CAR_Public/020829.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 29, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 171

                         Headlines

CAPITAL ONE: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in E.D. VA
CAREMARK RX: Faces Another Suit For ERISA Violations Filed in C.D. CA
CNF/EMERY WORLDWIDE: Former Pilots, Crew File Union Busting Lawsuit
CONSTELLATION POWER: Plaintiffs Asked To Show Cause V. Suit Dismissal
CYLINK CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated

DAOU SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
DIAMOND OFFSHORE: Settles Offshore Workers Lawsuit Pending in S.D. TX
DOUBLECLICK Inc.: Sets Pact With States After Settling Privacy Suits
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Grants Motions For Summary Judgment
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Will Hear Certification Motion

ELOQUENT INC.: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ENRON CORPORATION: University of California Inks Tentative Settlement
KANSAS: Wyandotte Nation Asks Judge To Create Defendant Class in Suit
PENNACI ENERGY: Transportation Taken From Gas Royalties To Be Escrowed
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Stockholders File Suit Against Gubernatorial Hopeful

PROTECTION ONE: Enters Agreement To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
SCHLOTZSKY'S INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit For $2M in TX
TERADYNE INC.: MA Court Yet To Rule on Lead Plaintiff Motions in Suit
UNITED STATES: Santa Ana Settlement To Keep Immigrant Families Intact
WAL-MART STORES: Hearing Set To Settle Status Of Workers' Lawsuits

WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Securities Suit Set November 2003 in IL
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Dismisses In Part Derivative Lawsuit

*US Chamber of Commerce Launches TV Campaign To Alter Tort Liability

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
AON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in GA
ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL

EL PASO: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
EL PASO: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MONTANA POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in Montana
PEMSTAR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Initiates Securities Suit in MN Court
PEMSTAR INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court

PEMSTAR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MN Court
PERKINELMER INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WALT DISNEY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

                           *********

CAPITAL ONE: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation faces several securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  The suits also name as defendants:

     (1) Richard D. Fairbank,

     (2) Nigel W. Morris,

     (3) David M. Willey, and

     (4) Dennis Liberson

The suits allege that the Company and the respective individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suits also allege that
the respective individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.   The suits assert class periods starting from March
29,2001 through July 16, 2002, inclusive.

The complaints generally allege that, during the respective class
period, the Company and the respective individual defendants
misrepresented to the investing public that the Company continued to
have consecutive quarters of record earnings and had adequate allowance
for reserves.  The complaints variously allege that the Company:

     (i) was insufficiently reserving loan allowances relating to
         subprime loans (which led to the overstating of earnings);

    (ii) was insufficiently capitalized;

   (iii) had overtaxed its infrastructure;

    (iv) had inadequate risk management practices;

     (v) failed to disclose the full scope and nature of its
         subprime lending; and

    (vi) violated generally accepted accounting principles

The complaints also generally allege that insiders were motivated to
make these misrepresentations in order to profit from the sale of
securities at an artificially inflated price.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to
these cases and intends to defend these cases vigorously.  At the
present time, however, management is not in a position to determine
whether the resolution of these cases will have a material adverse
effect on either the consolidated financial position of the Company or
the Company's results of operations in any future reporting period.


CAREMARK RX: Faces Another Suit For ERISA Violations Filed in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. faces another class action filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A similar
case is already pending.

The two suits similarly allege that the Company acts as a fiduciary as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA), and that it has breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits
and intends to vigorously defend these claims.


CNF/EMERY WORLDWIDE: Former Pilots, Crew File Union Busting Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CNF/Emery Worldwide Airline faces a class action filed on behalf of
some of the Company's pilots, first officers and flight engineers.  The
complaint states that as a result of the Company's deliberate diversion
of funds and assets, to other CNF entities and away from Emery
Worldwide Airline's maintenance, the maintenance of Emery Worldwide
Airline's fleet of DC-8 and DC-10 heavy aircraft was allowed to
deteriorate to a level below FAA mandated safe minimums.

The intentional failure by the Company to provide the resources
required to maintain its aircraft resulted in over 100 serious FAA
safety violations as well as the requirement to pay a one million-
dollar fine to the FAA.

The complaint alleges that CNF/EWA chose to allow the maintenance to
deteriorate to such a level that resulted in the FAA requiring that
Emery Worldwide Airlines cease flight operations.  The suit alleges
that this was done as a deliberate attempt to bust the pilots' union.
The Company still continues to fly its freight using contracted
airlines.

The Company's management blames the FAA for the airline's demise and
refuses to acknowledge its role in the airline closure.  The complaint
alleges that as a result of cessation of flight operations the company
is able to avoid fulfilling its obligations with regard to the ALPA
union contract and lockout the union pilots.

The Company ceased flight operations voluntarily on August 13, 2001,
ten months after the plaintiffs entered into a Union Collective
Bargaining Agreement with CNF, Emery Worldwide and Emery Worldwide
Airlines.  Emery Worldwide Airlines furloughed all of its pilots, first
officers and flight engineers, as well as some of its other personnel.
Emery still keeps a crew at the Dayton hub to meet FAA minimum manning
standards to retain its certificate to operate an airline, while
claiming it is out of business.

According to Hugh Seagraves, ALPA's Maintenance Liaison and a member of
the Emery Flight 17 Accident Investigations Board, "Emery Worldwide
Airlines was not complying with safety and maintenance requirements and
recommendations."

There were several incidents involving near accidents during the last
two years the company was flying aircraft across the United States and
around the world.  Some of the incidents include an order to change an
engine from a DC-8 aircraft.  The engine was not changed, and six weeks
later the engine stalled violently causing a loss of the cowlings on
the engine in flight.  This incident occurred over Montana requiring an
emergency landing in Denver and could have easily caused the airplane
to crash with attendant loss of the aircraft, crew and damage on the
ground.  Also, a hydraulic problem that had been previously noted in
the logbook was not repaired correctly, which led to a gear up landing
in Nashville with similar potential for loss of life and disaster.

Maintenance personnel were under-trained, or untrained on the aircraft.
Staff maintenance personnel failed to rig ailerons correctly on one
aircraft, which almost led to a total loss of control of the DC-8.  The
airplane had to be diverted to Austin, Texas and made an emergency
landing.  On another occasion, one of the wheels of a DC-8 came off
during a landing in Seattle.  And on yet another occasion, an aircraft
almost hit the Seattle control tower because of faulty navigation
equipment, which had been noted in the logbooks, but not properly
corrected.  Navigational and radar equipment was not maintained
properly throughout the airline. In another incident,  a main cargo
door came open during take off in Dayton, leading to very serious
control problems.

