CAR_Public/020911.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Wednesday, September 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 180

                           Headlines
                            

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Asks Illinois Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AOL TIME: Faces Numerous Securities Fraud Suits in NY, VA, TX Courts
AOL TIME: Shareholders Allege Fiduciary Breaches in NY Courts
AVANTGO INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
COMMERCE ONE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

CROWLEY MARITIME: Enters Settlement Negotiations For Securities Suit
EASTMAN KODAK: Recalls 75,000 Digital Cameras Due To Shock Hazard
ESSO: Evidence Presented in Suit Over Logford Natural Gas Explosion
FLUOR CORP.: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
GENERAL AMERICAN: Objection to $55 Million Settlement Offer Dismissed

HUFFY SPORTS: Recalls 70,000 Basketball Systems Over Injury Hazard
ILLINOIS COUNTIES: Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal of "Bail Fee" Suit
ILLINOIS: Leaders Express Concern over Madison County Lawsuit Abuse
MICROTUNE INC.: Intends To Ask For Dismissal of Securities Suit in NY
NTL INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY

SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Securities Fraud Suits Stacking Up in C.D. CA
STIMSON LUMBER: WA Court Certifies Suit Over Composite Wood Siding
VALOR HEATING: Voluntarily Recalls 730 Fireplaces Over Injury Hazard
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Norplant Side-Effects Suit in MS
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement Agreement in Suits in NY, DE Courts

                     New Security Fraud Cases  
                     
AOL TIME: Johnson & Perkinson Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in IL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in GA
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Commences AL Securities Suit
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in IL
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in AZ
MARTHA STEWART: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PEMSTAR INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

XCEL ENERGY: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN

                           *********

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Asks Illinois Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois to dismiss a consolidated
amended class action pending against it, Alliance Fund Distributors,
Inc. and other defendants alleging violations of the federal Investment
Company Act of 1940, as amended and breaches of common law fiduciary
duty.

The allegations concern six mutual funds with which the Company has
investment advisory agreements, including:

     (1) Alliance Premier Growth Fund,

     (2) Alliance Health Care Fund,

     (3) Alliance Growth Fund,

     (4) Alliance Quasar Fund,

     (5) Alliance Fund, and

     (6) Alliance Disciplined Value Fund

The principal allegations of the suit are:

     (i) certain advisory agreements concerning these funds were
         negotiated, approved, and executed in violation of the ICA, in
         particular because certain directors of these funds should be
         deemed interested under the ICA;

    (ii) the distribution plans for these funds were negotiated,
         approved, and executed in violation of the ICA; and

   (iii) the advisory and distribution fees paid to the Company and
         AFD, respectively, are excessive and, therefore, constitute a
         breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 12, 2002, the court issued an order granting defendants' joint
motion to dismiss the suit, but allowed plaintiffs up to and including
April 1, 2002 to file an amended complaint comporting with its order.  
On April 1, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, with
allegations similar to the original suit.  On May 1, 2002, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  

The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
these allegations.  At the present time, management of the Company and
AFD are unable to estimate the impact, if any, that the outcome of this
action may have on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.


AOL TIME: Faces Numerous Securities Fraud Suits in NY, VA, TX Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces twenty securities class actions pending
against it, certain of its current and former executives and, in three
instances, America Online.  Seventeen of these were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, two were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia and one in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of
the Company and allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America Online's
declining advertising revenues and that the Company and America Online
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of
transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the
individual defendants and other insiders at the Company improperly sold
their personal holdings of Company stock.

Three of the lawsuits, in addition to the above allegations, allege
that the Company failed to disclose that the merger was not generating
the synergies anticipated at the time of the announcement of the merger
and, further, that the Company inappropriately delayed writing down
more than $50 billion of goodwill.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the cases or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


AOL TIME: Shareholders Allege Fiduciary Breaches in NY Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces two shareholder derivative lawsuits filed
in the New York State Supreme Court for the County of New York, and in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
Both suits name the directors and certain officers of the Company as
defendants, as well as the Company as a nominal defendant.

The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by causing the Company to issue corporate statements that:

     (1) did not accurately disclose that America Online had declining
         advertising revenues;

     (2) the merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the
         time of the announcement of the merger, and

     (3) the Company inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50
         billion of goodwill, thereby exposing the Company to potential
         liability for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuits further allege that certain of the defendants improperly
sold their personal holdings of AOL Time Warner securities.  The
lawsuits request that all proceeds from any improper sales of AOL Time
Warner common stock and any improper salaries or payments be returned
to the Company.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the cases or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


AVANTGO INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Avantgo, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action pending against it, certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from September 27, 2000 to December 6, 2000, alleges
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors
to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.

