CAR_Public/020902.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, September 2, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 173

                            Headlines

AOL TIME: Employees File Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA in C.D. CA
AT&T CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over "Electronic Redlining" Practice
BABYLISS PRO: Voluntarily Recalls 23,000 Hairdryers For Injury Hazard
BELLSOUTH CORP.: Loses Motion To Recuse Judge, Must Switch Counsel
CONSECO INC.: Must Pay For Green Tree Corporation's Consumer Violations

DUKE ENERGY: Faces Barrage Of Securities Suits Due To Roundtrip Trades
FORD MOTOR: Cleveland Files Suit Over Unsafe Crown Victoria Police Cars
GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Mediation To Resolve TN Tips Suit
GEVITY HR: Continues Talks For Securities Suit Settlement in FL Court
HARO BICYCLE: Recalls 1,100 BMX Freestyle Bicycles Over Injury Hazard

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Numerous Underwriter-related Suits Cropping Up in NY
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LEIFHEIT INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 31,000 Apple Slicers For Injury Hazard
MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Weighing Desecration Evidence to Decide Status
NEW CENTURY: Third Amended Consumer Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. OH

NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal in CA
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Move To Strike Class Allegations in MA Suit
NEW CENTURY: Reaches Overtime Wage Settlement in S.D. CA Suit
NEW CENTURY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consumer Laws Violations Suit in IL
PIONEER HI-BRED: Reaches Pact To Settle Suit Over Severance Benefits

PITTSBURGH STEELERS: PA Court Reinstates Season Ticket-holder Lawsuit
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Class Certification Denial Blocked
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Appeal Likely After Court's Refusal to Dismiss Suit
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Negotiates For UT Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: CA Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Mexican Braceros

VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in IL
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in AL
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MERCK & COMPANY: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

SALOMON SMITH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WALT DISNEY: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
XCEL ENERGY: Chestnut & Cambronne Commences Securities Suit in MN Court

                            *********

AOL TIME: Employees File Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Warner Communications, Inc.,

     (2) Warner/Elektra/Atlantic Corporation,

     (2) WEA Manufacturing Inc.,

     (3) Warner Bros. Records,

     (4) Atlantic Recording Corporation,

     (5) various pension plans sponsored by the companies and

     (6) the administrative committees of those plans.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants miscalculated the proper amount of
pension benefits owed to them and other class members as required under
the plans in violation of ERISA.

The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  Due to its preliminary status, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of the case or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.


AT&T CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over "Electronic Redlining" Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit filed in the Southern District of United States
Federal Court on Monday, August 26, 2002, on behalf of Gwen Hudson and
Cynthia Martin accuses AT&T and its Broadband Division of engaging in
the practice known as "electronic redlining" in minority neighborhoods,
as well as overcharging for services in other areas.

Christopher Larmoyeux, partner in the law firm of Larmoyeux and Bone,
PL, is leading a consortium of attorneys who will represent Hudson's
and Martin's claim, as well as other members of the "redlined or
overcharged/underserved" classes.

"Electronic redlining" is a practice used by telecommunications firms
which intentionally limits access to high-speed broadband services in
minority or poor neighborhoods.  It purportedly occurs when
telecommunications firms bypass poor neighborhoods while offering new
telecommunications technologies to more affluent areas, in order to
give the appearance of inflated profitability.

As a result of this practice, the lawsuit seeks national status
charging that the plaintiffs, as well as other members of the class,
have been denied access to advance telecommunications technology that
has been provided to non-minority and higher income housing areas.

The lawsuit alleges that this fact is clearly illustrated in Broward
County, Florida, where AT&T Broadband Services holds several franchises
in which only one percent of eligible African American households have
access to high-speed broadband Internet service as opposed to 100
percent of eligible white households.

In accordance with the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, both of which prohibit discrimination
practices in providing communications services, AT&T has an obligation
under federal law to build out and provide equal service to all areas
of the population, regardless of race or income.

In order to comply with these acts, AT&T would have had to expend
billions of dollars of infrastructure to completely build out their
system to include predominately minority neighborhoods.  In an effort
to improve the appearance of profitability prior to the completion of
its sale of the Broadband Division to Comcast, it is alleged that AT&T
has intentionally failed to build the infrastructure as required by
federal law in these affected minority areas.

The suit also charges that AT&T has overcharged for services, billed
for services not rendered and failed to meet the consumer service
requirements of its franchise contracts.

In addition to demanding monetary damages and immediate compliance
requiring a complete build-out of broadband services in compliance with
the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of
1996, the suit seeks to block the sale or transfer of any subsidiaries,
affiliates or franchises of AT&T Broadband until this occurs. This will
halt the proposed sale of AT&T's Broadband Division services to Comcast
scheduled for October 2002.

