
certain information concerning the Company in violation of federal  
securities laws.  

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and has vigorously
defended the matter.

In June of 2002, the Company consented to an agreement in principle
negotiated by the Company's insurance carrier to settle this
litigation.  The settlement involves no cash or other payment
obligation by the Company, and no admission of liability or wrongdoing
by the Company.  The settlement remains subject to negotiation of a
definitive settlement agreement and approval of the court.


THQ INC.: Trial in Securities Suit Set for November 2002 in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the securities class action pending against
THQ, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  Trial in
the suit has been set for November 12,2002.

The consolidated amended suit alleges that defendants violated Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
including allegations that defendants:

     (1) manipulated the Company's stock price;

     (2) distributed false and misleading information concerning
         revenue recognition, forecasts and earnings estimates;

     (3) selectively disclosed material information; and

     (4) engaged in insider trading.


The plaintiffs are purported investors who purchased shares of our
common stock from October 26, 1999 through May 24, 2000.

The Company has taken the position that the lawsuit is without merit.  
At this early stage, however, it cannot predict the likely outcome of
this litigation.


UNITED STATES: Indian Reservation Landowners Sue Indian Affairs Bureau
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Fort Hall reservation landowners filed a class action
against the Bureau of Indian Affairs for allegedly violating the
Federal Privacy Act, Associated Press Newswires reports.  US District
Court Judge R. Lynn Winmill certified the class action last week.

The Fort Hall Landowners Association originally filed the lawsuit in
1999.  The suit alleged that Fort Hall Indian Agency (the Bureau) staff
released their names, addresses and ownership information to Idaho
Power Co., when the company was seeking to renew a right-of-way
easement for its Brady-Fremont Power Line.

The complaint was later amended to include other landowners and charges
that the Bureau's staff had been violating privacy laws for years by
releasing names and addresses to non-Indians who wanted to lease land.

Judge Winmill gave the landowners' attorneys 10 days to tell the Bureau
how they intend to notify all the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  After
notification is made, any member of the class can request that the
court exclude him/her from the class action.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Continue Settlement Protest At USDA  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black farmers protested outside the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), asking for immediate settlement of their cases stemming from a
five-year-old class action, charging that the government refused them
loans because of their race, according to a report by The San Diego
Union-Tribune.

Agriculture Department officials said they planned to continue speaking
to the protesting group, and to hundreds of other black farmers as
well, who say they have yet to be paid in the class action, which was
settled in 1999, when the government essentially admitted racial
discrimination.

Lou Gallegos, an assistant secretary at the Agriculture Department,
said at a news conference located near the protest of about 60 farmers,
plus goats, a mule and two tractors, that the government had kept its
word.  "The vast majority of settlements have been approved," he said.

There are more than 500 outstanding cases, according to the protesting
farmers.  The department replies that more than 10,000 cases have been
paid.  However, Mr. Gallegos say he has no date for when the remaining
cases will be paid - that the department will not set a deadline for
issuing those checks.

"It is not an issue of resisting payment.  It is a question of
following the settlement," said the Assistant Agriculture Secretary.  
Mr. Gallegos said that not all the remaining cases qualify for payments
and that the claims are being reviewed by the Justice Department and a
private contractor.

In the settlement, the department had agreed to pay $50,000 to each
farmer who had been denied a loan because of his race.  Those farmers
wanting more money would be required to go through a more lengthy
procedure.

The remarks of Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman speak to the needs
generally of minority and small farmers, rather than to the specifics
of resolving the still-unsatisfied terms of the black farmers' class
action settlement.  Ms. Veneman recently announced that she had
released $98.2 million for a loan program that "will particularly help
minority and small farmers."

"Today's discussions and agreements are simply part of an ongoing
process to ensure that all farmers . are treated fairly," said Ms.
Veneman.

In response, many of the more than 50 farmers, waving homemade placards
and shouting slogans, said the department's announcements were glossing
over already settled legal responsibilities arising out of the 1999
settlement agreement.


UNITED TRUST: Seventh Circuit Appeals Court Reinstates Employees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinstated
the class action against United Trust Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries,
which was earlier dismissed without prejudice by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The suit also as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Universal Guaranty Life Insurance,

     (2) United Trust Assurance Co.,  

     (3) United Security Assurance Co., and

     (4) First Commonwealth Corporation

David Morlan and Louis Black filed the suit, alleging that they were
employees of the defendant companies rather than independent
contractors.  The plaintiffs are seeking class action status and have
asked to recover various employee benefits, costs and attorneys' fees,
as well as monetary damages based on the defendants' alleged failure to
withhold certain taxes.