Over 300 companies involved in an initial public offering have been
named as defendants in nearly identical lawsuits filed by some of the
same plaintiffs' law firms. A motion to dismiss addressing issues
common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these
actions was filed on July 15, 2002.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against the
action, but due to inherent uncertainties in litigation, management
cannot predict accurately the ultimate outcome of the litigation.  An
adverse judgment in a large monetary amount could have a material
adverse impact on the financial position, and consequently the business
and results of operations.


COMMERCE ONE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce One, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it, several of its company officers and
directors, and the three lead underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering (IPO) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The consolidated suit consists of a set of "Master Allegations" (Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)) and individual amended complaints against the
various defendants, including the Company and the individual defendants
(01 Civ. 5575 SAS (CLP)).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder).  The suit is filed on behalf of purchasers of
Company's common stock between July 1, 1999 and June 15, 2001.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 200 other companies.  The
lawsuit against the Company and other companies have been coordinated
for pretrial purposes with these other related lawsuits.  The
coordinated pretrial proceedings are presently being overseen by Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the issuer and individual defendants filed an omnibus
motion to dismiss addressing issues generally applicable to the
defendants as a group.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
lawsuits.  It does not believe that the outcome of any of these
disputes or litigation will have a material effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations.


CROWLEY MARITIME: Enters Settlement Negotiations For Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corporation has entered settlement negotiations for a
class action suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda on behalf of Dennis Wood and a
class alleged to consist of certain holders of the Company's common
stock.  

The complaint named the Company and each member of its board of
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants undertook certain actions to avoid subjecting the Company to
public reporting requirements and caused shares of the Company's common
stock to be purchased and sold at artificially low prices in connection
with the Company's tender offer announced on April 16, 2001.

The plaintiff originally asserted causes of action for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants subsequently answered the complaint and moved to dismiss
the breach of contract claim on the grounds that, based on the facts of
the case, the plaintiff could not properly allege such a claim as a
matter of law.  On December 6, 2001, the court dismissed the breach of
contract claim without leave to amend.

On May 24, 2002, a hearing was held on plaintiff's motion to certify
this case as a class action.  On June 10, 2002, the court denied
plaintiff's motion seeking to certify this case as a class action.  On
June 26, 2002, the parties began settlement negotiations.  The Company
expects that an agreement may be reached in settlement of this
litigation in the third quarter of 2002.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.


EASTMAN KODAK: Recalls 75,000 Digital Cameras Due To Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 75,000
DC5000-model digital cameras worldwide.  Due to a manufacturing defect,
consumers using these cameras can suffer an electrical shock.
        
The Company has received 12 reports, including six in the United States
of consumers who experienced an electrical shock while changing
batteries, or installing or removing the memory card or USB cable.  
There have been no reports of serious injury.  
        
These are Kodak DC5000-model cameras.  The brand name and model number
are written on the front of the camera at the bottom right-hand corner.  
All DC5000 cameras carry a plate on the bottom of the camera containing
the Kodak product identifier reading "KJCAA" followed by an eight-digit
serial number.  The serial number range is 01800001 through 11700825.  
        
Department, electronic, computer and camera stores, as well as mail
order and web retailers sold these cameras nationwide from June 2000
through August 2002 for between $600 and $700.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 888-793-2977 between 9
am and 8 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kodak.com


ESSO: Evidence Presented in Suit Over Logford Natural Gas Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An Australian printing company's reliance on natural gas was given as
evidence at the $A500 million ($US272.25 million) class action against
energy giant Esso.

The Victoria based-company, part of the umbrella group PMP
Communications (ASX:PMP), is said to have suffered delays to its
printing schedule due to the explosion at Esso's Longford plant four
years ago, which killed two workers and crippled natural gas supplies
around the state for a fortnight.

John Nicholls, an engineer with the printing company, Wilkies and Co,
told Justice Gillard of how the printing presses were shut down for
approximately 24 hours when their supply of natural gas was cut off by
the explosion.

Operations were resumed only after tedious alterations to the printing
machinery allowed it to work on oil instead of gas, Mr Nicholls said.

In June 1998, four months prior to the September explosion, the
printing company's supply had already been temporarily cut when ice
blocked the Longford pipes.

Under questioning from Mr Jonathan Beach, QC, for Esso, Mr. Nicholls
agreed that based on this June interruption, Wilkies and Co should have
foreseen other potential problems with its gas supply and subsequently
organized an efficient back-up plan.


FLUOR CORP.: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division dismissed with prejudice the consolidated
amended securities class action pending against Fluor Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by providing false or misleading statements about the Company's
business and prospects.  These complaints purport to be on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from May 22, 1996
through February 18, 1997.

The company moved to dismiss the suit, and the motion was granted by
the court, with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and the Company moved the court to dismiss the new amended
complaint.  The court has now granted the Company's motion and
dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July 10, 2002.   
Plaintiffs have filed notice of their intention to appeal the
dismissal.