For more information, contact Mary Wickwire or Kyle Zimmer of Waters,
Pelton, Ostroff & Associates by Phone: 561-310-2111 or 561-626-0026


BABYLISS PRO: Voluntarily Recalls 23,000 Hairdryers For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Babyliss Pro is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 23,000 hairdryers.  
The hairdryers do not have an immersion protection device on the power
cord and could present a serious electrocution hazard if exposed to
water.  The Company has yet to receive any reports of incidents.  This
recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.
        
The recalled hairdryers have the model number BAB2002BLX, are
rated at 1875 watts, and are pistol-shaped.  The model number is
printed on the barrel of the hairdryer and a label on the side reads,
"BABYLISS 2002BLX."  The hairdryer also has a hangtag that reads in
part, "FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY, DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY FOR LICENSED
COSMETOLOGISTS.  THIS UNIT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AN ALCI OR GFCI
DEVICE...WARNING - KEEP AWAY FROM WATER."  These hairdryers were
manufactured in China.
        
Duane Reede Drug Stores in the metropolitan New York area, Metro
Beauty in Miami, Fla. and Bu-Ba Beauty in Reseda, Calif. sold these
hairdryers between December 2000 and January 2002 for about $50.  These
hairdryers were intended for professional use, but could have been sold
to consumers for personal use.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-726-4202 between 9
am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


BELLSOUTH CORP.: Loses Motion To Recuse Judge, Must Switch Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling in a racial discrimination lawsuit against BellSouth
Corporation could curb what some have called "judge shopping" by
defendants in an Alabama federal court, says a report by the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution.

Judge UW Clemon, the only African-American on the bench of the US
District Court in Birmingham, will remain on the case.  Judge Clemon's
nephew, hired by the Company 11 days after the lawsuit was randomly
assigned to Judge Clemon, will not.

As the ruling stands, the Atlanta Company will have to hire another
Birmingham lawyer to work its case.  The racial discrimination class
action was filed in late April by five former and current African-
American employees.  The Company says it will appeal the ruling by
Judge Lynwood Smith, who shares the bench with Judge Clemon.

In his ruling, Judge Smith tallied more than a dozen cases, originally
assigned to Judge Clemon, that had been reassigned after his nephew's
law firm was hired by a defendant.  The Company has hired Judge
Clemon's nephew Terry Price, several times during the past eight years.  
In some cases, Mr. Price's representation has required Judge Clemon to
withdraw.  In one of those cases, a sex-discrimination lawsuit, Mr.
Price helped the Company's thwart employees' request for class action
status.

Judge Smith said, "the stratagem of retaining Terry Price or the law
firms with which he has practiced as a means of forcing Chief Judge
Clemon's recusal has a long and unfortunate history" in the Birmingham
federal court.  The practice has been noted by other federal judges,
including Judge Clemon, and by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Joseph Sellers is among a handful of attorneys representing the five
African-American who have sued the Company, alleging the Company used
"unvalidated tests" and other discriminatory practices to hinder their
attempts at promotion.  Mr. Sellers called Judge Smith's ruling "a
victory for the judicial system.(Judge Smith) indicated the court would
not abide judge-shopping."  Other lawyers representing the employees
include Johnnie Cochran and Cyrus Mehri, who was part of a record
$192.5 million settlement from a racial discrimination lawsuit filed
against Coca-Cola in 1999.

If class action status is granted the lawsuit, it could expand to
include about 20,000 African-Americans who work for the Company across
its nine-state Southeast territory.


CONSECO INC.: Must Pay For Green Tree Corporation's Consumer Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Inc. must pay nearly US$27 million for violations of consumer-
protection laws by a company that it later acquired, after the South
Carolina Supreme court upheld an arbitrator's order, The Wall Street
Journal reports.

The court recently issued this order in a case affecting 3,739 South
Carolina customers with home-improvement or mobile-home loans, made in
the mid-1990s, by what was then Green Tree Financial Corp.

The Company, a Carmel, Indiana, finance and insurance company, bought
Green Tree in 1998, two years after the dispute between Green Tree and
its customers began.  An arbitrator to the dispute ruled in July 2000
that Green Tree failed to tell customers they could choose their own
lawyers and insurance companies when getting their loans.

Company attorneys argued that arbitrator Thomas J. Ervin exceeded his
authority by hearing the cases as class actions and appealed the
decision twice to South Carolina Circuit Court judges but both appeals
failed.

The Company could not be reached for comment, the Wall Street Journal
reports.


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Barrage Of Securities Suits Due To Roundtrip Trades
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation faces sixteen shareholder class actions,
thirteen pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and three in the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.  Some of the lawsuits also name
as co-defendants some Company executives, the Company's independent
external auditor and various investment banking firms.