In September 2001, the case was dismissed without prejudice because Mr.
Morlan lacked standing to pursue the claims against defendants.  The
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  

In July 2002, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and
directed the district court to reinstate the class action.  The Company
is petitioning the court for a rehearing on this appeal.

In addition to the appeal, a second action was filed, entitled "Julie
Barrette Ahrens, David Dzuiban, William Milam, Dennis Schneiderman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Universal
Guaranty Life, United Trust Assurance Company, United Security
Assurance Company" in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The Company continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds to
defend both the original and related lawsuit, and it intends to defend
the cases vigorously.  It believes that the defense and ultimate
resolution of these lawsuits should not have a material adverse effect
upon the business, results of operations or financial condition of the
Company.  
                       New Securities Fraud Cases  

AON CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aon
Corporation (NYSE:AOC) between May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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, Company shares 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


CAPITAL ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Capital One
Financial Corp. (NYSE: COF) securities between January 15, 2002 and
July 16, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

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 15, 2002 and July 16, 2002.

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


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Corrpro Companies Inc. (AMEX:CO)
between April 1, 2000 through March 20, 2002, both dates inclusive.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Joseph W. Rog,

     (2) Michael K. Baach,

     (3) David H. Kroon,

     (4) Neal R. Restivo,

     (5) John L. Brack, Jr.,

     (6) Kurt R. Packer, and

     (7) Marilyn Eisele

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 false material misrepresentations
about the Company's financial results when the Company inflated its
revenues and disguised its losses to the market during the class period
thereby artificially inflating the price of the stock.

Specifically, on March 20, 2002, the Company announced that it had
discovered accounting irregularities causing the Company's consolidated
operating income before taxes through December 31, 2001 to be inflated
by between $4.5 and $5.3 million.

In addition, as a result of the misrepresentations, the Company is
expected to have to take a charge to pre-tax earnings in the Company's
fiscal fourth quarter ending March 31, 2002 of between $5.3 and $6.7
million.  

As a result of these material misrepresentations, the Company's
securities traded at artificially inflated prices on the New York Stock
Exchange and the American Stock Exchange.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


CROSS MEDIA: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Cross Media
Marketing Corporation (ASE: XMM) securities between November 5, 2001
and July 11, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York.

The complaint charges the company and Ronald Altbach, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, 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.

On November 5, 2001, the start of the class period, the Company
announced that it expected both revenues and earnings for 2002 to
increase in excess of 50 percent.  Defendants continued to issue
numerous press releases during the class period, which touted the
Company's performance and represented that revenues and earnings were
increasing.  Additionally, defendants misrepresented the impact and
nature of the FTC proceedings brought against the Company and others.  

The material misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of
creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of the
Company and its business, finances and operations, thus causing the
Company's common stock to be overvalued and artificially inflated at
all relevant times.

The truth regarding the Company was not fully disclosed until July 12,
2002, when defendants finally revealed that the Company would have a
loss for the second quarter of 2002 and that revenues for the year
would be significantly less than previously predicted.

In reactions to the July 12 news release and conference call, the
common stock price of the Company dropped drastically, from $6.54 on
July 10, to $4.88 on July 11, to $2.71 on July 12.

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


CRYOLIFE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of CryoLife, Inc. (NYSE: CRY) between August 11, 2000 and
June 26, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a company that preserves viable
human tissues for transplant applications, and two top corporate
officers made materially false and misleading representations during
the class period.  Specifically, the suit alleges defendants made
statements indicating they were in compliance with FDA rules and
regulations.

Then on June 24, 2002, the Company announced it had received a warning
letter following an FDA inspection of its manufacturing facilities.  
The next day the Company admitted it had also received a warning letter
in 1997.  The price of Company shares fell 18% on the June 24, 2002
announcement, and then another 16% when the previous warning letter was
revealed.

On August 14, 2002, the FDA ordered the Company to recall the tissue it
markets for surgical implantations.  Finally, on August 19, 2002, the
Company revealed it was under investigation by the SEC.