GENERAL AMERICAN: Objection to $55 Million Settlement Offer Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The $55 million settlement offer by General American Life Insurance
Company is now effective and binding among class members who opted for
the money in August 2000 and settled the suit accusing the company of
fraud and material misrepresentations in selling certain insurance
policies.

In a September 5, 2002 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit dismissed an appeal by several unnamed class members, including
lead appellant James Henderson, for being moot and ineffectual.  The
appeal had centered on the scoring of the class members' claim, which
appellant, Mr. Henderson, objected to.

According to court records, "the settlement offered class members the
option of receiving a lump-sum payment or participating in a claims
processing system.  Class members who chose the claims processing
system would have their claims evaluated to identify the extent of
their losses and proof of (the company's) wrongdoing.  Evaluators
scored the claims from `three,' which merited the greatest relief, to
`zero,' which provided no compensation from the settlement fund in the
event class members presented frivolous claims."

Mr. Henderson objected to the inclusion of a zero score because he
thought it unfair not to compensate every class member in some form,
the records showed.  He then moved to intervene in the district court
and pressed the scoring objection for rejecting the proposed
settlement.  

The district court and, on appeal, the appellate court dismissed his
claim, the latter court citing jurisdictional grounds because he was
not a party and he failed to acquire the status of a party by
successfully intervening in the district court.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which thereafter vacated the
appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further
consideration in light of Devlin v. Scardelletti.  This particular case
upheld the rights of an unnamed class member to challenge the fairness
of a settlement in a mandatory class action and even object on appeal,
provided his objection is made in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court, in the Devlin case, ruled, thus, "Particularly in
light of the fact that petitioner had no ability to opt out of the
settlement, appealing the approval of the settlement is petitioner's
only means of protecting himself from being bound by a disposition of
his rights he finds unacceptable and that a reviewing court might find
legally inadequate."

Mr. Henderson's appeal, however, became moot "in the months since our
first decision," the appellate court said.  Accordingly, an affidavit
from Christopher Seeger, the Claim Evaluator who administered the
claims processing system that disbursed settlement proceeds to
thousands of class members, averred that by August 15, 2002, not one
class member who declined lump-sum payments had received a zero score.

"These facts undercut the basis for Mr. Henderson's appeal.  The appeal
challenges the fairness of the class settlement because it authorized
zero scores.  Because no zero scores were awarded, Mr. Henderson's
objection to the settlement is effectively moot... We therefore dismiss
Henderson's appeal," the appellate court ruled.

The court cited the case, Church of Scientology v. United States, which
ruled that "if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that
makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed."

Court records show that more than 240,000 current and former
policyholders of the company stood to benefit from the settlement,
which offers to pay class members at least $55 million in the form of
additional policy benefits.


HUFFY SPORTS: Recalls 70,000 Basketball Systems Over Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Huffy Sports Company is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 70,000
portable basketball systems.  The basketball hoops can have a sharp
protruding bolt on the player's side of the pole that can cause serious
leg or body lacerations to consumers.  Basketball players can be cut
when they collide with the pole as they drive toward the basket or when
they fall or are pushed into the pole.
        
The Company has received 11 reports of injuries from protruding bolts
that include scrapes and lacerations.  Ten consumers required stitches
for their injuries.
        
These are portable, vertically mounted Huffy-brand basketball systems
that come unassembled with a plastic base that is weighted down by
either sand or water that is added during assembly.  The basketball
poles are painted black and the Huffy brand name appears on the
backboard, main pole, or plastic base.  The protruding bolt on the
player side of the pole is located about 20-inches from the ground.
        
Sporting good, department and toy stores sold the Huffy-brand portable
basketball systems from November 2001 through May 2002 for between $100
and $200.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-558-5234 between 8
am and 4:30 pm CST Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.huffysports.com.   


ILLINOIS COUNTIES: Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal of "Bail Fee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who filed a class action against 19 out of 102 Illinois
counties scored a substantial victory last week after the US Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court ruling
dismissing the suit for lack of standing.

The appellate court also remanded the case to the US District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois for further proceedings, including
class certification.  The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs
were able to sufficiently prove that the defendants had common
liability towards the plaintiffs owing to their "juridical link."

Citing lack of standing, the district court, on September 25, 2000,
dismissed the suit filed by Delvin C. Payton and five other former
arrestees who were charged "bail fees" upon their release on bail or on
their own recognizance.  This fee varies between $1 and $45, depending
on the county, and is collected above any bail amount that is due.  The
plaintiffs questioned this practice and filed a putative class action
with the aim of representing all individuals affected by the procedure
in 19 named counties.

The disputed practice traces its imprimatur from a 1999 state law
passed by the Illinois General Assembly, which provided that bond fees
may be added to the required bond.  According to court records, this
provision was codified as part of the Illinois Bond Statute and became
effective on January 1, 2000.  The law allowed counties to charge a
minimum fee of $1, which could be increased by the county boards
through a mere ordinance.