In addition, the Company has received a shareholder's derivative notice
demanding that it commence litigation against named executives and
directors of the Company for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
insider trading.  The Company has also received a second similar
shareholder's derivative notice demanding litigation against named
executives and directors for alleged failure to prevent damages caused
to the Company arising from trades involving simultaneous purchases and
sales of power and gas at the same price ("round-trip" trading).  The
Company's response date to the first derivative demand has been
extended to after the first of the year 2003.  The Company is also
negotiating a similar agreement with respect to the second derivative
demand.

The class actions and the threatened shareholder derivative claims
arise out of allegations that the Company improperly engaged in the so-
called "round trip" trades which resulted in an alleged overstatement
of revenues over a three-year period of approximately $1 billion.  In
one of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs assert a common law fraud claim and
seek, in addition to compensatory damages, disgorgement and punitive
damages.

These matters are in their earliest stages.  The Company is currently
evaluating these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself.


FORD MOTOR: Cleveland Files Suit Over Unsafe Crown Victoria Police Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Cleveland, filed a class action in federal court recently,
on behalf of law enforcement agencies across Ohio that accuses Ford
Motor Co. of selling unsafe police cars, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey and Florida, concerning the potential for fuel tank fires in
Ford-made Crown Victoria police cars, a city official said.

The Company has been trying to determine how to prevent gas tank fires
and explosions following rear-end collisions in its police car version
of the Crown Victoria.  In June, the Company agreed to set up two study
panels to study the situation.  The automaker is considering making
foam-filled bladders surrounding the gas tank to block fuel from
leaking in a collision.

The city of Cleveland's lawsuit, filed in US District Court, lists
seven separate fuel tank fires during 2000 and 2001, all of which led
to injuries or deaths.  None of the examples involved an Ohio police
car.  R. Eric Kennedy, the city's attorney, said, "this lawsuit is
trying to prevent deaths from happening."

The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount sought for damages but
alleges that compensatory and punitive damages are appropriate, as are
restitution and attorney fees.

Cleveland has 481 Ford Crown Victoria police cars, along with Mayor
Jane Campbell's city car.


GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Mediation To Resolve TN Tips Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylord Entertainment Company entered mediation to resolve a class
action pending against it in the Second Circuit Court of Davidson
County, Tennessee related to the manner in which Gaylord Opryland
distributes service and delivery charges to certain employees.

The state of Tennessee has a "tip" statute that requires a business to
pay tips shown on statements over to its employee or employees who have
served the customer.

The Company believes that it has paid its employees amounts in excess
of what the statute requires, and the Company intends to file a motion
for summary judgment while vigorously contesting this matter.

On June 12, 2002, counsel for the Company and counsel for the plaintiff
class attended a mediation session and some progress was made toward
case resolution.  


GEVITY HR: Continues Talks For Securities Suit Settlement in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gevity HR is continuing negotiations for a settlement of a securities
class action pending against it and certain of its directors in the
Twelfth Judicial Division, Manatee County, Florida.

The suit alleges that the directors and senior officers of the Company
breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing to pursue a
proposal from Paribas Principal Partners to acquire the Company in
order to entrench themselves in the management of the Company.

Defendants and counsel for the putative plaintiff class reached a
preliminary agreement on the general terms of a settlement, following
mediation.  Discussions continue in an effort to finalize a definitive
settlement.  Once finalized, any agreed upon settlement is subject to
court approval following notice to the putative class.

Management does not expect any settlement to have a material effect on
the Company's financial position.


HARO BICYCLE: Recalls 1,100 BMX Freestyle Bicycles Over Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Haro Bicycle Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,100 BMX
freestyle bicycles.  The length of the crank arm in the 2003 model
fails to allow sufficient space between the rider's foot and the front
wheel, when the front wheel is turned backwards.  The rider's foot
could come in contact with the front wheel, causing the rider to lose
control, fall and possibly suffer serious injury.  The Company has not
received any reports of incidents or injuries.  This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injury.
        
The recall includes the 2003 Haro BMX freestyle bicycles.  The models
involved are the F2 and the Backtrail XO.  The model names are printed
on the top and down tube of the F2, and on the top tube of the
Backtrail XO.
        
Independent bicycle shops nationwide sold these bicycles from May 2002
through August 2002 for between $190 and $200.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-289-4276
between 9 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.harobikes.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Numerous Underwriter-related Suits Cropping Up in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's
officers and directors and:

     (1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),

     (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (8) JP Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

    (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June 1999 and
its secondary offering in September 1999, alleges that the prospectus
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's
initial public offering and its subsequent secondary offering contained
certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the
practices of the Company's underwriters with respect to their
allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their
receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations.