The most serious accident involved loss of control due to a maintenance
error causing the crash of Flight 17 at Mather Field in Sacramento,
California and the deaths of three crewmembers. Fortunately this
accident did not occur in an area that was heavily populated. The
accident is still under investigation by the National Transportation
Safety Board, but it appears that this accident was the result of an
improperly installed bolt.

According the Jerry Pryce, who was a member of the MEC (ALPA Union),
"There is now absolutely no question in my mind that CNF had put a plan
into motion during our contract negotiations to shift flying to
contractors to circumvent the union."

For more information, contact Barry Siders of the Law Offices of Barry
L. Siders by Phone: 925-838-8282 or by E-mail:
siderslawoffice@yahoo.com or ewalawsuit@aol.com


CONSTELLATION POWER: Plaintiffs Asked To Show Cause V. Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court, County of San Francisco asked plaintiffs in the
class action against Constellation Power Development, Inc., and 22
other defendants to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed,
after failing to appear in other previously scheduled show cause
hearings.

The suit, which also names California Governor Gray Davis as
defendants, seeks damages of $43 billion, recession and reformation of
approximately 38 long-term power purchase contracts, and an injunction
against improper spending by the state of California.

The Company is named as a defendant but does not have a power purchase
agreement with the State of California.  However, its High Desert Power
Project does have a power purchase agreement with the California
Department of Water Resources.

In 2002, the court issued an order to the plaintiff asking that he show
cause why he had not yet served the defendants.  In April 2002, a
second show cause order was issued.  The plaintiff had until June 15,
2002 to respond.  A show cause hearing was held on August 5, 2002 and
the plaintiff did not appear.  Another hearing is scheduled for October
7, 2002 for the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed.


CYLINK CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions pending
against Cylink Corporation and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.

The suits allege, among other things, that the Company's previously
issued financial statements were materially false and misleading and
that the defendants knew or should have known that these financial
statements caused the Company's common stock price to rise
artificially.  The actions variously alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and adequate insurance
for the damages claimed in the suit and intends to defend against the
suit vigorously.  However, it is not feasible to predict or determine
the final outcome of these proceedings, and if the outcome were to be
unfavorable and exceed its applicable insurance, the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations
could be materially adversely affected.


DAOU SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daou Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its former officers and
directors.

The consolidated suits arose from several suits filed in 1998, alleging
the improper use of the percentage-of-completion accounting method for
revenue recognition.  Claims are pleaded under both the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, (relating to the Company's initial public
offering) and section 10b of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.  The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 13, 1997 and
October 28, 1998, but it does not allege specific damage amounts.

Additional suits were commenced in October 1998 in the Superior Court
of San Diego, California.  These additional complaints mirror the
allegations set forth in the federal complaints and assert common law
fraud and the violation of certain California statutes.

On April 1, 1999, a consolidated amended class action was filed on
behalf of the same plaintiffs and the new state complaint alleges the
same factual basis as is asserted in the Federal litigation.  By
stipulation of the parties, the state court litigation has been stayed
pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss that was filed on
February 22, 2000 in the federal litigation.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on March 27, 2002,
but extended to plaintiffs the opportunity to file an amended suit.
The plaintiffs filed an amended suit on May 16, 2002, to which the
Company responded with another motion to dismiss.  The motion was filed
on June 24, 2002 and challenged the legal sufficiency of the
allegations.  The plaintiffs have until August 14, 2002 to oppose the
motion with the Company's reply to the opposition due August 30, 2002.
The hearing on the motion to dismiss is calendared for September 9,
2002.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in all of the
foregoing complaints are without merit and intends to defend against
these allegations vigorously.  No assurance as to the outcome of this
matter can be given, however, and an unfavorable resolution of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations and financial condition.


DIAMOND OFFSHORE: Settles Offshore Workers Lawsuit Pending in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. settled the class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division on behalf of offshore workers against all of the major
offshore drilling companies.

The proposed class included persons hired in the United States by the
companies to work in the Gulf of Mexico and around the world.  The
allegation was that the companies, through trade groups, shared
information in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state
laws.

In July 2001 the Company filed a stipulation of settlement with the
district court in which it agreed to settle the plaintiffs' outstanding
claims for certain injunctive relief and a cash payment within the
limits of the reserve.

In April 2002 the court entered an order finally approving the proposed
class action settlement and finally certifying the settlement class,
and entered a final judgment and order of dismissal of this lawsuit.
In June 2002 the Company made the final settlement payment of $9.4
million from its reserve for this litigation.


DOUBLECLICK Inc.: Sets Pact With States After Settling Privacy Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Web users will be able to take a look at the information DoubleClick,
Inc. collects on their surfing habits, following an agreement between
the company and attorneys general from 10 states, thus ending an
investigation into its online ad-serving practices, according to a
report by The Wall Street Journal.

The Company said the settlement, which did not constitute an admission
of wrongdoing, resolves all state investigations outstanding into its
consumer-privacy policies.  The company previously, in March, had
settled a series of class actions with plaintiffs whose Web surfing
habits were being collected, as well as settling in the same month, a
Federal Trade Commission litigation against the Company.

Under the agreement, the online-advertising technology company agreed
to continue to post a privacy policy that discloses its data-collection
practices and will work to make sure its Web sites comply with its
privacy policies.  The Company will retain a third-party firm to
conduct compliance reviews.  Also, the Company, New York, agreed to
develop a tool, called a "cookie viewer," to help consumers track how
ads are served to them.

"DoubleClick has worked slowly with the attorneys general to build upon
the robust privacy practices it already has implemented," said
Elizabeth Wang, the Company's general counsel, in a statement.

"The settlement helps vigilant surfers find out better how they are
being observed, but does not adequately protect the privacy of the vast
majority of Internet users," said Jason Catlett, founder of
Junkbusters.org, an online privacy group.

The Company's planned "cookie viewer" tool is pointing "a first little
flashlight into a corner of DoubleClick's vast data warehouse," Mr.
Catlett said.  However, the accord does go further than previous
agreements, he added.  "The states extracted more concessions than the
Federal Trade Commission or the private litigants did."

The deal will likely set a precedent in terms of how far companies can
go in collecting personal information, said Ben Isaacson, executive
director of the Association for Interactive Marketing in New York.  He
says an industry standard could be a positive development, "We want to
make sure that the privacy policy is viewed as a contract."


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Grants Motions For Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted
Echostar Communications Corporation's motions for summary judgment in
the class action filed against the Company relating to the use of terms
such as "crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-
screen program guide," and with respect to the number of channels
available in various programming packages.

The suit, filed by David Pritikin and by Consumer Advocates, a
nonprofit unincorporated association, alleges breach of express
warranty and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code Sections 1750, et. seq., and the California Business
Professions Code Sections 17500, 17200.