Four of the plaintiffs confined in the Kane County jail were granted
bail, but were released only upon payment of $11.  The two other
plaintiffs, who were confined in the DuPage County jail, were released
only upon payment of $15.  The plaintiffs alleged that other arrestees
were charged as high as $45 in other counties.

In its decision, the appellate court questioned the dismissal of the
case on lack of standing, considering that the plaintiffs had clear and
valid individual claims.  Seemingly surprised over the decision, the
appellate court noted, "The district court did not mention any grounds
for the dismissal of the individual claims of these named plaintiffs
against Kane and DuPage Counties, nor did it explain why it thought
that they lacked standing to sue."

"It appears instead that what the district court meant to say was that
the plaintiffs lacked `standing' to bring a class action.  However,
putting to one side the problem inherent in conflating the standing
inquiry with the inquiry under Rule 23 about the suitability of a
plaintiff to serve as a class representative, the proper remedy for
this shortcoming is not dismissal of the entire action, but rather an
order denying class certification and permitting the case to continue
as an individual suit," the appellate court said.

The appellate court then proceeded to establish the common liability of
the counties towards the plaintiffs, but stopped short of stating that
the action may be certified as class.  The court said the issue should
be settled by the district court upon remand.

The appellate court, however, upheld the "juridical link" theory
espoused by the plaintiff, "In our case, given that the bail bond fee
is imposed pursuant to a state statute, and that county sheriffs are
for this purpose an arm of the state, it is reasonable for the putative
plaintiff class to try to hold all counties accountable within one
suit.  The constitutionality of a bond fee (whether it is $1 or $45)
should not differ from one county to the next, when such a fee is
imposed pursuant to the same statute."

The court concluded its decision with a veiled stand favoring the
certification of the class, "These putative representatives were
personally injured by the operation of the very same statute that
caused the injuries to all other members of the proposed class."


ILLINOIS: Leaders Express Concern over Madison County Lawsuit Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois business leaders gathered at an Illinois Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing at Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, IL
to voice concerns about the economic harm and national embarrassment
caused by class action lawsuit abuse in Madison County.

"Madison County has become a sort of free-fire zone for national class
action lawsuits, in which actual transgressions or damages may be nil
yet settlements are routinely approved that yield substantial plaintiff
attorneys' fees but next to nothing for the supposedly victimized
class," said Philip R. O'Connell, chairman of the Class Action Reform
Task Force of the Illinois Business Roundtable.  "Although Madison
County has become a good place for the class action lawsuit business,
Madison County is also becoming a bad place to do virtually any other
kind of business."

The group will urge the committee to support legislation to close legal
loopholes that allow class action abuse to thrive in Madison County.  
State Senator Patrick O'Malley, the subcommittee chairman, and State
Senator Kirk Dillard, the sponsor of class action reform in Illinois,
will chair the hearing.

Among those to testify at the hearing is John Beisner, co-author of two
Manhattan Institute reports identifying Madison County as one of the
three worst asylums nationwide for class action lawsuits.  In addition,
Stanford Levin, Emeritus Professor of Economics at SIU Edwardsville,
plans to discuss the negative effects to Illinois' economy from the
unbridled increase of class action lawsuits in Madison County.

A report released in June 2002 by the Manhattan Institute revealed that
class action litigation has become a blight on the reputations and
economic outlooks of Madison County and Illinois:

     (1) class actions continue to be filed at a rate highly
         disproportionate to Madison County's population;

     (2) most of the class actions are filed on behalf of multi-state
         or nationwide classes;

     (3) nearly all the Madison County class actions involved non-
         Madison County defendants;

     (4) the Madison County class action docket continues to be
         monopolized by a small cadre of plaintiff's counsel;

     (5) the court docket in Madison County reflects a strategy of
         filing separate cases attacking multiple companies in a single
         industry, with each lawsuit challenging the same industry-wide
         practice.

"Class action abuse is more than simply a county or even a state
concern, but an issue of national importance," said Mr. Beisner.  "We
cannot allow one rogue county to set the pace for class action lawsuits
nationwide, thereby undermining Illinois and other states' ability to
effectively adjudicate class action lawsuits."

For more information, contact Kevin Kutz for the Illinois Coalition for
Class Action Reform by Phone: 1-312-596-3451


MICROTUNE INC.: Intends To Ask For Dismissal of Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. plans to ask the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from August 4, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Douglas J. Bartek, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Everett Rogers, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer,
         Vice President of Finance and Administration and current Vice
         President of Investor Relations, and

     (3) several investment banking firms that served as underwriters
         of the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit allege liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement
for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (i) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

    (ii) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their customers
         to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits challenging over 180 other initial public offerings conducted
in 1998, 1999, and 2000.  These cases are subject to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and have been coordinated
before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of
New York.

The Company believes that the allegations against it are without merit,
and intends to contest them vigorously, including by filing a motion to
dismiss these cases.


NTL INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
NTL, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of NTL, Inc. (NYSE: NLI) between August 9,
2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive.  The suit is pending against the
Company and:

     (1) George S. Blumenthal,

     (2) J. Barclay Knapp,

     (3) Steven Carter and

     (4) John F. Gregg

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 August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The Company does not know of any facts that would support these
allegations.


SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Securities Fraud Suits Stacking Up in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seebeyond Technology Corporation faces several securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and several of its officers and
directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between December 10, 2001 and April 22, 2002 and between April 23, 2001
and April 22, 2002.

The actions generally allege that during the class periods, defendants
made false statements about the Company's operating results and
business, while concealing material information.

The complaints also allege the Company made positive but false
statements about its results and business, while concealing material
adverse information about customers pushing out orders.  As a result,
Company stock traded at artificially inflated levels, permitting
defendants to complete a secondary public offering of 8.5 million
shares (plus 1.2 million of an over allotment) for proceeds of $82
million, including 2 million shares sold by the Company's CEO.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit.


STIMSON LUMBER: WA Court Certifies Suit Over Composite Wood Siding
------------------------------------------------------------------
The King County, Washington Superior Court certified for class action
treatment a lawsuit concerning Stimson Lumber Corporation's (Forestex)
Hardboard Siding, a composite wood siding product.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company committed unfair and deceptive
practices in the marketing of Forestex siding, including failure to
disclose concerns regarding its performance and reliability.  Trial is
set for August, 2003.

The lawsuit seeks relief for all owners of buildings with Stimson
Forestex Series 400 or 500 siding in the states of Washington, Oregon,
California, Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Hawaii whose siding was installed
after January 1, 1985.

Property owners can determine whether they have Forestex siding by
asking their builder, checking the manufacturer information stamped on
the back of the siding, or taking a sample to a building supply store.

For more details, contact Paul L. Ahern, Jr. by Phone: 1-206-346-1750
or visit the Website: http://www.stimsonclaims.com


VALOR HEATING: Voluntarily Recalls 730 Fireplaces Over Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Valor Heating Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 730 direct vent wall
mount gas fireplaces.  A design defect in the gas control assembly can
allow main burner gas to prematurely enter the firebox during lighting.  
The ignition of this excess gas can cause the glass window to shatter,
presenting the risk of burns or cuts from broken glass.
        
The Company has received one report of cuts to the consumer's face when
the glass front of the fireplace shattered after excess gas ignited.
        
This recall includes model 837AN (natural gas) and 837AP (propane)
direct vent wall mount fireplaces made in the United Kingdom.  The
fireplaces have a glass front and an imitation wooden log set.  The
"Valor" logo is printed on the bottom front of the fireplace.  The
model number is printed on a plate in the lower control area.
        
Specialty fireplace dealers sold these fireplaces nationwide from
September 1997 through January 2002 for between $1,700 and $2,400.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 866-541-0930 between 8
am and 4:30 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.valorflame.com.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Norplant Side-Effects Suit in MS
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former Norplant user is suing Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, and the Yazoo
City Medical Clinic in Mississippi. The clinic provided her with the
implanted birth-control device then informed her that various
life-altering side-effects she experienced were not the result of the
implant.  She and her attorneys demand trial by jury and damages of
$120 million.

The victim's case came to light in a news briefing published by
Population Research Institute (PRI), an organization dedicated to
ending human rights abuses in family planning programs.  The woman's
husband is also a plaintiff, because he is now deprived of his wife's
society.  Their daughter was conceived in 1996 before the Norplant was
removed, and born prematurely.  This girl suffers serious abnormalities
such as underdeveloped lungs and kidneys, and is also a plaintiff.

The suit, which lists seven counts of wrongdoing, points out that
Norplant directly caused the woman to suffer headaches, dramatic weight
gain, facial, chest and stomach hair growth, constant bleeding, blurred
vision, heart damage, seizures which render her disabled, and other
damage to her mind and body.

The suit states the woman "has been caused to suffer . enormous medical
costs . loss of enjoyment of life and her normal daily activities and
reduction of her life expectancy . She has also suffered a loss of
earnings and her earning capacity."

"Defendants Wyeth and the Yazoo City Medical Clinic, should have known,
and in fact did know, that Norplant potentially causes these and other
drastic side effects . also causes additional serious negative effects
on the physiology and biochemistry of tissues in many women taking
Norplant," the suit also alleges.

The suit notes, too, that the woman sought her attending physician at
the Yazoo clinic to remove the implant but she was informed that "in no
way could her symptoms be attributed to Norplant."  The victim's
"condition only worsened over the years, until her present attending
physician removed the implant; however . she is now permanently
disabled from the accompanying seizures."