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


DUANE READE: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Duane Read, Inc. (NYSE:DRD) securities
between April 25, 2002 and July 24, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
the Company and Anthony Cuti.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
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 Jason L. Brodsky or Evan J. Smith by Mail: 11
Bala Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com


ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Eclipsys Corporation (Nasdaq:ECLP) and three top
executives, claiming the Company misled the public about its finances,
in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit, filed on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
common stock from July 23, 2001 through June 27, 2002, claims that the
Company, a healthcare information technology company, and three of its
top officers artificially inflated the stock price by making false and
misleading statements about company profits.  The complaint also
alleges that Company insiders took advantage of the inflated stock
price by dumping over $9.5 million of company shares soon after they
made announcements touting strong growth.

To create the impression that the company's revenues were growing, the
Company issued highly positive statements throughout the class period
touting the company's acquisition of new contracts, the lawsuits says.  
However, the plaintiff claims that, as early as July 2001, the Company
was well aware that new-sales bookings had slowed considerably and
expenditures had accelerated.  According to the complaint, the Company
failed to disclose this information to the public.

Then on October 22, 2001, investors were stunned when the Company
revealed that earnings would fall far short of expectations for the
fourth quarter of 2001 because new-sales bookings were delayed and
expenditures had increased.  In response to the announcement, the
Company stock declined by 20% to trade at $12.50 per share.

The news grew worse for Company shareholders on June 27, 2002 when the
company issued a news release announcing that results for the second
quarter of 2002 would fall far short of the Company's previous
estimates.

Instead of reporting a profit, as investors were led to believe, the
Company announced it would report a net loss.  In response, Company
stock plunged nearly 50% to around $6 per share.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo or Jay W. Eng by Mail: 515
North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone:
(561) 835-9400 by E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.bermanesq.com.  


ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf all persons who purchased or acquired the securities
of Eclipsys Corporation (Nasdaq:ECLP) between July 23, 2001 and June
27, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers.

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 July 23, 2001 and June 27, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants issued highly positive press
releases regarding the Company's addition 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.  However:

     (1) during a six-week period in July to August 2001, insiders sold
         more than $9.5 million worth of Company stock at or near the
         stocks two year highs; and

     (2) unbeknownst to the investing public, although the defendants
         were aware that new-sales bookings had slowed considerably and
         expenditures in research and development and marketing and
         distribution had accelerated, the Company failed to timely
         disclose these facts to the public in any of Company public
         filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission or press
         releases.

On June 27, 2002, defendants issued a press release announcing that
results for the second quarter of 2002 would fall short of the
Company's previous statements.  The Company announced it would report a
net loss in the range of $0.07 to $0.10 per share.  Trading price of
Company stock dropped nearly 50% in response to this.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
clowther@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com  


EL PASO: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired El Paso Corporation
(NYSE: EP) securities between July 25, 2001 and May 29, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

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

The suit further alleges that the Company manipulated both energy
prices and accounting regulations in order to report materially
inflated revenues from its energy-trading operations and to hide
billions of dollars of debt in off- balance-sheet partnerships.  On May
29, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company announced a
plan to limit its investment in and exposure to energy trading and
increase its investment in core natural gas businesses.

As a result of the news, Company shares fell 23.4% to close at $27.01.
On June 7, 2002, Company announced that it received an informal inquiry
from the Securities and Exchange Commission staff regarding the issue
of "round-trip" trades.

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


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired The Interpublic Group of
Companies, Inc. (NYSE:IPG) securities between October 28, 1997 and
August 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
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

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


MARTHA STEWART: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
(NYSE: MSO) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 8, 2002 and July 24, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Martha Stewart, founder, Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Sharon L. Patrick, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         director,

     (3) Dora Braschi Cardinal, Executive Vice President- Print
         Production,

     (4) Gael Towey, Executive Vice President and Creative Director,

     (5) Gregory R. Blatt, Executive Vice President- Business Affairs,
         Secretary and General Counsel,

     (6) Lauren Podlach Stanich, Executive Vice President, President,
         Publishing,

     (7) Margaret Roach, Executive Vice President, Editor-in-Chief,

     (8) Suzanne Sobel, Executive Vice President-Advertising Sales,

     (9) John L. Doerr, director from July 1999 through early 2002, and

    (10) venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between January 8, 2002 and July 24, 2002.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that Ms. Stewart sold 100% of
her personally held common stock of ImClone, Inc. based on insider
information obtained from Samuel Waksal, ImClone's CEO and a personal
friend of Ms. Stewart's.