A hearing for the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
Company's motion for summary judgment was held on June 28, 2002.  At
the hearing, the court issued a preliminary ruling denying class
certification. However, before issuing a final ruling on class
certification, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment with respect to all of plaintiff's claims.  An appeal by
plaintiffs of the grant of summary judgment is possible.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Will Hear Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court, Arapahoe County, State of Colorado is set to hear
on November 1, 2002 the class certification motion for the class action
filed against Echostar Communications Corporation.  Another suit is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The plaintiffs in the suits are attempting to certify nationwide
classes on behalf of certain EchoStar satellite hardware retailers.
The plaintiffs are requesting the courts to declare certain provisions
of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the Company and the
retailers as invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost
commissions and payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, have
moved to intervene in the Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs
and proposed class representatives.  The United States District Court
for the District of Colorado recently stayed the federal action to
allow the parties to pursue a comprehensive adjudication of their
dispute in the Arapahoe County State Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suits and to
assert a variety of counterclaims.  It is too early to make an
assessment of the probable outcome of the litigation or to determine
the extent of any potential liability or damages.


ELOQUENT INC.: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eloquent, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class
actions pending against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

In these complaints, the plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of
its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO) violated the federal securities laws because the IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.


The suit is similar to numerous other complaints filed in the same
court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs of
their common stock in the late 1990s.  On August 8, 2001, the IPO
Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  Judge
Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on September 7,
2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that the time for
all defendants in the IPO Lawsuits to respond to any complaint be
postponed until further order of the Court.  Thus, the Company has not
been required to answer any of the complaints, and no discovery has
been served on it.

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

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  However, an adverse decision could
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
cash flows, or consolidated financial position.


ENRON CORPORATION: University of California Inks Tentative Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Enron investors, the University of California has
tentatively reached, subject to the approval of certain of the
principals and the court, a $40 million settlement with Arthur
Andersen's international umbrella organization in the Enron securities
and pension class action suits.

Andersen Worldwide, SC and its non-US member firms will be released
from liability and dismissed from the suit, but the US firm (Arthur
Andersen LLP) and its members will not be released and will remain in
the suit.

"This substantial settlement is a favorable result for the class in
light of the limited role of the non-U.S. Andersen entities, and
represents one of the more substantial securities recoveries from an
accounting firm," said James E. Holst, the University's general
counsel.  "We regard this settlement as only a first step in obtaining
recovery for the class, and will continue to pursue damages from the
remaining defendants, most of whom had far deeper involvement in the
Enron debacle than the overseas Andersen firms."

In its amended complaint filed on April 8th, UC named Andersen
Worldwide, SC and several overseas Andersen firms as defendants in the
securities lawsuit.  Arthur Andersen was organized into separate
partnerships that were independent legal entities in each country;
Andersen Worldwide, SC, a Swiss partnership, serves as a coordinating
entity for the international network of Andersen firms. Unlike the non-
U.S. firms, Andersen LLP, which is not being released from the suit,
was Enron's auditor and signed its financial statements. Anderson
Worldwide denies any liability or wrongdoing with regard to Enron.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  The settlement funds will
eventually be divided among class members on the basis of an allocation
formula that estimates their pro-rata share of total class damages.
The division of the Andersen payment between the securities and pension
classes will also be determined later.

The settlement, worked out over the past several weeks, includes $15
million that will be available to finance costs, but not attorney's
fees, of the ongoing litigation, subject to court approval.

"This first settlement recovers millions of dollars for the class and
demonstrates that even relatively minor actors may face substantial
liability to Enron's investors," said William S. Lerach, a partner in
the Enron lead counsel firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

This spring, UC and the Enron plaintiffs attempted to negotiate a
settlement with Arthur Andersen's U.S. firm. When discussions with
Arthur Andersen, LLP ended, the University entered into negotiations
with the non-U.S. firms regarding the possibility of a separate
settlement. Enron and its creditors committee are not part of this
settlement with the non-U.S. firms and will have no right to share in
the proceeds.

The University of California was named lead plaintiff in the securities
class action suit in February 2002. The total losses experienced by all
Enron shareholders are estimated at more than $25 billion.


KANSAS: Wyandotte Nation Asks Judge To Create Defendant Class in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wyandotte Nation and local government officials have asked a judge
to create a defendant class in the tribe's legal claim to more than
1,900 acres of land near the downtown in Kansas City, Kansas, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

More than 1,300 property owners are named as defendants in a federal
lawsuit, filed last month, in which the Wyandotte tribe claims the land
was improperly seized after an 1855 treaty that moved the Wyandottes to
Oklahoma.

Creation of a defendant class would "protect the rights of property
owners who lack the ability to pay for an attorney," said Nathan
Barnes, a commissioner of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County
and Kansas City, Kansas, on Monday, this week.  The lawsuit is part of
the tribe's nearly decade-long legal struggle to open a casino
somewhere in Kansas City, Kansas.

In the lawsuit, the tribe claims land, estimated for tax purposes at a
valuation of $1.9 billion, presently held by about 1,360 property
owners along the Missouri River just northeast of downtown.  It
comprises much of the city's Fairfax Industrial District, including the
plants operated by General Motors, Owens-Corning and International
Paper.

The lawsuit seeks, in addition to the claim it makes to land,
unspecified monetary damages for 150 years of "lost use, rents, issues,
income and profits."

A settlement reached in the dispute was scuttled in May, when one
landowner objected.  That agreement called for the tribe to drop its
lawsuit in exchange for local political support of federal legislation
setting aside land for a casino.

However, US District Judge Carlos Murguia refused to approve the
settlement, after Robert and Emily Modeer, who own a warehouse in the
Fairfax area, objected to a provision that would have left the tribe
free to press its land claim in the future.

So, in July, the tribe moved ahead with its claim, serving landowners
with a copy of the year-old lawsuit.  Since then, the Unified
Government has worked on a proposal to create a legal class for
defendants in the case, said Hal Walker, the government's chief legal
counsel.

Judge Murguia must approve the request to create the defendants' class.
Mr. Walker, the government's chief legal counsel, said that the Unified
Government has asked that all deadlines be postponed until the Judge
has held a hearing on the issue of creation of a defendant class.

The Unified Government would serve as the representative of the class,
and no costs would be assessed to the landowners.  However, said Mr.
Walker, "any defendant who does not wish to be part of the class may
still appear with his own attorney and defend individually."

The Unified Government owns some of the disputed land, but officials
remain a tribal ally and legal partner.  The two signed a broadly
defined agreement years ago to establish a tourism-and tax-generating
casino somewhere in Wyandotte County.