The Company believes the claim is without merit.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Juniper
Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, filed an amended consolidated suit, on behalf
of those who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made false and misleading statements, assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws and seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

In April 2002, the judge granted the defendants' motion to consolidate
all of these purported federal class actions into one.  In May 2002,
the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
lead counsel.  An amended complaint was filed in July 2002.

The Company believes the claims are unfounded.


LEIFHEIT INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 31,000 Apple Slicers For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leifheit International USA Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 31,000
apple slicers/corers. The cutting blade can separate from the center-
coring ring during use causing cuts to consumers' hands and fingers.  
The Company has received two reports of the blades separating,
resulting in minor cuts to the user's fingers.
        
The recall includes Pro Line apple slicers/corers.  The slicers/corers
are made of shiny chrome metal with two handles.  "Leifheit" is printed
on the top of one handle.  A symbol code on the underside of the
slicer/corer shows a number and dot sequence indicating the date of
manufacture.  Any product with a "1" or those with a "2" accompanied by
one or two dots are included in the recall.
        
Houseware and gourmet cooking stores sold the slicers/corers nationwide
from January 2001 to July 2002 for about $18.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 866-695-3434 between 9
am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the Firm's Website:
http://www.leifheitusa.com


MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Weighing Desecration Evidence to Decide Status
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Broward Circuit Judge J. Leonard Fleet is hearing evidence to determine
whether families should be allowed to pursue their claims as a group in
a class action against Florida cemetery Menorah Gardens, Associated
Press Newswires reports.  

The lawsuit accuses Menorah Gardens of jamming corpses together in
marked and unmarked graves and removing bodies and gravestones in order
to keep selling plots.  Service Corporation International (SCI) has
denied any knowledge of grave desecrations, blaming former
employees.  The Palm Beach cemetery opened in 1976 and was bought by
SCI in 1995.  SCI is the world's largest burial provider and is being
sued as the owner of Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Palm Beach and
Broward Counties.

The judge must find that sufficient bodies were wrongfully moved and/or
removed, in order to warrant pursuing the case as a class action.  The
judge skipped testimony from a forensic anthropologist who examined
photos of bones of bones found at the cemetery, after SCI attorneys
acknowledged they were human.  The plaintiffs brought forward a
quantity of evidence to indicate that many bodies were moved from their
original resting places, coffins stacked on one another, and other
dispositions made.  

Fern Panzer, a company funeral director said that she checked the
cemetery grave by grave for actual burial places and documented her
work in 1996.  A total of 352 people who owned plots for future burial
in one of seven sections of the Palm Beach cemetery would have had to
be reassigned because space was not available, she said.

Former plot salesman William Richmond said the cemetery manager was
present when a man's body was removed to make way for a woman he had
contracted to bury, casting doubt on SCI's claim that they knew nothing
about desecrations, that the alleged acts were committed under an
earlier, different ownership.

Claude Etienne, a Haitian immigrant who worked at Menorah Gardens in
Palm Beach County, testified that he remembered cracked cement vaults
holding caskets that had been buried as an everyday occurrence when he
worked at the Palm Beach cemetery.

Family attorney Ervin Gonzalez estimates the lawsuit may cover as many
as 20,000 relatives of people buried at the cemeteries, and calls have
been received from family members as distant as Prague and Paris.

Outside court, SCI attorney Barry Davidson said he thought Mr.
Etienne's testimony was exaggerated.  "We have a different story to
tell," said Mr. Davidson.


NEW CENTURY: Third Amended Consumer Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consumer class action against New Century Mortgage
Corporation filed a third amended consolidated suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Central Mortgage,

     (2) Equibanc Mortgage Corporation,

     (3) Century 21 Home Improvements, and

     (4) Incredible Exteriors

The suit, filed on behalf of consumers located in the State of Ohio
whose credit transaction was brokered by Equibanc and Central Mortgage,
alleges breaches of:

     (1) Federal Fair Housing Act,

     (2) Equal Credit Opportunity Act,

     (3) Truth in Lending Act (TILA),

     (4) gender discrimination,

     (5) fraud,

     (6) unconscionability,

     (7) civil conspiracy, and

     (8) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

The plaintiffs later moved to withdraw class allegations, which was
granted in January 2002.  The plaintiffs then filed a third amended
complaint on June 24, 2002, to add another individual plaintiff, Ginny
Sweitzer.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consumer class action pending against New Century
Mortgage Corporation filed a notice of appeal relating to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division's decision dismissing one of the claims in the suit.

The suit was commenced in June 2001 by Richard L. Grimes and Rosa L.
Grimes, alleging a violation of TILA and Business Professions Code
17200.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company gave the
borrowers the required three-day notice of their right to rescind
before the loan transaction had technically been consummated.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court
granted in January 2002.  The court held that the Company had not
violated TILA and dismissed the 17200 claim without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and their opening brief was filed
on July 1, 2002.  The Company's responsive brief will be filed in mid-
August, 2002.