The complaint further alleges that the insider information allowed Ms.
Stewart to sell all of her 4,000 shares of ImClone common stock on
December 27, 2001, one day before devastatingly-negative news regarding
ImClone was publicly disclosed for the first time, sending the price of
ImClone common stock plummeting.

On January 18, 2002, the complaint charges, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Justice Department and US House Energy and Commerce
Committee began investigating whether Mr. Waksal had warned certain of
his relatives and friends of the negative developments prior to the
public disclosure of such developments, allowing them to avoid the
massive losses resulting from the subsequent public disclosure.

According to the complaint, despite knowing of her illicit insider-
sales and the foreseeability that the government's investigations would
uncover her wrongdoing and have a materially adverse impact on the
Company's business (which depended in large part on Ms. Stewart's
reputation and public image), Ms. Stewart failed to disclose her
activities to the public.

Instead, the complaint alleges, Ms. Stewart, along with the other
defendants, sold a total of $79 million in MSLO common stock, with many
defendants selling nearly all of their MSLO common stock.  As alleged
in the complaint, the public first learned of Ms. Stewart's complicity
in the high- profile ImClone scandal on June 6, 2002, with the
publication of a media report, setting-off a precipitous decline in
Company stock price.

The impact of Stewart's involvement in the ImClone scandal on the
Company's business was, according to the complaint, not known to the
public until July 24, 2002, when the Company announced that the
circumstances were negatively impacting its revenues and earnings,
causing the Company to slash earnings estimates for the third quarter
of 2002 by half and reducing guidance for the entire-year 2002.  On
July 24, the price of the Company's common stock dropped to below $7.50
per share -- a 60% drop in one month.

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


MARTHA STEWART: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. (NYSE:MSO) securities between January 8, 2002 and July
24, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) Martha Stewart, founder, Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Sharon L. Patrick (President, Chief Operating Officer and
         director,

     (3) Dora Braschi Cardinal, Executive Vice President - Print
         Production,

     (4) Gael Towey, Executive Vice President and Creative Director,

     (5) Gregory R. Blatt, Executive Vice President - Business Affairs,
         Secretary and General Counsel,

     (6) Lauren Podlach Stanich, Executive Vice President, President,
         Publishing,

     (7) Margaret Roach, Executive Vice President, Editor-in-Chief,

     (8) Suzanne Sobel, Executive Vice President - Advertising Sales,

     (9) John L. Doerr, director from July, 1999 through early 2002,
         and

    (10) venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws 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 Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired HOLDRS/SM/Trust (AMEX:HHH) securities between
September 22, 1999 and April 26, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the
Company.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements in its
registration statement, which included a Prospectus, issued in
connection with the initial public offering of the Internet HOLDRS
depository receipts.

For more details, contact Jason L. Brodsky or Evan J. Smith by Mail: 11
Bala Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of eToys, Inc. (PNK: ETYSQ.PK; formerly
Nasdaq: ETYS) from June 17, 1999 through March 7, 2001, inclusive.

The suit 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, Eliot L. Spitzer, the suit alleges that
defendants' failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest
between their investment banking and research departments and issued
very favorable analyst reports regarding eToys to the public when they
allegedly knew that the positive recommendations were unwarranted.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, Merrill Lynch's buy
recommendations and price targets for eToys were influenced by its
efforts to attract lucrative investment banking business from eToys and
other internet companies.

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


NICOR INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Nicor, Inc. (NYSE:
GAS) securities between April 18, 2000 and July 18, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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 during the class period, defendants reported false financial
results and made false statements about the Company's 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 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: GAS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com  


PEMSTAR INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf all persons who purchased or acquired Pemstar, Inc.
(Nasdaq:PMTR) securities pursuant to the June 8, 2001 Secondary
Offering against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants caused the issuance of false and misleading
statements.  