PENNACI ENERGY: Transportation Taken From Gas Royalties To Be Escrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennaco Energy announced in a recent letter to mineral rights owners
that it is putting transportation costs it previously had been
deducting from royalty payments owed landowners and mineral rights
owners into an escrow account, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The letter said that the Company will hold transportation costs in
interest-bearing accounts "pending interpretation of the Wyoming
Royalty Payment Act.Once there is a final interpretation of the Act
with respect to this matter, the escrowed monies and interest will be
released to the party entitled to such funds."

The move comes about nine months after a group of more than 40 Powder
River Basin landowners and mineral rights owners filed a lawsuit
against more than two dozen coal bed methane companies, including the
Company, for allegedly making improper deductions from royalty payments
for transportation costs of the gas.  Depending on the particular lease
agreement and contract, transportation deductions are generally
permissible for moving gas on lease, but not permissible once it is off
lease.

The plaintiffs, in the lawsuit known as Addison et al. vs. Anchor Bay,
are waiting for the district court judge to determine whether the
lawsuit can be granted class action status.  If class action status is
granted then thousands of plaintiffs could potentially join the suit,
according to court documents.

The lawsuit contends that many methane operators have been deducting
transportation costs off lease in direct violation of the Wyoming
Royalty Payment Act.

Christian Carrell, a spokeswoman for Marathon Oil Co., Pennaco's parent
company, said Marathon thought the decision to escrow the
transportation costs was the best course of action to take because it
has not received any guidance from the Wyoming Supreme Court on how to
handle the transportation costs.  It is not clear how many other
methane companies are placing transportation costs in escrow.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Stockholders File Suit Against Gubernatorial Hopeful
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockholders of San Diego computer software firm Peregrine Systems,
Inc., under investigation for its accounting practices, filed a suit
against current and former board members, including New Mexico's
Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill Richardson, for failing to
oversee its financial affairs properly, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.  Mr. Richardson resigned in June from the Company's board and
has tried to distance himself from the financial problems of the
company, which was run by his brother-in-law.

At least five lawsuits have been filed against Mr. Richardson and other
board members of the San Diego company, which has said it may have
overstated as much as $100 million in revenue and may have to restate
three years of earnings.

The former New Mexico congressman and energy secretary under President
Clinton says he was unaware of the accounting regularities, which have
triggered investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and
a congressional committee.

One lawsuit said the directors cost stockholders millions of dollars by
allowing wrongful manipulation of earnings and by inadequately
supervising employees.

The directors can be liable for any false or misleading statements the
company made because they signed the registration statement filed with
the SEC, said Theodore Hess-Mahan, a Boston lawyer in a class action
involving the Company.

The Company fired Arthur Andersen as its auditor in April, and fired
its replacement auditor KPMG in May.  KPMG alleged possible fraud at
the company in a letter it sent to the SEC.

Mr. Richardson became a board member in February 2001 and resigned
after winning the Democratic nomination for governor in New Mexico in
that state's June 4, 2002, primary.  He held no management positions,
owned no stock and was paid $10,000 for attending eight board meetings,
his campaign says.

Dave Contarino, Mr. Richardson's campaign manager, says the nominee
"feels he fulfilled his role" as a Peregrine director and "had no role
in the day-to-day operations or decision-making of that corporation."


PROTECTION ONE: Enters Agreement To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
to settle the amended consolidated securities class actions pending
against it in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly
traded securities, including common stock and note, during the period
of February 10, 1998 through February 2, 2001.

The original suit asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, its subsidiary Protection One Alarm Monitoring,
Inc. and certain of its present and former officers.

The suit is based on allegations that various statements concerning the
Company's financial results and operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the
first three quarters of 2000 were false and misleading and not in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that former Company employees
have reported that the Company lacked adequate internal accounting
controls and that certain accounting information was unsupported or
manipulated by management in order to avoid disclosure of accurate
information.

The amended suit further asserted claims against Westar Energy and
Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  A claim was also asserted under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company's auditor,
Arthur Andersen LLP.

In June 2001, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, but granted plaintiffs
leave to replead such claims.  The court also dismissed all claims
brought on behalf of bondholders with prejudice, and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims against Arthur Andersen.  Plaintiffs have appealed
that dismissal.

The plaintiffs later amended the suit, again alleging claims on behalf
of purchasers of common stock under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The amended complaint did not assert any claims
against Protection One Alarm Monitoring.

In April 5, 2002, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended suit.  On June 12,2002, the parties reached a
memorandum of understanding, providing for no finding of wrongdoing on
the part of any of the defendants, or any other finding that the claims
alleged had merit, and a US$7.5 million payment to the plaintiffs,
which will be fully funded by the Company's existing insurance.
Finalization of the settlement is subject to the execution of
definitive documentation and approval by the district court and is
expected to take several months.


SCHLOTZSKY'S INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit For $2M in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Schlotzsky's Inc. to settle the consolidated securities class action
pending against it and:

     (1) John C. Wooley,

     (2) Jeffery J. Wooley,

     (3) John M. Rosillo, and

     (4) Monica Grill

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story, the suit seeks
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements in the Company's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's secondary public
offering, which became effective on September 24, 1997, and subsequent
press releases.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
which was granted, with prejudice, by the court in August 1999.
However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal
court's denial of leave to amend and remanded the case in January 2001
to allow the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint in March
2001. The amended complaint sought relief under the 1933 Act claims
only.

Without conceding the facts that formed the basis of plaintiffs'
claims, the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement on January
26, 2002, settling all claims, with prejudice, for the sum of $2
million, the entirety of which will be paid by the Company's insurer.
On February 19, 2002, the federal court entered its preliminary
approval and set the matter for final settlement hearing on April 2,
2002, at which time the court will determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair to the settlement class and should be approved.

On April 2, 2002, the court granted final approval of the settlement,
which was funded by the Company's insurer and which settled all claims
with prejudice, and entered a final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice.


TERADYNE INC.: MA Court Yet To Rule on Lead Plaintiff Motions in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to decide on the appointment of lead plaintiff for the securities
class actions filed against Teradyne, Inc. and two of its executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by
making, during the period from July 14, 2000 until October 17, 2000,
material misrepresentations and omissions to the investing public
regarding the Company's business operations and future prospects.

A motion for the designation of one or more lead plaintiffs was heard
by the court on July 2, 2002, but no ruling has yet been issued.

The Company disputes all of the claims above and believes they are
without merit, and intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuits.
However, an adverse resolution of any of the lawsuits could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results
of operations.