The attorneys see this suit as the first step towards a new major class
action against Norplant.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement Agreement in Suits in NY, DE Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
XO Communications, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement in several
class actions filed in New York and Delaware State Courts, alleging
that the members of the Company's board of directors breached certain
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed investments by the
investors, and that the investors aided and abetted the directors with
respect to such alleged breaches.

In July 2002, the Company entered into a settlement agreement pursuant
to which the plaintiff class would dismiss and release all claims and
causes of action in exchange for one of the following:

     (1) if the Forstmann/Telmex Investment closes, the Senior Secured
         Lenders will fund the settlement out of interest payments due
         to them under the Facility; or

     (2) if the Forstmann/Telmex Investment does not close, the
         plaintiff class would share in any recovery received by the
         Company from the investors through a lawsuit or settlement of
         any litigation for breach of the Stock Purchase Agreement.

The settlement is subject to bankruptcy and state court approvals.  
While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable,
management does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these
matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

                         New Security Fraud Cases  
                     
AOL TIME: Johnson & Perkinson Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all those who purchased AOL Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE: AOL-News)
securities during the period April 18, 2001 through August 14, 2002, in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) AOL Time Warner,

     (2) Stephen Case,

     (3) Michael Kelly,

     (4) Richard Parsons and

     (5) Gerald M. Levin

Plaintiff 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 materially false and misleading statements
concerning the synergies derived from the merger of America Online Inc.
and Time Warner, Inc. (the merger) and the Company's prospects and
earnings between April 18, 2001 and August 14, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit further alleges that the Company improperly accounted for as
much as $49 million of advertising revenues, which had the effect of
overstating revenues and artificially inflating the price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Dennis J. Johnson or Jacob B. Perkinson by
Phone: 888-459-7855 or by E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Baxter International, Inc. (NYSE: BAX) from January
24, 2002 through July 18, 2002, inclusive.  Also included are all those
who acquired Company shares through its acquisition of Fusion Medical
Technologies.

The suit alleges that the Company, a diversified healthcare company,
and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and
misleading statements during the class period concerning the business
potential and earnings growth of the Company's BioScience and Renal
divisions.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company failed to disclose that
these divisions were experiencing serious problems because demand for
products sold by the Renal Division had slowed and the BioScience
division was suffering from capacity constraints and a saturated
market.

On July 18, 2002, the Company announced 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 value of certain of the Company's investments.

On this news, the price dropped 36.5% to $32 per share from the
previous day's close of $43.41 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Bellsouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) between January 22, 2001 and July
19, 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 the Company's securities.

During the class period, defendants announced several quarters of
"record" financial results and growth even though the market of
telecommunications had been drastically declining.  The suit alleges
that the Company was ultimately forced to reveal that the financial
prospects for the Company were far from the Company's representations.

The suit further alleges that the Company had been accounting for
advertising and publishing revenues, ostensibly related to the
performance of services for non-billed customers (phantom customers),
and of that revenue, $163 million would be have to be reversed.

On July 22, 2002, defendants disclosed that the Company's earnings had
declined by 67% for the second quarter of 2002.  Declining economic
conditions in Central and Latin America had a negative effect on the
Company's earnings and profitability, as reported by the Company.  The
July 22, 2002 news resulted in Company stock decreased by over 18% to
$22 per share on trading volumes of over 18 million shares traded, a
large increase from the Company's average trading volumes of about 4.3
million shares.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
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 Bellsouth.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against
HealthSouth Corp. (NYSE:HRC) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Company securities during the period from January 14,
2002 and August 26, 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.

The complaint alleges, that during the class period, the defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance and repeatedly assured the market that the Company would
meet its financial targets for the year 2002.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because 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
adverse facts in order to allow certain defendants to sell million of
dollars of shares of the Company's stock at artificially inflated price
and so that the company could commence a $998 million note offer.

On August 27, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
the Company's 2002 earnings would lower than previously projected. As a
result of this news Company stock dropped more than 43% close at $6.71

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 800-889-3701 by E-
mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against HealthSouth
Corp. (NYSE:HCR) and three of its senior officers on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 14, 2002 through
August 27, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

The suit alleges that during the class period defendants failed to
disclose the impact to the Company of certain Medicaid/Medicare
reimbursement policies on outpatient therapy.  The complaint asserts
that defendants were aware as of the beginning of the class period that
the federal agency responsible for administering healthcare
reimbursements required services provided to two or more patients at a
single time to be billed as "group" therapy service at a lower rate
rather than as separate "individual" services at higher aggregate
rates.

This federal policy had been in place since the mid-1990s and yet
defendants failed to disclose, or to factor into the Company's publicly
disseminated projections, the impact of that policy.  The federal
agency further confirmed its policies in bulletins and directives dated
May 17, 2002 and July 1, 2002.