In particular, the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
Secondary Offering were materially false and misleading when issued as
they misrepresented and/or omitted one or more of the following adverse
facts which then existed and disclosure of which was necessary to make
the statements made not false and/or misleading, including, the claim
that  in order to attract and maintain the appearance of a diverse
customer base, the Company:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood Halebian and Feffer, LLP by
Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
877-935-7400 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


PEMSTAR INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased securities of PEMSTAR, Inc.
(Nasdaq:PMTR) between June 8, 2001 through May 3, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Allen J. Berning, and

     (2) William J. Kullback

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1936.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants caused the issuance of false and
misleading statements.  In particular, during the class period the
Company made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
value of its inventory and its accounts receivables.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Vivendi Universal
(NYSE: V); (Paris Bourse: EXFP) securities between February 11, 2002
and July 3, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York.

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

Specifically, prior to and during the Class Period, Mr. Jean-Marie
Messier (the Company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer)
took Vivendi on an acquisition binge that, according to published
reports, resulted in the Company amassing approximately $18 billion in
debt as he turned the Company from a water concern into an
entertainment powerhouse.

Under Mr. Messier's leadership, Vivendi completed a $30 billion buyout
of Canada's Seagram and a $10.3 billion purchase of USA Networks Inc.,
the cable and entertainment company owned by Hollywood mogul Barry
Diller.  

Concomitantly, Mr. Messier orchestrated a scheme to conceal the
severity of Vivendi's liquidity problems stemming from the massive debt
load incurred as a result of these, and other, transactions.  In fact,
only days before his ouster by Vivendi's Board, Mr. Messier caused the
Company to issue several press releases that falsely stated that
Vivendi did not face an immediate and severe cash shortage that
threatened the Company's viability going forward absent an asset fire
sale.

It was only after Vivendi's Board dislodged Mr. Messier that the
Company's new management disclosed the severity of the crisis and that
the Company would have to secure immediately both bridge and long-term
financing or default on its largest credit obligations.

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

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

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


WALT DISNEY: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of securities of the Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) between
August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002, inclusive, in United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to
disclose to the investing public the existence, details, and potential
effects of a pending lawsuit over merchandising rights concerning
"Winnie the Pooh."

If successful, the Pooh lawsuit could force the Company to pay hundreds
of millions of dollars in royalty payments, or even possibly terminate
the Company's merchandising agreement for Winnie the Pooh products,
representing a loss of several billion dollars a year in revenue.

Throughout the class period, defendants knew of, but failed to disclose
in SEC filings and other public statements, the existence and/or extent
of the Pooh litigation.  On May 15, 2002, defendants finally revealed
the amount of claims involved and the potential fallout of the Pooh
litigation. Since this disclosure, Company stock price has fallen 28%.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles by Phone:
800-437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


WALT DISNEY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division on behalf of purchasers of Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS)
securities between August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is
a diversified worldwide entertainment company.

During the class period, defendants failed to disclose the existence,
details, and potential effects of a pending lawsuit over merchandising
rights concerning "Winnie the Pooh."  Those effects include the
potential payout by the Company of hundreds of millions of dollars in
royalty payments in as well as the much more serious threat of possibly
terminating the Company's merchandising agreement for Winnie the Pooh
products which represents several billion dollars a year in revenue.

Throughout most of the class period, the Company's SEC filings avoided
all disclosure of the Pooh litigation.  On May 15, 2002, defendants
finally came clean about the amount of claims involved and the
potential fallout of the Pooh litigation.  As various media sources
gradually reported this news, Company stock price fell, declining 28%
in the two months after the disclosure.

For more details, contact Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 or by
E-mail: info@secfraud.com


WALT DISNEY: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of all purchasers of securities of the Walt Disney Co.
(NYSE:DIS) during the period from August 15, 1997 through May 15, 2002.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and certain senior executives, and
asserts claims for violation of Section 20(a) against certain
management executives.

The alleged violations, according to the complaint, stem from
defendants' concealment of the existence, details, and potential
effects of a pending lawsuit over merchandising rights for products
bearing the likeness of Winnie the Pooh characters.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by investors during the
period described above, excluding the defendants and their affiliates.  
For eleven years, the Company has been involved in a bitterly contested
lawsuit with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, but throughout
they have never advised their stockholders of its existence.  After the
Company first disclosed the potential effects of the litigation on May
15, its stock price fell, reaching $13.77 on August 13, a decline of
over 40%.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Ian Washburn 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


                              *********

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  * * *