UNITED STATES: Santa Ana Settlement To Keep Immigrant Families Intact
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 25,000 people will be able to work and attend school in
the United States while waiting to become permanent residents under a
settlement scheduled to be presented this week in federal court, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The agreement, part of a class action filed two years ago in Santa Ana,
would apply to spouses and children of immigrants who became legal US
residents as part of a 1986 amnesty program.  The agreement removes
glitches in the Family Unity Program, which was designed to preempt the
families of those granted amnesty from having to choose between
splitting up or leaving the country.

"These are the families of people who already have been granted
permanent resident status," said Mark Silverman of the Immigrant Legal
Resource Center in San Francisco.  "They were given the right to work
and go to school under the 1986 amnesty law.  Now they will have the
papers they need to exercise those rights."

If the agreement is approved, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service would process Family Unity Program applications and renewals an
average of 16 hours a day whenever a backlog exists.

The settlement has a key provision that grants authorization to work
and attend school while renewal applications are being processed.
However, the INS retains authority to deport people while their
applications are pending, but such a move is subject to discretion on a
case-by-case basis.

If US District Court Judge Alicemarie Stotler accepts the terms of the
settlement, groups that help immigrants likely would be tapped to
notify all those affected.


WAL-MART STORES: Hearing Set To Settle Status Of Workers' Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
A December hearing is set for a Marion Superior Court to determine
whether several lawsuits filed by former Wal-Mart workers in Indiana
can be certified as class actions, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The lawsuits accuse the Company of forcing workers to work overtime
without pay.  If designated a class action following the December 2
hearing, the lawsuit could include as many as 166,000 former and
current hourly employees who worked for Wal-Mart stores in Indiana
since 1994.

The Company has fought 38 state and federal lawsuits filed by hourly
workers in 30 states, accusing the Company of systematically forcing
them to work long hours off the clock.  The Company settled a similar
case in Colorado two years ago.

Former Indiana Wal-Mart employees filed their lawsuit two years ago.
They claimed the company forced them to clock out, then work additional
time without pay; work without rest or meal breaks; and work in locked
stores without letting them leave even though they had clocked out.
About 20 former Indiana Wal-Mart employees have given sworn
depositions, alleging the Company owes them money for time they worked
off the clock.

The allegations may not have merit, said Wal-Mart corporate spokesman
Bill Wertz.  "We do pay overtime, and if any manager or supervisor
either requires or requests or even tolerates work that is not
compensated, we discipline them, even fire them," he said.  Rest and
meal breaks also are a store policy, Mr. Wertz said, even though
Indiana law does not require employers to offer them.


WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Securities Suit Set November 2003 in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action pending against Westell
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors has been
set for November 3,2003 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated suit alleges generally that the defendants violated
the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by allegedly
issuing material false and misleading statements and/or allegedly
omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading thereby allegedly inflating the price of Company stock for
certain time periods.

The parties are engaged in discovery and settlement negotiations.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.


WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Dismisses In Part Derivative Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted in part and denied in part Westell Technologies, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative suit pending against
certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges generally that the defendants:

     (1) issued material false and misleading statements and/or
         allegedly omitted material facts necessary to make the
         statements made not misleading thereby inflating the price of
         Company stock for certain time periods;

     (2) engaged in insider trading;

     (3) misappropriated corporate information; and

     (4) beached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders.


On January 15, 2002, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated derivative action.  There has been no ruling yet on the
motion to dismiss.  The parties are engaged in discovery and settlement
negotiations.  The case is set for trial on November 3, 2003.

On July 24, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  The court dismissed those
portions of the complaint based on an alleged breach of the duty of
care or based on any alleged misrepresentations or omissions, except as
to one of the defendants.  The court also dismissed the claims for
damages based on exposure to defending the related class action and
loss of the Company's integrity in the market and goodwill.
Accordingly, the court essentially limited the case to allegations of
insider trading and damages from the profits from insider trading.


*US Chamber of Commerce Launches TV Campaign To Alter Tort Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is launching a multimillion-dollar
television-advertising campaign against the way liability lawsuits are
pursued under the law today, The Wall Street Journal reports.  The
Chamber, by means of this TV campaign, hopes to bolster support for
legislation which will change the law governing tort liability and deal
a blow to trial lawyers who claim their lawsuits rein in corporate
excess.  Legislation that will accomplish this two-pronged objective,
says the Chamber is languishing, as we write, in the US Senate.

The two 30-second spots, which are running in five states, focus on
hidden costs a typical family pays to cover product lawsuits, which the
Chamber calls an invisible "lawsuit abuse tax."  The Chamber hopes the
ads will speed a Senate vote on the Class Action Fairness Act, which
was passed by the House last year, but met opposition in the Senate
where it still sits.

Mary Alexander, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America, said the ads are a "tragic misuse of our capitalist system."
She called the Chamber's ads "propaganda" aimed at protecting
"corporate corruption and wrongdoing at the expense of their victims --
all Americans."

A Washington citizens-advocacy group also lambasted the campaign.
"Liability lawsuits have forced companies to adopt everything
(necessary for consumer safety), from seat belts to many other
practices that benefit the consumer," said Tyson Slocum, research
director for Public Citizen.  Liability lawsuits also have resulted in
the cessation of practices perilous to the health and safety of the
consumer - for example, the withdrawal of and alteration for  the
improvement of numerous products (children's toys, children's clothing,
among others).

Viewers in Texas, Michigan, Alabama, South Carolina and New Mexico will
begin to see an itemized list of the so-called "taxes" added to common
household products to pay for product liability litigation:  $500 built
in to the cost of a new car, $3.12 added per week for groceries and 70
cents on an average pair of blue jeans.  The estimates come from a
White House study on tort reform released in April.

There is no tie-in shown in the ads, nor is it hinted at, between the
"taxes" and the damages companies have had to pay to consumers for
faulty products, as well as the costs to the companies to improve the
safety of their products, which safety costs are passed on to the
consumers, to the latter's benefit.

A second ad designed to illustrate how "fabricated class action suits"
disrupt the court system will air September 6.  It shows a clogged
courthouse with well-heeled lawyers rushing past a line of disgruntled
citizens waiting for their chance at a hearing.  At many of these
hearings, witnesses appear who have been harmed by questionable
products, questionable practices.

Also, experts appear who testify as to the danger of products and
practices.  Sometimes, in fact, consumers demonstrate outside against
the companies.  TV ads, of course, whoever produces them, will be but
partial depictions of a situation, of a problem.

The states where the ads are being aired are prime battlegrounds for
litigation overhaul, because they are considered the least business-
friendly in the United States, according to Bruce Josten, the Chamber's
executive vice president for government affairs.  In May, the Chamber
tested similar ads in Mississippi, which the Chamber said ranked worst
for business because of its record of awarding large damages in class
actions.

The Chamber expects to spend between $5 million and $15 million on
these two ads, and it is considering running a third round later this
year.