At the same time as defendants were disseminating materially false and
misleading financial information, the Company's CEO and the Chairman of
the Board of Directors, Richard M. Scrushy divested approximately 7.7
million shares (75% of his holdings) of Company stock and options, for
a profit of more than $50 million.

The true facts began to be disclosed on August 27, 2002 when the
Company announced that the federal reimbursement rates would result in
a decline in pro forma earnings of $175 million a year, and that it was
withdrawing its earnings guidance for 2002 and 2003, as a result of
changes in Medicare reimbursements for group outpatient therapy.

The Company's announcement of a $175 million shortfall in EBITDA caused
its common stock to plummet to a closing price of $6.71 per share on
August 27, 2002, down $5.26 per share or 43.9 % from its closing price
of $11.97 the day before the announcement. The stock continued to fall
and on August 28, 2002, closed at $5.05, hitting a 3-year low.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9620 or 877-370-7703 by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com  


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Commences AL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against HealthSouth
Corporation (NYSE:HRC), and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
on behalf of purchasers of HealthSouth securities, between December 12,
2001 and August 27, 2002.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: the French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York NY 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wync.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on
behalf of purchasers of Household International, Inc. (NYSE: HI)
publicly traded securities between October 23, 1997 and August 14,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its senior officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making misstatements and/or omissions of material facts in the
Company's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and otherwise.  Household is principally a non-operating holding
company engaged in three reportable segments: consumer, credit card
services and international.

The consumer segment includes consumer lending, mortgage services,
retail services and auto finance businesses.  The credit card services
include the domestic MasterCard and Visa credit card business.  The
Company's international segment includes foreign operations in the
United Kingdom and Canada.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements by, among other things, failing to properly amortize the
Company's co-branding agreements, and failing to record its expenses
associated with its marketing initiatives.

In addition, the defendants improperly "re-aged" the Company's
accounts, thereby concealing the Company's actual delinquency ratios.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in AZ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Insight Enterprises,
Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) securities between April 26, 2002 and July 17,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona.  The complaint names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Eric J. Crown (co-founder of the Company, Chairman of the
         Board of Directors and member of the Executive Committee of
         the Board of Directors),

     (2) Timothy A. Crown (co-founder of Insight, Chief Executive
         Officer, Director, and member of the Executive Committee of
         the Board of Directors), and

     (3) Stanley Laybourne (Chief Financial Officer, Secretary,
         Treasurer and Director)

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

On April 25, 2002, after the close of the market, defendants issued
Insight's First Quarter 2002 earnings press release for the three
months ended March 31, 2002 and held a conference call with analysts.
The press release touted the company's accomplishments.

During the conference call on April 25, 2002, defendants stated that
Insight expected to see substantial growth in sales in the Second
Quarter of 2002, the three months which began April 1, 2002, to between
$720 million and $760 million with Second Quarter earnings growing to
between $0.31 and $0.35 per share. The response from the market to
defendants' statements was dramatic. The per share price of Insight
common stock jumped 26% from a close of $21.30 on April 25, 2002 to a
close of $26.46 on April 26, 2002.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, Insight, already one month into the
Second Quarter of 2002, was suffering from undisclosed adverse facts
which were negatively impacting its revenues and profits and which
would cause it to reverse it sequential growth pattern and report
earnings per share for the Second Quarter that, at best, would be flat
compared to the First Quarter reported in 2002 earnings per share and
significantly below the $0.31 to $0.35 cents defendants told the market
they were expecting for the Second Quarter of 2002.

The truth regarding Insight was not fully disclosed until July 17,
2002, when defendants finally revealed that Insight anticipated Second
Quarter earnings per share in the range of only $0.26 and $0.29, flat
with the prior year's quarter and the First Quarter of 2002. The press
release blamed the lower results on operating losses in its UK
operations caused by reduced sales and a lower gross profit percentage.
The press release also stated that the president and chief operating
officer of the UK operations had resigned.

In response to the surprise negative announcement on July 17, 2002,
after the close of the market, the price of Insight common stock
dropped precipitously, falling from $23.74 per share on July 17, 2001
to close at $13.36 per share on July 18, 2002, a decline of almost 44%,
on volume of 12 million Insight shares.

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


MARTHA STEWART: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of its client in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased
the securities of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (Nasdaq:MSO)
during the period from May 6, 2002, through August 8, 2002.  The suit
names the Company and its founder, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairperson, Martha Stewart as defendants.

The plaintiff alleges in the class action that during the class period
Martha Stewart, both directly and through representatives, speaking for
herself and in her capacity as the CEO of MSO, made materially false
and misleading statements about the circumstances surrounding her sales
of approximately 4000 shares of ImClone Systems, Inc. common stock on
December 27, 2001. Those shares were sold immediately prior to
ImClone's announcement on December 28, 2001 of an adverse FDA ruling
which threw ImClone's common stock into a free-fall.