The Company labels the suit "without merit" and intends to vigorously
defend against it.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Move To Strike Class Allegations in MA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against New Century Mortgage
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts filed an unopposed motion to strike class allegations in
July 2002.

The suit, which also names Noreast Mortgage Company, Inc. as a
defendant, alleges that certain payments made to mortgage brokers,
sometimes referred to as yield spread premiums, violate the federal
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  The complaint also
alleges that the Company induced mortgage brokers to breach their
fiduciary duties to borrowers.




NEW CENTURY: Reaches Overtime Wage Settlement in S.D. CA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corporation reached a settlement in the class
action filed against it and New Century Mortgage Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
in Santa Ana.  The suit, commenced in August 2001 on behalf of the
Company's loan officers, alleges unpaid overtime, penalties and
damages.  

Notices to potential class members were sent in early 2002,
approximately 50 individuals timely opted in to join the class action.  
The case was later resolved at mediation on July 26, 2002.  

The Company expects that the court will approve the settlement, and
believes that the amount of the proposed settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
position.


NEW CENTURY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consumer Laws Violations Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the Circuit Court in Cook
County, Chicago, Illinois to dismiss the class action charging it with
the unauthorized practice of law and violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.

The suit allege these violations were due to the performance of
document preparation services for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to
recover the fees charged for the document preparation, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002, the case was
then consolidated with other similar cases filed against other lenders.  
The Company's motion was heard on July 24, 2002, with a ruling expected
in late August 2002.


PIONEER HI-BRED: Reaches Pact To Settle Suit Over Severance Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and its parent company, DuPont, have
settled a class action over severance benefits filed by current and
former managers, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The companies agreed to pay $7.5 million to about a dozen managers.  
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Pioneer managers who claimed the
Company reneged on the terms of a severance plan after DuPont bought
the Des Moines-based seed company.  The severance plan provided
managers with a lump-sum cash payment worth three times their annual
compensation and gave participants health, dental and life insurance
coverage for a year after they quit.

In a ruling released recently in Des Moines, Iowa, US District Judge
Robert Pratt ordered the two Companies to pay the employees' attorneys
nearly $3.7 million in fees and expenses.  The attorneys were seeking
about $28 million in fees.


PITTSBURGH STEELERS: PA Court Reinstates Season Ticket-holder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reinstated a lawsuit filed by
dissatisfied Pittsburgh Steelers season ticket holders, meaning the
case can go to trial and may become a multimillion-dollar class action,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.  A three-justice panel ruled
recently that Allegheny County Judge Robert Horgo erred when he
dismissed the suit in December.

Attorney W.J. Helzlsouer of Dravosburg sued the Steelers and the Sports
and Exhibition Authority, a city-county agency that owns Heinz Field
and leases it to the team, on behalf of four ticket buyers.  Mr.
Helzlsouer contends that his clients were misled by an October 1998
sales brochure given to people who were asked to make a down payment on
seats before the stadium was built.

In 1999, the team required additional payments and made ticket buyers
sign a contract.  By then, the team had expanded the higher-priced
sections to include seats originally depicted in the brochure as being
in the cheaper sections.

"When they sent in their application with their nonrefundable deposit,
there was a contract established and any changes the Steelers made
later were unilateral and not binding," Mr. Helzelsouer said.

As a result, some ticket buyers paid higher-than-expected seat license
fees and ticket prices, or they received seats that were not as good as
they anticipated, the suit said.  Heinz Field opened last seasons.

Judge Horgos had dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the final contract
the ticket buyers signed clearly spelled out the seat locations and
prices.  However, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the seat locations
and prices in the 1998 brochure were binding because the ticket buyers
had to pay a 33 percent deposit at that time, and were told that they
would lose the deposit if they did not sign the final, more specific,
contract.

The Steelers and the Sports & Exhibition Authorities, which owns the
stadium and leases it to the team, are the defendants in the lawsuit.


PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Class Certification Denial Blocked
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow
plaintiffs in the securities class action against Philips International
Realty Corporation's to appeal a New York federal court's decision
refusing class certification for the suit.

The suit was commenced in October 2000 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
directors.  The complaint alleged a number of improprieties concerning
the pending plan of liquidation of the Company.

In November 2000, the federal court, ruling from the bench, denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.  This bench ruling was
followed by a written order dated November 30, 2000 wherein the court
concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate either that it
was likely to succeed on the merits of its case or that there were
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its case to make
it fair ground for litigation.

In February 2002, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
action certification.  The plaintiff may elect to proceed with that
claim on its own now that class certification has been denied.  The
plaintiff also has asserted derivative claims for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company.  

On February 28, 2002, the plaintiff sought permission from the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the denial of class
certification.  In order for plaintiff to have obtained permission to
appeal, it had to demonstrate that the denial of class certification
effectively terminated the litigation and that the district court's
decision was an abuse of its discretion.

The Company opposed plaintiff's application.  If the Court of Appeals
granted plaintiff's request, plaintiff would then have been able to
appeal the district court's denial of class certification.

On May 28, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ordered that the plaintiff's petition to appeal the district
court's denial of class certification also be denied.

The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Appeal Likely After Court's Refusal to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Company asked the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
to accept its appeal of the United States District Court in Idaho's
decision refusing to dismiss a securities class action filed against
them on behalf of all purchasers of common stock or senior notes of
Washington Group, International (WGI) during the period April
17, 2000 through March 1, 2001.

The putative plaintiff class claims to have suffered harm by purchasing
WGI securities because the Company and certain of its officers
allegedly violated federal securities laws by purportedly
misrepresenting the true financial condition of Raytheon Engineers &
Constructors (RE&C) in order to sell RE&C stock to WGI at an
artificially inflated price.

An amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2001 alleging similar
claims.  The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion
seeking to dismiss the action in mid-November 2001.  On April 30, 2002,
the Court denied the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion with the district court
requesting permission to seek an immediate appeal of the district
court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which the district court granted on July 1, 2002.  The
Company's and the individual defendants' motion asking the Ninth
Circuit to accept their immediate appeal is now pending before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant and members of
its Board of Directors and several current and former officers are
named as defendants in another purported shareholder derivative action
in the United States District Court in Massachusetts.

The derivative complaint contains allegations similar to those included
in federal suit, and further alleges that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the Company and purportedly failed to
maintain systems necessary for prudent management and control of the
Company's operations.

On June 28, 2002, all of the defendants in the derivative suit filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, which has not been heard by the Court.


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Negotiates For UT Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenfold Corporation is currently in negotiations to settle the
consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court of Utah.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues on some of the
         Company's projects;

     (2) the Company failed to maintain sufficient accounting reserves
         to cover the risk of contract disputes or cancellations;

     (3) the Company issued falsely optimistic statements that did not
         disclose these accounting issues; and

     (4) the Company insiders sold stock in early calendar year 2000
         while knowing about these issues.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June
2001, which the court granted, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to make
a motion to amend their complaint.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend their complaint and the Company has filed a written response.  
The court has heard oral arguments on this motion on August 20, 2002.

The parties are currently in discussions to settle the dispute.  Based
on negotiations, the Company believes that a loss is probable, but
believes that its insurance policy covers damages that may arise in the
dispute. An unfavorable outcome in the matter may have a material
adverse impact on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial position, or liquidity, the Company revealed in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


UNITED STATES: CA Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Mexican Braceros
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge, on Wednesday, granted requests by the United States
and Mexican governments and Wells Fargo Bank, to dismiss the class
action brought by Mexican laborers who had hoped to claim money they
said was owed them for working on American farms and railroads more
than 50 years ago, according to a report by the Associated Press
Newswires.

The workers were among more than 300,000 Mexicans who came to the
United States between 1942 and 1949, to harvest crops and maintain
railroad tracks as guest workers.  Dubbed braceros, after the Spanish
word for arm, they came under an agreement between the United States
and Mexico, aimed at filling labor shortages, caused by World War II,
as American men marched off to war.

Under the agreement, 10 percent of each worker's wage was to be
withheld and transferred, via US and Mexican banks, to individual
savings funds set up for each bracero.  However, many braceros say they
never received that money when they returned to Mexico.

In March 2001, a group of former braceros who worked in the United
States between 1942 and 1949, filed a class action in San Francisco
against the US and Mexican governments, Wells Fargo Bank and three
Mexican banks.  The braceros sought repayment of the money deducted
from their paychecks, plus interest.  While they did not specify the
amount owed, advocates estimated it at $500 million.

US District Court Judge Charles Breyer wrote that he did "not doubt
that many of the laborers, called braceros, never received savings fund
withholdings to which they were entitled.  The court is sympathetic to
the braceros situation."  However, he concluded that the braceros were
not entitled to any relief from the Mexican or American governments, or
Wells Fargo, in a United States court of law.

Jonathan Rothstein, an attorney for the braceros, said he had not yet
finished reviewing the decision.  "We are studying the opinion and will
decide how to proceed," he said.

The US government argued that Judge Breyer should dismiss the case
because the braceros' claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  
The Mexican government asked for dismissal, saying the case should not
be tried in the United States, because the court lacks jurisdiction
over Mexico and Mexican banks.  Rather, the court should refer the
issue to the Mexican Congress and the president, because it is
"ultimately a question of Mexican public policy," said attorneys for
the Mexican government in their court documents.

Wells Fargo said its role in the braceros program was extremely
limited.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a securities class action
pending against it and certain of its officers and directors.

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 Company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

The suit is similar to other lawsuits filed in the same court since in
January 2001 against numerous public companies that first sold their
common stock publicly since the mid-1990s.  On August 8, 2001, all of
these IPO-related 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 to respond to any complaint be postponed
until further order of the Court.  Thus, neither the Company nor any of
its officers or directors has been required to answer the complaint,
and no discovery has been served on the Company.

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

The Company believes that this lawsuit is unfounded.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Baxter
International, Inc. (NYSE: BAX) securities between January 24, 2002 and
July 18, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company
and:

     (1) Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr., CEO and Chairman and

     (2) Brian P. Anderson, CFO

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, the Company issued press releases representing that its
BioScience and Renal divisions would grow their earnings by percentages
in the high-teens and high-single-digits, respectively, in 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing serious problems with its BioScience
and Renal divisions.

Given these, and other undisclosed problems, defendants' repeated class
period assurances of continued growth in 2002 were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made, according to the complaint.

On July 18, 2002, the Company issued a press release regarding its
results for the second quarter of 2002, announcing disappointing sales
growth for the BioScience division and a decline in sales for the Renal
division.  In addition, the Company took a $51 million charge in
connection with an acquisition and a $70 million impairment charge
reflecting a decline in the value of certain of the Company's
investments.

In response to the announcement, the price of Company stock plummeted
by 36.5%, falling from a $43.41 per share close on July 17, 2002, to
close at $32 per share on July 18, on extremely heavy trading volume.  
During the class period, Company insiders sold a total of 435,700
Company shares, reaping gross proceeds in excess of $23.7 million.

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


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Healthsouth
Corporation (NYSE: HRC) between January 14, 2002 and August 27, 2002
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against the Company and:

     (1) Richard M. Scrushy, CEO, Chairman,

     (2) Weston L. Smith, CFO, Executive VP,

     (3) William Owens, Chief Operating Officer and

     (4) George Strong, director

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 14, 2002 and August 27, 2002.

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the Company
issued press releases and filed reports with the SEC announcing
impressive revenue and earnings growth and repeatedly assuring the
market that the Company was well on its way to meeting its financial
targets for the year 2002 and that its fundamentals were strong.

According to the complaint, these and other statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had issued directives
reclassifying certain categories of reimbursements, which would have a
materially negative impact on the Company's business.

The suit further alleges that defendants failed to disclose these
facts, which had been known to them for many months, in order to allow
Mr. Scrushy and Mr. Strong to sell (collectively) millions of shares of
the Company's stock at artificially inflated prices and so that the
Company could commence a $998 million note exchange/offer on more
favorable terms than if the truth regarding the CMS directives and
their impact on the Company was known publicly.

The note exchange/offering was commenced on August 27, 2002, one-day
before the Company disclosed the negative developments for the first
time.  According to the complaint, on August 27, 2002, the Company
shocked the market by issuing a press release announcing that CMS
directives issued on July 1, 2002 concerning reimbursements may result
in a $175 million shortfall in EBITDA from previously issued financial
guidance for 2002 and that it could not provide further guidance for
2002 and 2003 because of uncertainties posed by the directives.

In addition, the Company announced that it would spin-off its surgery-
center division as part of a massive restructuring undertaken to deal
with the developments and that Mr. Scrushy would be replaced as CEO by
Mr. Owens.  In response to this disclosure, Company stock plummeted by
over 43% to close at $6.71 per share in a single day on extremely high
trading volume.

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


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against HPL Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:HPLA), in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
all investors who bought the Company's common stock from July 31, 2001
through July 18, 2002.

According to the lawsuit, the Company issued a series of false and
misleading financial statements to the public during the class period,
which led investors to believe that the San Jose-based company had
generated millions of dollars more revenue than it actually had.

The Company's accounting woes began to surface on July 19, 2002 when it
announced that its audit committee was investigating financial and
accounting irregularities involving purported sales to an international
distributor.  In its news release, the Company also said it had fired
its chairman and chief executive officer.

The complaint says Company stock fell 72% on the news, dropping from
the previous day's closing price of $14.10 to a low of $4 before Nasdaq
halted trading in its stock.  Trading has not yet resumed.

According to the lawsuit, the Company later revealed during a July 22,
2002 conference call with investors that $11 million of the $13.7
million in revenue it had reported in the quarter ended March 31, 2002
was based on "fictitious transactions that were supported by a trail of
falsified documentation."

According to the complaint, all the fictitious transactions were
reported as sales to the Company's distributor.  In fact, the
distributor never agreed to enter into those transactions, the
complaint says.  In the conference call, the Company admitted that
similar transactions may have been booked in prior quarters and that
the company would have to restate its financial results for fiscal 2002
and possibly for 2001.

The lawsuit also accuses some company executives of taking personal
advantage of the inflated stock price they allegedly helped to create
by selling 85,500 shares of their individual holdings during the class
period.

For more details, contact Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. by Mail: 425
California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone:
415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bermanesq.com.  


MERCK & COMPANY: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Merck & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MRK) and certain of its principal
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between July 23, 1999 and July 3,
2002.

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

The Company's operations are comprised of two reportable segments:
Merck Pharmaceutical and Merck's wholly owned subsidiary, Merck-Medco
Managed Care, LLC.  Since Merck acquired Merck-Medco in 1993, and
throughout the class period, Merck and Merck-Medco have falsely
inflated their reported revenues by billions of dollars as a result of
including consumer co- payments for prescription drugs in revenue,
contrary to the revenue recognition practices of two of Merck-Medco's
biggest competitors and concealing these facts in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

During the class period, Merck-Medco's revenues have made up over 50%
of Merck's total revenues.  Merck-Medco revenues are purportedly
derived from filling prescriptions and managing health management
programs.  Consumers who are members of pharmacy benefits plans and
purchase prescriptions must make a co-payment directly to the pharmacy.  
To artificially boost Merck-Medco's apparent sales, defendants included
consumer co-payments for prescription drugs in its revenues, contrary
to the revenue recognition practices of two of Merck-Medco's biggest
competitors and in violation of GAAP.

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

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

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

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


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP, initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against MSC
Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE:MSM) and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Company
securities during the period from November 4, 1999 to August 5, 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 during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 800-889-3701 or
212-889-3700 or by E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.  


SALOMON SMITH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased securities of Winstar
Communications, Inc. (Pink Sheets:WCIIO) (Pink Sheets:WCIIP) between
August 13, 1999 through April 16, 2001, both dates inclusive.  Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc. and Jack Grubman are named as defendants in the
complaint.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  This
action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of analyst
reports regarding Salomon, which recommended the purchase of Winstar
common stock and which set price targets for Winstar common stock,
without any reasonable factual basis.

The suit alleges that when issuing their Winstar reports, the
defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of
interest which they had, in light of their use of Mr. Grubman's
reputation and his Winstar analyst reports, to obtain investment
banking business for Salomon.

Furthermore, in issuing their Winstar reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Winstar stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed
about Winstar as well as their true opinion about Winstar's financial
prospects and viability as an entity going forward.

The suit further alleges that throughout the class period, Mr. Grubman
maintained a "buy" recommendation on Winstar in order to obtain and
support lucrative financial deals for Salomon.  Unbeknownst to the
investing public, Salomon was seeking to be retained as a financial
adviser for other telecommunication companies.  Such investment banking
engagements were worth millions of dollars in fees to Salomon.

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


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

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the existence, details, and
potential effects of a pending lawsuit over merchandising rights for
products bearing the likeness of Winnie the Pooh characters caused
Company stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.

For eleven years, the Company has been involved in a bitterly contested
lawsuit with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, but throughout
they have never advised their stockholders of its existence.  After the
Company first disclosed the potential effects of the litigation on May
15, 2002, its stock price fell, reaching $13.77 on August 13, 2002, a
decline of more than 40%.

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


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Vivendi
Universal, S.A. (NYSE:V) misled shareholders about its business and
financial condition.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between
April 23, 2001 and July 2, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company's 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.  In late 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, Vivendi's CEO reassured the market that liquidity was not
a problem and the ADRs did not totally collapse.  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, Vivendi's CEO
was forced to resign. Vivendi ADRs collapsed upon these revelations,
falling to $15-21/32 on huge volume of 8 million shares.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


XCEL ENERGY: Chestnut & Cambronne Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chestnut & Cambronne, PA initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Xcel
Energy, Inc. (NYSE:XEL), on behalf of Chips Investments and all others
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period of January
31, 2001 to July 26, 2002.

The complaint states that defendants violated the federal securities
laws in a variety of ways including primarily not telling investors
that the financial problems of the NRG subsidiary could directly impact
both the Company's ability to borrow and the Company's dividend because
of cross-defendant provisions in NRG's and the Company's loan
agreements.

For more details, contact Jack L. Chestnut, Karl L. Cambronne or
Jeffrey D. Bores by Mail: 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 by Phone: 612-339-7300 by E-mail:
jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com, kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com or
jbores@chestnutcambronne.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  * * *