Mr. Josten cited class actions against fast food companies as a prime
example of litigation excess, and a springboard for long-needed change.
He also said he hopes the spots will create a groundswell of consumer
concern about litigation costs that will stimulate debate in
Washington.  Mr. Josten said it is not likely the legislation will come
up for a vote this year, but he said the ad campaign is designed to
"keep momentum building" for change.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of AOL Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE:AOL)
between April 18, 2001 and April 24, 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 Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 18, 2001 and April 24, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company, the synergies
derived from the merger of America Online Inc. and Time Warner, Inc.
and the Company's prospects and earnings projections.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Merger was not generating the synergies as
         represented by defendants;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing declining advertising
         revenues; and

     (3) that the Company had failed to properly write down the value
         of more than $50 billion of goodwill, thereby artificially
         inflating its reported financial results and rendering its
         published financial statements materially false and misleading
         and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On April 24, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued
a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter
of 2002, and revealed that it would be taking a one-time, non-cash
charge that reduced the carrying value of the Company's goodwill by
approximately $54 billion.

Following this announcement, Company stock closed at $19.30 per share,
a decline of more than 66% from a class period high of $56.60 per
share.  During the class period, prior to the disclosure of the true
facts about the Company, Company insiders sold their personal holdings
of AOL Time Warner common stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds
in excess of $250 million.

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


AON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on August 12, 2002, 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, $24 million in 2000, and $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. 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 Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
pguiteau@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Baxter International, Inc. (NYSE: BAX)
during the period from January 24, 2002 through July 18, 2002.  The
suit names the Company as a defendant, along with its CEO and CFO,
Henry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr. and Brian P. Anderson, respectively.

The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse information regarding the Company's financial
prospects.

The Company's financial results released on July 18, 2002 were well
below what the defendants had represented the Company would achieve,
and the complaint alleges that the Company's previously announced
growth rates were made without a reasonable basis due to several
internal problems the company was experiencing.  Meanwhile, during the
class period, Company insiders sold more than $23.7 million worth of
Company stock.

As a result of defendants' allegedly deceptive acts, the market price
of Company securities was allegedly artificially inflated during the
class period.

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


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf all persons who purchased or acquired BellSouth Corp.
(NYSE:BLS) securities between the period of January 22, 2001 and July
19, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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 defendants reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial
results and financial growth despite a rapidly deteriorating market for
telecommunications companies.

However, unbeknownst to the investing public:

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

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

On July 22, 2002, defendants revealed that the Company's earnings had
dropped by 67% for the second quarter of 2002, missing Wall Street
estimates.  The Company revealed that weak economic conditions in
Central and Latin America had been, and were continuing to have a
material, adverse impact on the Company's earnings and profitability.

In response to the Company's July 22, 2002 revelation, Company stock
dropped by more than 18% to $22 per share.  Company executives, privy
to the truth regarding the Company's financial condition, did not share
in these losses, having sold millions of dollars of stock.

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


ECLIPSYS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Eclipsys Corporation (NASDAQ:ECLP)
between July 23, 2001 and June 27, 2002, inclusive against the Company
and:

     (1) Robert Joseph Colletti,

     (2) Harvey J. Wilson and

     (3) John T. Patton

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between 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
Eclipsys' revenues were growing and the Company was well positioned to
generate strong profitability. However:

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

    (ii) 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 the Company's
         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.  The trading price
of Company stock dropped nearly 50% in response to this announcement.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983, or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


EL PASO: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against defendant El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP), on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from July 25, 2001
and May 29, 2002, inclusive.

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

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


EL PASO: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) between July 25, 2001 and May 29, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) William Wise, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Rodney D. Erskine, President, Production of El Paso, and

     (3) H. Brent Austin, Chief Financial Officer

The defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of Company securities.

According to the allegations, during the class period, 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 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, the 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 Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Household International, Inc. (NYSE:HI) between October 23, 1997 and
August 14, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) William F. Aldinger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and

     (2) David A. Schoenholz, President and Chief Operating Officer

The defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of Company securities.

According to the allegations, during the class period, defendants
failed to:

     (i) properly amortize the Company's co-branding agreements; and

    (ii) record the Company's expenses associated with its marketing
         initiatives.  The Company also improperly "re-aged" the
         Company's accounts, thereby concealing the Company's actual
         delinquency ratios.

As a result of defendants' activities, Company shares traded at
artificially inflated levels throughout the class period.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
HPL Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HPLA) and certain of its officers and
directors, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between July 31,
2001 and July 18, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements, including false financial statements, during the
class period.

On July 31, 2001, the Company became a public company through an IPO of
6 million shares at $11.00 per share, raising proceeds of $69.1
million.  The IPO was accomplished pursuant to a Prospectus and
Registration Statement filed with the SEC.  Those documents provided
the details of the Company's revenue recognition policy, which
purported to be in conformance with SEC guidelines for software revenue
recognition.

In each of the Company's four subsequent quarterly reports (its first,
second, third, and fourth quarter reports of its fiscal year ended
March 31, 2002), it reported increasing net sales and income, and made
positive statements attributing its increasing revenues to the ongoing
need for its software.

As a result of the Company's false financials and false and misleading
statements, its stock traded as high as $17.85 per share during the
class period.  During this period, defendants sold 85,500 shares of
their individual shares.  Also during the class period, the Company
acquired three companies using its stock as consideration.

On July 19, 2002, the Company announced that it was looking into
"financial and accounting irregularities involving revenue reported
during prior periods." The Company stated, in part, "the Company
believes that a material amount of revenue was improperly recognized
during one or more earlier periods in connection with sales to an
international distributor." As a result of Defendants' false and
misleading statements Company stock plunged 72%, to as low as $4 per
share, before trading was halted. Trading in the stock has not resumed.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox by Mail: 805 Third Avenue,
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, by Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
by Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of HPL Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq:HPLA) securities between July 31, 2001 and July 18, 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 Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities.

The suit further alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition.  Specifically, on July 31, 2001,
HPL completed its initial public offering (IPO) of 6.9 million shares
(including the over allotment) at $11.00 per share, raising net
proceeds of $69.1 million.  The IPO was accomplished pursuant to a
Prospectus and Registration Statement filed with the SEC.

These documents represented that the Company recognized revenue on
sales to distributors only when the distributors sold the software
license or services to their customers. Later, the Company reported
favorable financial results for the 1stQ, 2ndQ, 3rdQ and 4thQ of F02.

The suit further alleges that as a result of the Company's favorable
but false financials and false and misleading statements, its stock
traded as high as $17.85 per share.  Defendants took advantage of this
inflation, selling 85,500 shares of their individual holdings.