Specifically, Ms. Stewart misrepresented that notwithstanding her close
personal relationship with Sam Waksal, the Chairman and CEO of ImClone,
her sales of ImClone common share on December 27, 2001 were not based
on material non-public information, but rather on a pre-existing
agreement with her broker to sell her ImClone shares if they fell below
$60 per share.

The complaint alleges that Ms. Stewart's statements were made in an
effort to escape legal scrutiny and to assure MSO investors that
neither Ms. Stewart nor MSO would be embroiled in the burgeoning
ImClone insider trading scandal.

The suit alleges that once Ms. Stewart chose to speak on the subject of
her sales of ImClone shares, she had a legal duty to the public
shareholders of MSO to speak the whole truth.  The suit alleges that
Ms. Stewart failed to speak the truth; rather, it was revealed on
August 9, 2002, at the end of the class period, that she sold her
ImClone common shares only after being informed by her stockbroker on
December 27, 2001 of material non-public information that Sam Waksal
and members of his family had sold or were seeking to sell large
holdings of ImClone common stock, which was causing a significant
decline in the trading price of ImClone common shares on December 27,
2001.

According to the complaint, at the end of the class period it was
revealed that Ms. Stewart and her broker had concocted the story that
the sales were based on a pre-existing agreement in an effort to avoid
legal scrutiny of those sales.  

Contrary to Ms. Stewart's assurances to MSO investors, the suit alleges
that Ms. Stewart's conduct, both before and during the class period,
has exposed her to insider trading and obstruction of justice charges,
with ruinous consequences to her company.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or R. Joseph Barton by Phone:
888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by Fax: 202-408-4609 by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or jbarton@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cmht.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Exodus Communications, Inc. (formerly
Nasdaq: EXDS) common stock during the period between December 8, 1999
and June 19, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Henry Blodget
urged investors to purchase Company stock when defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that such purchases were not a good investment.
The complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Exodus without any rational
         economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

Between March 24, 2000 and September 26, 2001, Exodus stock dropped
from approximately $173.32 per share to less than $1 dollar per share.  
During this time period, Merrill Lynch repeatedly reiterated its Near-
Term Buy/Long-Term Buy recommendation.  After the Nasdaq suspended
trading in Exodus common stock on April 26, 2001, Exodus voluntarily
de-listed from NASDAQ and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly
thereafter.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Exodus Communications,
Inc. (EXDS) common stock between December 8, 1999 and June 19, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Henry Blodget
urged investors to purchase Exodus stock when defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that such purchases were not a good investment.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Exodus without any rational
         economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

Between March 24, 2000 and September 26, 2001, Company stock dropped
from approximately $173.32 per share to less than $1 dollar per share.  
During this time period, Merrill Lynch repeatedly reiterated its Near-
Term Buy/Long-Term Buy recommendation.  After the Nasdaq suspended
trading in Exodus common stock on April 26, 2001, Exodus voluntarily
de-listed from Nasdaq and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly
thereafter.

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: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


PEMSTAR INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against PEMSTAR,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PMTR), and certain of its officers and directors was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between June
8, 2001 and May 3, 2002.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the stock.  

For more details, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com


SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Level 3 Communications,
Inc. (Nasdaq: LVLT) common stock between January 4, 1999 and June 18,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Jack Grubman and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. urged investors to purchase
Level 3 stock when they knew or should have known that such purchases
were not a good investment.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants:

      (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Level 3 without any
          rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:
LVLT) common stock during the period between January 4, 1999 and June
18, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Jack Grubman and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. urged investors to purchase
Level 3 stock when they knew or should have known that such purchases
were not a good investment.

The complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Level 3 without any
         rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-
9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action against Vivendi Universal and certain of its officers and
directors (NYSE:V) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company securities between Oct. 30, 2000 and Aug. 13,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants made misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact, including the following:

     (1) Misstating the Company'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 acquisition of U.S. Filter, the equity investment in
         Elektrim Telekomunikacja, and 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); and

     (4) Failing to disclose that Vivendi had significant off-balance-
         sheet liabilities, including undisclosed sales of put options
         on tens of millions of dollars worth of Vivendi shares during
         2001.

During the class period, defendants' false statements artificially
inflated Vivendi ADRs to as high as $75.00 per ADR.  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, Mr. Messier reassured the market that liquidity was not a
problem.  However, as ratings agencies continued to downgrade the
Company's debt, the ADRs and ordinary shares 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, Mr. Messier was forced to
resign.

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


XCEL ENERGY: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Xcel Energy, Inc. (NYSE:XEL)
between January 31, 2001 to July 26, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's financial performance and the financial
performance of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG), the Company's majority-owned
subsidiary caused its stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

The suit alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9161
or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail to info@glancylaw.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  * * *