Then, on July 19, 2002, before the markets opened, the Company shocked
the market with news that it was investigating accounting
irregularities with respect to revenue recognition on shipments to
distributors in prior quarters that its CEO had been fired and its CFO
had been reassigned.  On this news, Company stock collapsed 72% to as
low as $4 per share, before trading was halted.

For more details, contact 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and the former head of its Internet
group, Henry Blodget, on behalf of purchasers of iVillage Inc. (Nasdaq:
IVIL) securities between November 9, 1999 and May 7, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

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 iVillage during
the class period.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Conor R. Crowley or Halley F. Sexter by
Phone: 202-337-8000 by E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or hfs@ftllaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.ftllaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., (NYSE: MER) and Henry Blodget, the First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Merrill Lynch between July 3, 1999 and July 30, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting Merrill Lynch's research analyst business.
Merrill Lynch touted its research analysts business as being, among
other things, "insightful, objective and decisive."  However, instead
of issuing analyst reports based on legitimate research and analysis of
public companies, the Company issued false analyst reports regarding
various companies and failed to disclose significant, material
information.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Merrill Lynch's
Internet group issued false analyst reports to obtain investment
banking business for the Company.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that during the class period Merrill
Lynch made statements regarding Enron and recommended the purchase of
Enron shares while failing to disclose that Merrill Lynch engaged in
bogus transactions with Enron.  Merrill issued positive reports about
Enron and entered into these bogus transactions to secure investment
banking business.

Although these transactions may have resulted in huge profits for
Merrill Lynch, the Company was also exposed to substantial risks for
legal liability and faced governmental scrutiny because such
transactions were specifically designed to permit Enron to defraud its
investors by artificially inflating its profits.

As a result of defendants' improper conduct with respect to its analyst
business, Merrill Lynch's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the class period. The truth began to be revealed on
April 8, 2002, Merrill Lynch's stock declined materially in value.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox by Mail: 805 Third Avenue,
22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com


MONTANA POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in Montana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Montana Power
Company (NYSE: TAA) securities between January 30, 2001 and November
14, 2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court, District of
Montana.

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 January 30, 2001 and November 14, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
positive statements regarding the Company's successful restructuring
from an energy company into a standalone telecommunications company.
These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose material adverse facts, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including:

     (1) that the Company was having problems with the assets that it
         acquired from Qwest Communications International - which had
         become its principal assets in lieu of the power generation
         assets which it had sold -- and in its relationship with
         Qwest.  As a result of these problems, the Company was
         experiencing declining revenues in its telecommunications
         business;

     (2) that the Company's broadband division was experiencing
         declining demand for its products and services; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's purported
         transformation to a stand-alone telecommunications company was
         not meeting with success.

On November 14, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third
quarter of 2001, the period ending September 30, 2001, and disclosed
that the Company's quarterly losses, "reflect the continued slowing of
the nation's economy and the difficult transition of Montana Power from
a diversified energy company to Touch America."

The press release further revealed that, as a result of its poor third
quarter results, the Company was not in compliance with certain
financial covenants under its Senior Secured Credit Facility.  Finally,
the press release revealed that the Company was engaged in litigation
with Qwest concerning its purchase of certain assets from Qwest in June
2000, litigation ongoing since August 2001, but not meaningfully
revealed to investors.

Following this announcement, the price of the Company's common stock
declined from $5.16 per share to $4.70 per share on heavy trading
volume.  In total, investors saw the Company's common stock decline
from a class period high of $22.78.

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:
TAA@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


PEMSTAR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Initiates Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP commenced a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of PEMSTAR, Inc. (Nasdaq:PMTR) between June 8, 2001 and May 3,
2002, in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. The suit names as defendants the Company, Allen J. Berning
and William J. Kullback.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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 and other public statements 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.

Principally, 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 and which often 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), increasing
         its costs and forcing it to write down obsolete inventory.

In addition, due to a lack of internal controls, the Company's "cash
conversion cycle" and its "days of sales outstanding," were much longer
than its competitors, meaning that the Company had to wait a long time
between the time it sold inventory until it collected payment.  During
this extended time, the Company carried the totals as accounts
receivables, hiding the fact that payment was unlikely and delaying
disclosure of that fact until the Company finally did write down
material amounts of accounts receivables.

For more details, contact Gregory J. Myers by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: 612-339-6900 or
by E-mail: gjmyers@locklaw.com


PEMSTAR INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of PEMSTAR Inc. (Nasdaq: PMTR) common stock during
the period between June 8, 2001 and May 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company, Allen J. Berning, and William J.
Kullback with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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 and other public statements 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.

Principally, 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 and which often 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), increasing
         its costs and forcing it to write down obsolete inventory.

In addition, due to a lack of internal controls, the Company's "cash
conversion cycle" and its "days of sales outstanding," were much longer
than its competitors, meaning that the Company had to wait a long time
between the time it sold inventory until it collected payment.

During this extended time, the Company carried the totals as accounts
receivables, hiding the fact that payment was unlikely and delaying
disclosure of that fact until the Company finally did write down
material amounts of accounts receivables.

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


PEMSTAR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of PEMSTAR, Inc. (Nasdaq: PMTR)
common stock during the period between June 8, 2001 and May 3, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the defendants caused the issuance of false and misleading
statements.

In particular, the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
Secondary Offering and other public statements 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.

Principally, 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 and which often 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), increasing
         its costs and forcing it to write down obsolete inventory.

In addition, due to a lack of internal controls, the Company's "cash
conversion cycle" and its "days of sales outstanding," were much longer
than its competitors, meaning that the Company had to wait a long time
between the time it sold inventory until it collected payment.

During this extended time, the Company carried the totals as accounts
receivables, hiding the fact that payment was unlikely and delaying
disclosure of that fact until the Company finally did write down
material amounts of accounts receivables.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


PERKINELMER INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PerkinElmer, Inc.
(NYSE:PKI) between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market during the class period.  During the class
period, the individual defendants and other Company insiders sold
595,000 shares of the Company's common stock, reaping gross proceeds in
excess of $18.4 million.

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

     (1) the Company's revenues and earnings would continue to
         increase;

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

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

The complaint alleges, however, that these and other representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing a decline in the demand for
         its products, especially at its Optoelectronics division;


    (ii) the Company was carrying tens of millions of dollars of
         obsolete inventory on its books; and

   (iii) the Company's expenses were soaring due to numerous
         acquisitions and divestitures it had undertaken.

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

However, the full truth regarding the Company's business was not fully
disclosed until April 11, 2002, when the Company issued a press release
revealing that its reported earnings would break even, instead of
meeting the previously projected target of $0.16 - $0.17 earnings per
share that the Company reported on March 1, 2002.  In reaction to this
announcement, Company stock plummeted by another 28%, falling from
$16.70 per share on April 10, 2002 to $12.04, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

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


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Riverstone Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:RSTN) securities
during the period between August 10, 2001 and June 5, 2002, including
those who acquired Company shares and those who acquired Company
convertible notes.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
During the class period, defendants desperately sought to create the
impression that the Company had the ability to directly enter these
markets with a captive client base.

Thus, the Company, through, among other things, its relationship with
Hutchison Global Crossing, could compete head-to-head with the dominant
companies in the industry.  Prior to its relationship with Hutchison,
the Company was having difficulty gaining operational momentum within
these potentially lucrative Asian markets.

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

Defendants knew that if the Company's inability to generate legitimate
sales growth from customers who could actually pay was revealed,
together with the fact that the Company's projected growth was
contingent upon sales to clients which defendants knew would be unable
to pay pursuant to the Company's internal policy, if ever, due to their
own financial deterioration, defendants would not reap the financial
rewards of selling their own shares at artificially inflated prices
which totaled $7.1 and the $150 million debt offering would be just a
pipedream.

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of AT&T Corp. common stock (NYSE: T)
between November 29, 1999 and August 22, 2002, inclusive or of the AT&T
Wireless tracking stock (NYSE: AWE) from its inception until August 22,
2002, against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., analyst Jack Grubman,
Salomon's parent company Citigroup, Inc., and Citigroup CEO Sanford
Weill.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by Salomon and Mr.
Grubman of an analyst report which recommended the purchase of AT&T
common stock without regard to the factual basis and without disclosing
its conflicts of interest.  When issuing the analyst report, Salomon
and Mr. Grubman failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of
interest, as in an explicit or implicit quid pro quo, Salomon was
granted a lucrative role in the April 2000 issuance of an AT&T Wireless
tracking stock after Grubman, at AT&T's request and passed to Grubman
by Weill, raised his recommendation of AT&T in November 1999 from
"neutral" to "buy."

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas H. Burt, Michael
Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference
to AT&T/Grubman.


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Uniroyal Technology Corp.
(Nasdaq:UTCI) between February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002, inclusive
against the Company and certain of its officers.

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 February 8, 2000 and May 13, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants issued a series of press
releases touting its financial stability and its acquisition of
Sterling Semiconductor, while strategically positioning the Company to
increase its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
industry via internal growth.

However, unbeknownst to the investing public that purchased Uniroyal
stock during the class period:

     (1) the Company was not a financially stable company;

     (2) its acquisition of Sterling was not lucrative at all; and

     (3) it was not strategically positioning the Company to increase
         its participation in the explosive compound semiconductor
         industry via acquisition and internal growth.

If not for the Company's financial support, Sterling would probably
have been forced to seek protection under the bankruptcy laws.
Sterling was a development stage company and not, as defendants touted,
"a leading developer of silicon carbide technology and materials."

Moreover, in order to materially inflate the Company's net worth and
further foster the illusion of growth, defendants agreed to pay an
inflated price for Sterling with materially overvalued stock serving as
currency.

On December 31, 2001, eighteen months after acquiring Sterling in
exchange for stock, with a purported value of more than $40 million,
the Company shocked the market by announcing that it recorded a write-
down of Sterling goodwill of approximately $9,816,000. On January 2,
2002, Company stock closed at $1.69 down from $3.20 the previous day
and substantially down from its class period high of $71.125 reached on
February 23, 2000.

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


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf all persons who purchased or acquired Vivendi
Universal, S.A. (NYSE:V) (Paris Bourse:EX FP) securities between the
period of April 23, 2001 and July 2, 2002, inclusive against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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 Company securities.

Prior to and during the class period, defendant Jean-Marie Messier took
Vivendi on an acquisition binge that, according to published reports,
resulted in the Company amassing approximately $18 billion in debt as
he attempted to turn the Company from a water concern into an
entertainment powerhouse.

During the class period, defendants made misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact, including the following:

     (1) Misstating Vivendi's cash position and ability to service its
         debt obligations;

     (2) Misstating Vivendi's earnings in its public filings with the
         SEC and elsewhere as a result of failing to record write-downs
         of goodwill and other intangible assets associated with, inter
         alia, the merger among Vivendi, Seagram and Canal+ long after
         it had become apparent that such assets were being carried at
         values vastly higher than their true values;

     (3) Failing to disclose that the exchange ratio for the merger
         between MP3.com, Inc. and Vivendi was distorted due to
         artificial inflation in the price of Vivendi American
         Depositary Receipts (ADRs);

     (4) Affirmatively misstating the value of goodwill and other
         intangible assets associated with, inter alia, the merger
         among Vivendi, Seagram and Canal+ by carrying such assets at
         the cost of acquiring them long after it had become apparent
         that Vivendi had overpaid to acquire such assets; and

     (5) Failing to disclose that Vivendi had significant off-balance-
         sheet liabilities in the form of its undisclosed sale of put
         options on tens of millions of dollars worth of Vivendi shares
         during 2001 in order to pay for stock options it awarded to
         executives.

During the class period, defendants' false statements artificially
inflated Vivendi ADRs to as high as $68.80 per ADR. Defendants reported
favorable, but misleading, financial results to the market and
represented that Vivendi was not as susceptible to economic problems as
competitors and that the Company had the "highest resiliency and lowest
sensitivity to recessionary environment."  The defendants also
represented that Vivendi was successfully implementing recent mergers
which were being reorganized quickly to generate synergies.

These positive but false statements allowed the Company to complete
additional acquisitions in its $100 billion buying spree between 1998
and 2001. Late in June 2002, news leaked from Vivendi that its debt was
at alarming levels, causing Vivendi's ADRs to decline in price from $28
to $20. Vivendi's ordinary shares declined in similar fashion.
Nonetheless, Messier reassured the market that liquidity was not a
problem.

However, as ratings agencies continued to downgrade the Company's debt,
the ADRs continued to decline. On July 2, 2002, Vivendi's debt was
downgraded again and the Company was in danger of default. On July 3,
2002, Messier was forced to resign. Vivendi ADRs collapsed upon these
revelations, falling to $15-21/32 on July 3, 2002, on huge volume of 8
million shares. This collapse wiped out billions of dollars in Vivendi
shareholder value, compared to the end of 2001.

Later, on July 9, 2002, Bloomberg News reported that the Commission des
Operations de Bourse was reviewing statements released by Vivendi to
ensure "they abide by our rules." The regulators had raided Vivendi's
Paris headquarters as part of an investigation into whether Vivendi had
disclosed relevant information to investors in the prior 18 months.

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


WALT DISNEY: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Walt Disney Company
(NYSE: DIS) securities between August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, Western Division.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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 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:
DIS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *