CAR_Public/020912.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, September 12, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 181

                           Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Eight Pending Energy Fraud Suits Moved To S.D. CA
AON CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Dialyzer Deaths for Undisclosed Amount
BICO INC.: Reaches $3.45M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement in W.D. PA
BIG 5: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Overtime Wage Suit Settlement

CMS ENERGY: Response Deadline to Securities Suits in MI Extended
CMS ENERGY: Faces Two Employee Suits For ERISA Violations in E.D. MI
COMCAST CORP.: At Home Investment Suits Stayed, Consolidated in CA, NY
CREDIT CARDS: Trial in Retailers Antitrust Suit To Start August 2003
DIRECT MERCHANTS: Customer Satisfaction Guarantee Program Commences

LEISERV INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes in E.D. MO
METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Ephedra-related Lawsuits
MOTOROLA INC.: Cellphone Tumor Correlative Studies Key in $800 MM Suit
SENIOR CARE: Approached To Join Suit V. Naked Securities Short Sellers
ST. JUDE: Faces Consumer Suits Over Products With Silzone Coating in MN

SUNRISE POWER: Faces Representative Taxpayer Suit Pending in N.D. CA
WESBANCO INC.: Faces American Bancorporation Retirement Plan Suit in WV

                      New Security Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
AON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in GA
CAPITAL ONE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in VA

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in MO
CONCORD EFS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
CROSS MEDIA: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
FLEMING COMPANIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in AL

HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
HPL TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
OHSL: Gene Mesh Commences Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. OH

PEMSTAR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in MN Court

                            *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Eight Pending Energy Fraud Suits Moved To S.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight class actions against Allegheny Energy Supply Company LLC were
conditionally transferred to the Untied States District Court for the
Southern District of California as "tag-along cases" to an existing
multi-district litigation proceeding.

The suits were commenced in the second quarter of 2002 in the Superior
Court of California seeking unspecified amounts of damages against
various defendants, including the Company alleging violations of
California's Cartwright Act and California's unfair business practices
statute.  These lawsuits were later removed by the defendants to the US
District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of California.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits at this time.


AON CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 4, 1999 and August 6, 2002.  The suits name as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) Patrick G. Ryan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and

     (2) Harvey N. Medvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
         Officer

The suits contain allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Although the suits' ultimate outcome cannot be ascertained and
liabilities in indeterminate amounts may be imposed on the Company, it
is the opinion of management that the disposition or ultimate
determination of such claims will not have a material adverse effect on
the consolidated financial position of the Company.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Dialyzer Deaths for Undisclosed Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. settled anew two cases of deaths related to
its flawed kidney dialysis filters, the Associated Press reported
recently, citing the Omaha World-Herald.

Spokeswoman Tanya Tyska did not reveal the amount given to the families
of the two Nebraskans.  She also did not identify the two patients,
whose death were linked to the flawed filter manufactured by Baxter
International Inc.  The two received dialysis treatments on August 11,
2001, at the Overland Trail dialysis center in Kearney.  One died that
day, the report says.

More than 50 deaths worldwide have been reported among patients using
Baxter dialyzers, which help remove waste from the blood of patients
with failed kidneys.  A chemical residue in the filters appeared to
have played a role in many of the deaths, Baxter has said.  In a recent
out-of-court settlement, Baxter paid families of 10 kidney patients who
died in Spain $289,000 each.

Baxter, based in suburban Chicago, has already recalled and ceased
manufacturing these dialyzers.


BICO INC.: Reaches $3.45M Securities Fraud Suit Settlement in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bico, Inc. agreed to settle for $3.45 million a class action suit filed
against it, Diasense, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit alleged misleading disclosures in connection with the
Noninvasive Glucose Sensor and other related activities, which the
Company denies.

Without agreeing to the alleged charges or acknowledging any liability
or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit.  As of
December 31, 2001, the Company owed $425,000 for this settlement.

In May 2002, the parties agreed to extend the payments on the remaining
balance plus a forbearance fee of $25,000.  Payments totaling $200,000
were made in the six months ended June 30, 2002.  The remaining balance
of $250,000 at June 30, 2002 is due by August 30,2002.

Subsequent to June 30, 2002, the Company made payments of $150,000 in
July and August 2002.  Payment is necessary in order to satisfy the
terms of the settlement.  The class action has been settled, subject to
court approval on September 3, 2002.   If the court approves the
settlement and the Company's final two payments of $50,000 each are
made, the Company believes this will end this matter.


BIG 5: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in Los Angeles granted final approval to
a joint settlement proposed by Big 5 Corporation to settle the class
action charging it with violations of the California Labor Code and
the Business and Professions Code.

This complaint was brought as a purported class action with two
subclasses comprised of the Company's California store managers and the
Company's California first assistant store managers.  The plaintiffs
alleged that the Company improperly classified its store managers and
first assistant store managers as exempt employees not entitled to
overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week.

On August 1, 2002, the court granted final approval of a joint
settlement.  The settlement constitutes a full and complete settlement
and release of all claims related to the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $32.46 per
week of active employment as store manager from August 8, 1997 through
December 31, 2001, the covered period, and $25.50 per week of active
employment as first assistant store manager during the covered period
to each class member who submits a valid and timely claim form.

The Company also agreed to pay attorneys' fees, plus costs and
expenses, in the amount of $690,000, as well as up to $40,000 for the
cost of the settlement administrator.  In addition, the Company agreed
to pay the class representatives an additional aggregate amount of
$28,500 for their service as named plaintiffs.  The Company admitted no
liability or other wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in
the lawsuit.


CMS ENERGY: Response Deadline to Securities Suits in MI Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy, Inc. faces eighteen separate securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court in Michigan, naming the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suits allege violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  These complaints generally seek unspecified damages
based on allegations that the defendants violated United States
securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false and
misleading statements about the Company's business and financial
condition.

The Company's counsel has obtained an extension of the time to respond
to these claims until mid-September.  Prior to that date the cases will
be consolidated into a single lawsuit.


CMS ENERGY: Faces Two Employee Suits For ERISA Violations in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy, Inc. faces two separate class actions filed in July 2002 on
behalf of the participants and beneficiaries of the CMS Employees'
Savings and Incentive Plan in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

One action names the Company, Consumers Energy Company and CMS
Marketing Services and Trading Company as defendants.  The other suit
names the Company, Consumers, and other alleged fiduciaries are
defendants in the other.  The complaints allege various counts arising
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Company labels the suits "without merit" and intends to vigorously
oppose them.


COMCAST CORP.: At Home Investment Suits Stayed, Consolidated in CA, NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation faces several class actions filed against it as a
result of alleged conduct with respect to its investment in and
distribution relationship with At Home Corporation.  At Home was a
provider of high-speed Internet access and content services, which
filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2001.

The filed actions are:

     (1) class action lawsuits against the Company, Brian L. Roberts
         (the Company's President and a director), AT&T (the former
         controlling shareholder of At Home and also a former
         distributor of the At Home service) and other corporate and
         individual defendants in the Superior Court of San Mateo
         County, California, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty on the
         part of the Company and the other defendants in connection
         with transactions agreed to in March 2000 among At Home, the
         Company, AT&T, Cox Communications, Inc. in At Home and a
         former distributor of the At Home service); and

     (2) class action lawsuits against the Company, AT&T and others in
         the United States District Court for the Southern District of
         New York, alleging securities law violations and common law
         fraud in connection with disclosures made by At Home in 2001.

The actions in San Mateo County, California have been stayed by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California,
the court in which At Home filed for bankruptcy, as violating the
automatic bankruptcy stay.  The plaintiffs have submitted an amended
complaint to the Bankruptcy Court, which is expected to decide in
September 2002 whether the amended complaint can proceed.

In the Southern District of New York actions, the court has ordered the
actions consolidated into a single action.  It is expected that an
amended consolidated complaint will be served in mid-October 2002.


CREDIT CARDS: Trial in Retailers Antitrust Suit To Start August 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated antitrust class action pending against credit
card giants Mastercard International Incorporation and Visa USA, Inc.
is set to commence on August 28, 2003 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Several suits were initially commenced in October 1996 by a number of
US merchants, including:

     (1) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

     (2) Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc.,

     (3) The Limited Inc. and

     (4) Safeway, Inc.

The suits challenge certain aspects of the payment card industry under
US federal antitrust law.  Those suits were later consolidated.

The plaintiffs challenge MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which ensures universal acceptance for consumers by
requiring merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment
every validly presented MasterCard card.  Plaintiffs claim that
MasterCard and Visa unlawfully have tied acceptance of debit cards to
acceptance of credit cards.

In essence, the merchants desire the ability to reject off-line,
signature-based debit transactions (for example, MasterCard card
transactions) in favor of other payment forms, including on-line, PIN-
based debit transactions (for example, Maestro or regional ATM network
transactions), which generally impose lower transaction costs for
merchants.

The plaintiffs also claim that MasterCard and Visa have conspired to
monopolize what they characterize as the point-of-sale debit card
market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM
payment systems.

Plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff class has been forced to pay
unlawfully high prices for debit and credit card transactions as
a result of the alleged tying arrangement and monopolization
practices.

There are related consumer class actions pending in two state courts
that have been stayed pending developments in this matter.  In
addition, a related case was filed by a merchant in federal district
court in Michigan, alleging antitrust violations arising from a
purported tie of signature-based debit transactions to credit
transactions.  Mastercard is presently evaluating the procedure to have
this case consolidated with the pending action in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, if possible.

MasterCard denies the merchant allegations and believes that the "Honor
All Cards" rule and MasterCard practices with respect to debit card
programs in the United States are pro-competitive and fully consistent
with US federal antitrust law.

On February 22, 2000, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  MasterCard and Visa subsequently appealed the
decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  On October 17, 2001,
a three-judge panel affirmed the lower court decision by a two-to-one
majority.  MasterCard filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
US Supreme Court on April 3, 2002, which was denied on June 6, 2002.

Motions seeking summary judgment have been filed by both sides and
fully briefed in the district court.  An argument date for summary
judgment has been set for December 13, 2002 by an order of the court
and a trial date of April 28, 2003 has been set.


DIRECT MERCHANTS: Customer Satisfaction Guarantee Program Commences
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardholders of Direct Merchants Bank, who may qualify as class members
covered by the settlement approved by Minnesota State court Judge Mary
E. Steenson early this year, can now avail of the Customer Satisfaction
Guarantee Program of the bank, according to a notice posted in the Web
site of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

The program is part of the class-wide settlement, which was approved on
May 30.  Current cardholders entitled to participate in the program
fall within the class definition when:

     (1) they believe they have been improperly assessed fees, charges,
         finance charges or interest; or

     (2) their PNC Bank or GE Select credit card account was purchased
         by Direct Merchants and the APR on that account was improperly
         raised.

Under this program, class members will be able to receive between $10
and $70, in the form of a monetary credit to their accounts, to satisfy
their claims against Direct Merchants Bank.

To receive these benefits, class members will need to call this toll-
free number: 1 877-247-8454.  The benefits of this program will be
available to current cardholders for a period of one year on a one-
time, one telephone call basis only.  Therefore, class members should
be prepared at the time of the call to describe all of their
complaints.  No proof is necessary in order for them to raise
concerns or receive benefits through this program.

Once they call, and if they are not satisfied with the proposal made by
the program account specialist, the class members retain the right to
pursue their claim with the small claims court in the state where theyu
reside, or through the arbitration mechanism offered to current Direct
Merchants cardholders.  The choice of forum (small claims court or
arbitration) will be theirs.

For more information about the program or the settlement generally,
visit the website: http://www.creditclaims.comor contact the Claims
Administrator by Phone: 1 877-858-7887.

This suit stems from a consumer lawsuit filed on May 24, 2000 in
Minnesota state court.  Cardholders alleged that Direct Merchants Bank
engaged in a series of overly aggressive, sharp, and unlawful business
practices that harmed cardholders nationwide.  The complaint was
amended on July 7, 2000, and again on January 28, 2002.

Plaintiffs challenged defendants' practices with respect to, among
other things, fee-based products and services, late fees, overlimit
fees, cash advance checks, balance transfers, and annual percentage
rates.

Judge Steenson certified as class all people who reside in the United
States and who, from January 1, 1995 through February 1, 2002,
inclusive:

     (i) Were assessed a fee, charge, finance charge, or interest for
         the purchase of a fee-based service or product in connection
         with a credit card issued by Direct Merchants Credit Card
         Bank;

    (ii) Were assessed a late fee, charge, finance charge, or interest
         with respect to a "late payment" in connection with a credit
         card issued by Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank;

   (iii) Were assessed an overlimit fee, charge, finance charge, or
         interest with respect to an account that Defendants placed in
         an overlimit status in connection with a credit card issued by
         Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank;

    (iv) Were assessed a fee, charge, finance charge, or interest in
         connection with an account where the cardholder did not
         activate the credit card issued by Direct Merchants Credit
         Card Bank;

     (v) Were assessed a fee, charge, finance charge, or interest in
         connection with an account after the cardholder requested
         closure of the credit card issued by Direct Merchants Credit
         Card Bank;

    (vi) Were assessed a fee, charge, finance charge, or interest in
         connection with any balance transfer, convenience check or
         cash advance issued by Defendants to a credit cardholder of a
         credit card issued by Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank;

   (vii) Were assessed a fee for the purchase of ServiceEdge and who
         made a claim to Defendants for ServiceEdge benefits; or

  (viii) Had their credit card account from PNC Bank or GE Select
         purchased by Defendants and whose APR on a credit card issued
         by Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank was then increased either
         without their having received a written notice from Defendants
         explicitly stating that the APR would be increased and the
         amount of the increase or new APR, or as a result of penalty
         pricing for their failure to make payments.

The court held a final approval hearing on May 30, 2002.  The last day
to request exclusion from (opt out of) the proposed Settlement Class
and the last day to submit any written objection to the proposed
settlement was April 30, 2002.  The last day to submit a claim form
(for former cardholders only) was July 28, 2002.  Current cardholders
may resolve complaints through the program described above.

As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed to modify or cease certain
business practices, offer certain free products, services or benefits
to former cardholders or ServiceEdge members who are not current
cardholders, and offer participation in a "Customer Satisfaction
Guarantee Program" to current cardholders, in which current cardholders
may resolve the complaints, including for monetary credits in an amount
between $10 and $70.  The program will be in place for a period of one
year from its commencement date of September 4, 2002.


LEISERV INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes in E.D. MO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leiserv, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, for alleged violations of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, on behalf of all people and entities within two area codes in
the St. Louis area who allegedly received unsolicited faxes from the
Company.  The Company later removed the case to federal court.

Because this case remains in the early stages of litigation and raises
legal issues that have not yet been fully resolved by the courts, the
Company is unable to predict the potential outcome of this matter.


METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Ephedra-related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metabolife International, whose dietary supplement, Metabolife 356, has
been blamed for various heart ailments, heaved a sigh of relief last
week after a plaintiff agreed to withdraw his suit and settle for
money.

James Livsey, whose suit was supposed to go to trial Friday, settled
his claims with the company, according to his lawyer Jim Frantz, who
refused to divulge details of the settlement.  Mr. Frantz, however,
said the legal action against the company "is far from over," as his
firm has 10 more clients preparing suits against Metabolife.

Mr. Livsey had alleged he suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage
after taking a Metabolife dietary supplement about three years ago.

TheSanDiegoChannel.com says another case is scheduled to go to trial on
November.  Mary Pettitt, a Bakersfield woman in her 50s, claims she
suffered permanent heart damage and will be on medication the rest of
her life after taking a Metabolife product.  A suit filed by Florence
LoSacco, scheduled to go to trial in January, claims the defendant's
pills gave her a stroke.

The report says the key ingredient of the dietary supplement,
Metabolife 356, is "ephedra," which the US Food and Drug Administration
associates with high blood pressure, irregular heart beat, heart
attack, and stroke.  The FDA, however, concedes that there's been
little research on ephedra.

In an interview in Friday's San Diego Daily Transcript, Metabolife
President and Chief Executive Officer David Brown said his company's
products are safe and have been unfairly criticized by the FDA and the
media.  He said the facts are being lost because of focus on
sensational aspects of the story.


MOTOROLA INC.: Cellphone Tumor Correlative Studies Key in $800 MM Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Inc. could face a number of lawsuits in the coming months if a
district judge in Baltimore decides to allow a suit against it to move
ahead by admitting in evidence a new study linking cell phones and
brain tumors, the Associated Press says.

The suit filed by Dr. Christopher Newman, who developed a cancerous
brain tumor behind his right ear, is scheduled for disposal at the
chamber of US District Court Judge Catherine Blake by month's end.  At
issue is whether or not the suit should go to trial and if so, whether
the new study can be used as evidence.  Allowing the case to move
forward will open the floodgates for similar suits against cell phone
manufacturers and mobile-phone carriers, the report says.

Dr. Newman is seeking $800 million in damages against Motorola Inc.,
Verizon and other wireless carriers, the report says.  He claims the
analog cell phones he used from 1992 to 1998 caused his brain tumor,
which left him permanently disabled when removed.  Aside from being
blind in his left eye, he also suffers from memory loss and slowed
speech and can no longer work, lawyers claim.

Until recently, many studies have found no cancer risk from cell phone
use.  However, a new study conducted by Swedish oncologist Lennart
Hardell, who testified against Motorola in evidence hearings in
February, claims that long-term users of old-fashioned analog cell
phones were at least 30 percent more likely than nonusers to develop
brain tumors.  His research was published in the latest European
Journal of Cancer Prevention.

The report says Mr. Hardell studied 1,617 patients with brain tumors
and compared them with a similar-sized group of people without tumors.
He found that patients who used Sweden's Nordic Mobile telephones were
30 percent more likely to have brain tumors, especially on the side of
the head that touched the phone most often.  Those who used the phones
longer than 10 years were 80 percent more likely to develop tumors.

Motorola lawyer Norman Sandler belittles Mr. Hardell's study, claiming
that a new research published last month by the International Journal
of Radiation Research has effectively debunked a study in 1997 that
showed cell phones could cause tumors.  He also questioned Mr.
Hardell's theory that tumors are more apt to develop near the ear that
touches the receiver most often.

"His testimony raises significant questions about recall bias," he
said.  "Do people who used the phones 10 years ago really remember what
side of the head they used?"

Cell phone users in the US currently number 97 million.  The Food and
Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, which
together regulates the industry, declined to comment on Mr. Hardell's
study.  The FDA Web site, however, has this to say, "The available
scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are
associated with using wireless phones.  There is no proof, however,
that wireless phones are absolutely safe."

Cell phones generate radio waves at a frequency between microwave ovens
and television signals but are non-ionizing, making them less dangerous
than other types of radiation.  By contrast, ionizing electromagnetic
energy, such as those found in X-rays, is known to permanently damage
tissue, the report says.


SENIOR CARE: Approached To Join Suit V. Naked Securities Short Sellers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Care (OTCBB:SENC) has been approached to join a class action
against naked short sellers, a Company statement asserts.  Bob Coberly,
vice president, stated that a number of shareholders have complained
that they cannot obtain share certificates from their brokers when they
purchase Company stock. Company management was approached by executives
of other OTC companies who have experienced a similar problem.

Without naming those companies, Mr. Coberly did say that Company
management would join at least six other OTC companies to seek an
injunction against the most offensive market makers in the group of
alleged naked short sellers.

"We believe the short sellers are responsible for Senior Care stock
trading at 8 cents per share when our book value is over 50 cents per
share," Mr. Coberly stated.  Reiterating his statements of yesterday,
Mr. Coberly went on to say that he would not name the specific market
makers but did say that the company's attorneys have already informed
them that they should cease and desist immediately from this practice.

He also again urged Senior Care shareholders to call for delivery of
their shares.  This is the most potent way of stopping naked short
selling, he said, and will assure that such practices do not continue.

For more details, contact Robert Coberly or Mervyn Phelan, Sr. by
Phone: 949-376-3125 or 949-376-3125 by Fax: 949-376-9117 or by E-mail:
merv@seniorcareind.com


ST. JUDE: Faces Consumer Suits Over Products With Silzone Coating in MN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces several class actions filed, alleging
defects in the Company's mechanical heart valves and valve repair
products with Silzone(R) coating.  Some of these cases are seeking
monitoring of patients implanted with Silzone(R)-coated valves and
repair products who allege no injury to date.

The Company voluntarily recalled products with Silzone(R) coating on
January 21, 2000, and sent a Recall Notice and Advisory concerning the
recall to physicians and others.

In 2001, the US Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ruled that
certain lawsuits filed in US federal district court involving products
with Silzone(R) coating should be part of Multi-District Litigation
proceedings under the supervision of US District Court Judge John
Tunheim in Minnesota.

As a result, actions involving products with Silzone(R) coating have
been and will likely continue to be transferred to Judge Tunheim for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  There are other
actions involving products with Silzone(R) coating in various state
courts that may or may not be coordinated with the matters presently
before Judge Tunheim.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these cases, the
Company believes that it has adequate product liability insurance to
cover the costs associated with them.  The Company further believes
that any costs not covered by product liability insurance will not have
a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
liquidity, but may be material to the consolidated results of
operations of a future period.


SUNRISE POWER: Faces Representative Taxpayer Suit Pending in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Power Company faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, by James M.
Millar, "individually, and on behalf of the general public and as a
representative taxpayer suit" against sellers of long-term power to the
California Department of Water Resources, including the Company.

The lawsuit, originally filed in Superior Court of the State of
California, City and County of San Francisco, alleges that the
defendants, including the Company, engaged in unfair and fraudulent
business practices by knowingly taking advantage of a manipulated power
market to obtain unfair contract terms.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin
enforcement of the "unfair and oppressive terms and conditions" in the
contracts, as well as restitution by the defendants of excessive monies
obtained by the defendants.

Plaintiffs in several other class action lawsuits pending in Northern
California have filed petitions seeking to have the suit consolidated
with those lawsuits.  The defendants in the Millar lawsuit and other
class action suits removed all the lawsuits to the US District Court,
Northern District of California, and filed a motion to stay all
proceedings pending final resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

Various plaintiffs have filed pleadings opposing the removal and
requesting that the matters be remanded to state court.  The motions
are still pending.  The Company believes that the outcome of this
litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position or results of operations.


WESBANCO INC.: Faces American Bancorporation Retirement Plan Suit in WV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesbanco, Inc. faces a class action filed against American
Bancorporation, which it acquired in a merger in March 2002, pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.  The Company has essentially become substituted as the
principal defendant in this suit by reason of the merger.

The suit was filed against American Bancorporation by certain
beneficiaries of the American Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement
Plan seeking to challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used
by the outside Plan Administrator in determining benefits under the
Plan which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit
accruals, some years ago.

The Plan had been the subject of a predecessor action in a case styled
American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v. McKain, Civil Action
No. 5:93-CV-110, which was also litigated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

The McKain case resulted in an order entered by the District Court on
September 22, 1995, which directed American Bancorporation to follow a
specific method for determining retirement benefits under the Plan.
American Bancorporation has asserted that they have calculated the
benefits in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 District Court
Order.

The purported class of plaintiffs now assert that they are not bound by
the 1995 District Court Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination.  The
district court in the current case has substantially limited the class
of plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals and has
granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the scope
and extent of the underlying case.

It is not believed that the case presents any material risk of exposure
to the Company though, as with any litigation matter, there are
uncertainties in the outcome of the proceeding which cannot be
determined with any degree of certainty.

                        New Security Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of American
Express Company (NYSE:AXP) between July 18, 1999 and July 17, 2001,
inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and seeks to recover damages.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made misstatements and omissions of material
fact, including failing to disclose that the Company was investing in a
risky portfolio of high-yield or "junk" bonds with ratings as low as
"single-B" that carried the potential for substantial losses if default
rates in the junk bond market increased, failing to disclose the true
extent of American Express's total exposure as a result of the
foregoing after American Express wrote down $182 million of its junk
bond portfolio in April 2001, and failing to disclose that American
Express was taking a substantial and unnecessary risk by investing in
high-yield securities involving complex risk factors that American
Express management and personnel did not fully comprehend.

The complaint further alleges that after the full truth regarding
American Express's unnecessarily risky and imprudent investment
strategy began to become known to the market on July 18, 2001 when
American Express announced a surprise charge against earnings of $826
million, its third consecutive write-down of high-yield or "junk"
bonds, American Express stock traded as low as $37.17, down from a
class period high of over $62.00.

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


AOL TIME: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of AOL Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE:AOL)
between July 19, 1999 and April 24, 2002, inclusive against the Company
and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 18, 2001 and April 24, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AON CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Aon Corporation (NYSE:AOC) between May
4, 1999 and August 6, 2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   (iii) the SEC had began an investigation of its accounting and was
         questioning several items in the Company's accounts, including
         the reporting of investment write-downs, the timing of some
         costs and a reinsurance recoverable item and the decision not
         to consolidate certain special purpose vehicles.

The Company also stated that, if the SEC says it is necessary, it will
have to restate its earnings for the past three years. Following this
report, shares of Company fell $6.43 per share to close at $14.77 per
share, a one-day decline of 30.3%, on volume of more than 20 million
shares traded, or more than twenty times the average daily volume.

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


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

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial
results and financial growth despite a rapidly deteriorating market for
telecommunications companies.  However, unbeknownst to the investing
public:

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

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

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

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

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


CAPITAL ONE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Capital One Financial Corp. (NYSE:COF) between January 15,
2002 and July 16, 2002 inclusive in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company and:

     (1) Richard D. Fairbank (Company CEO and Chairman),

     (2) Nigel W. Morris (Company President and COO) and

     (3) David M. Willey

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and seeks to recover damages.

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

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

On July 16, 2002, the Company revealed that it had entered into an
agreement with regulators, which required the Company to boost reserves
by $247 million in the second quarter of 2002, tie-up additional
capital and institute infrastructure reforms in order to deal
adequately with its high rate of growth, especially in the subprime
market.

In reaction to the announcement, Company stock plummeted by 39%,
falling from a $50.60 per share close on July 16 to $30.48 per share by
the close of July 17, on extremely heavy trading volume.  During the
class period, as alleged in the complaint, Company insiders, including
defendant Willey, profited by selling a total of over $8.2 million in
Capital One common stock at artificially inflated prices and the
Company undertook a convertible debt offering for $650 million on April
19, 2002.

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


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action against
Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:CHTR) and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period November 9, 1999 through July
17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants 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 revenue and earnings
caused its stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors.

The suit alleges that defendants overstated the Company's revenue,
failed to appropriately account for installation costs and artificially
inflated the number of subscribers for the Company's basic cable
services.

On July 18, 2002, when a Merrill Lynch analyst expressed concerns about
potentially misleading accounting practices, Company stock fell more
than 13%.  Additionally, a subsequent article in Forbes discusses a
Credit Suisse First Boston report that further amplifies these concerns
and describes how the Company handles the impact of "churn" -- labor
and advertising costs -- on the Company's balance sheet, by improperly
capitalizing approximately 30% of its installation labor costs over an
extended time period.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan by Mail: 75 State Street,
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-287-8119 by Fax: 617-439-0134, or by E-
mail: cases@shulaw.com.


CONCORD EFS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Concord EFS, Inc. (NASDAQ:CEFT)
common stock during the period between October 30, 2001 and September
4, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is an electronic transaction processor.  The complaint alleges
that during the class period, the Company and its top officers issued
false and misleading statements and concealed the truth about the
Company's results and business in order to allow the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels.

Defendants repeatedly misrepresented the strength of the Company's
operating performance and its ability to post 30%-35% earnings per
share growth in order to prop up the price of Company stock so that
defendants could complete acquisitions using the Company's stock as
currency and sell off 5.4 million of their own Company shares at prices
as high $32.07 per share, for over $160 million in proceeds.

The truth, however was that the Company's business was not growing as
represented, but rather was suffering from increased costs and
declining margins.  The "record" growth and profits defendants reported
were phony, resulting from the inclusion of non-operating gains in its
results and the exclusion of operating expenses from its reported
results.  These manipulations allowed the Company to report favorable
results despite the fact that its business operations were not as
strong as represented.

Then, on September 5, 2002, the Company shocked the market with news
that its CEO was stepping down and that its 2002 and 2003 earnings
would be much lower than represented.  On this news, Company stock
dropped to $12.60 per share.  Company's stock price has fallen more
than 60% from its class period high of more than $35 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.co


CROSS MEDIA: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action against Cross Media Marketing Corp. and certain of its officers
and directors (ASE:XMM) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between Nov. 5, 2001, and July 11, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and Ronald Altbach, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market during the class period.

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

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

The truth regarding the Company was not fully disclosed until July 12,
2002, when defendants finally revealed that the Company would have a
loss for the second quarter of 2002 and that revenues for the year
would be significantly less than previously predicted.  In reactions to
the July 12 news release and conference call, the common stock price of
the Company dropped drastically, from $6.54 on July 10, to $4.88 on
July 11, to $2.71 on July 12.

For more details, contact 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


FLEMING COMPANIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE: FLM) common stock during the period
between February 27, 2002 and July 30, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that beginning in early 2002, the defendants issued numerous positive
statements regarding the Company's "price-impact" retail supermarket
division.

These statements were made despite the fact that the defendants knew,
or recklessly disregarded, that the performance of the Company's
"price-impact" retail supermarket division was, in the words of the
defendants, "disappointing."

These statements falsely portrayed the Company's business prospects and
artificially inflated and maintained the price of the Company's common
stock.  The defendants capitalized on their false and misleading
statements by:

     (1) lowering the interest rate and extending the maturity on $250
         million of the Company's debt;

     (2) raising over $155 million through the June 13, 2002 sale of 8
         million shares of the Company's common stock at $19.40 per
         share;

     (3) raising an additional $200 million through the June 13, 2002
         sale of Company Notes due 2010; and

     (4) using the proceeds of the June 13, 2002 securities sales to
         complete the purchase of Core-Mark International, Inc. and
         Head Distributing for $330 million in cash -- acquisitions
         described by the defendants as "key" to the Company's
         implementation of its strategic transformation into an
         efficient, national, multi-tier supply chain for consumer
         packaged goods.

Then, approximately six weeks after defendants sold $355 million worth
of Company securities, the Company announced after the close of trading
on July 30, 2002 in an abrupt departure to the repeated and positive
statements made by the defendants during the class period, that its
"price-impact" retail supermarket division was not only performing
poorly, but performing so poorly that the Company was considering
abandoning this line of business entirely.

The price of Company common stock dramatically declined on this
announcement, falling from $15.21 on July 30, 2002 to $13.75 on July
31, 2002, on huge trading volume of 3.9 million shares, and continued
to decline over the next two heavy trading days to a 52-week low of
$10.76 on August 2, 2002.

Since then, the price of Company common stock has never recovered, and
currently trades well below the $19.40 price at which the Company sold
8 million shares to unsuspecting investors on June 13, 2002.

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


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in AL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
HealthSouth Corp. (NYSE:HRC) during the period from January 14, 2002,
through August 26, 2002.

The suit names the Company as a defendant, along with:

     (1) Richard M. Scrushy, its CEO and Chairman of the Board of
         Directors;

     (2) Weston L. Smith, CFO; and

     (3) William T. Owens, President and COO

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

The complaint alleges that the Company and its officers made materially
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material adverse
information about the Company's operations and prospects during the
class period.

In particular, in addition to other facts, the complaint alleges that
the Company misled the market concerning expectations for revenues and
earnings by failing to disclose the impact on its operations of certain
Medicaid reimbursement policies and, thereby, reimbursement rates to
the Company.

Due to facts known to the Company concerning the Medicaid reimbursement
policies and rates, HealthSouth knew throughout the class period that
it was in no position to meet the revenue and earnings guidance it had
given to investors.  Thus, those claims were knowingly or recklessly
made without any reasonable basis.  Meanwhile, during the class period,
HealthSouth insiders, and in particular Mr. Scrushy, sold nearly $100
million worth of HealthSouth stock.

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

For more details, contact David Leifer by Mail: Wechsler Harwood LLP
Shareholder Relations Department re:HealthSouth Corp. 488 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
dleifer@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the stock HPL Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq:HPLAE) securities during the period from July 31, 2001 through
July 16, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a provider of yield optimization software solutions to
enable semiconductor companies to enhance efficiency in the production
process.

On July 31, 2001, the Company completed its initial public offering
(IPO) of 6.9 million shares (including the over allotment) at $11.00
per share, raising net proceeds of $69.1 million.  The IPO was
accomplished pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration Statement filed
with the SEC.  These documents represented that the Company recognized
revenue on sales to distributors only when the distributors sold the
software license or services to their customers.  Later, the Company
reported favorable financial results for the 1stQ, 2ndQ, 3rdQ and 4thQ
of F02.

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

Then, on July 19, 2002, before the markets opened, the Company
disclosed, unexpectedly, that it was investigating accounting
irregularities with respect to revenue recognition on shipments to
distributors in prior quarters and that its CEO had been fired and its
CFO had been reassigned.

On this news, Company stock collapsed 72% to as low as $4 per share,
before trading was halted.

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


HPL TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of HPL Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:HPLAE) securities
between July 31, 2001 and July 18, 2002, inclusive against the Company
and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities.

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

The IPO was accomplished pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration
Statement filed with the SEC.  These documents represented that the
Company recognized revenue on sales to distributors only when the
distributors sold the software license or services to their customers.
Later, the Company reported favorable financial results for the 1stQ,
2ndQ, 3rdQ and 4thQ of F02.

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of CMGI (Nasdaq: CMGI) between March
23, 1999 and October 6, 2000, inclusive against defendants Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star Internet research analyst, First
Vice President Henry M. Blodget who are charged with issuing misleading
analyst reports about CMGI.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading analyst reports
regarding CMGI during the class period.  Based on e-mails and other
internal Merrill Lynch communications, which were made public as a
result of the investigation conducted by the New York State Attorney
General, the suit alleges that defendants failed to disclose a
significant conflict of interest between their investment banking and
research departments.

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

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

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Technology Fund (Nasdaq: TEKAX, TEKBX, TEKCX, TEKDX) shares, of all
four share classes from the public offering for the Fund on September
25, 2000 through July 31, 2002, inclusive against Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co. (MSDW), Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Technology Fund (the
Fund) and others.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and of other federal statutory law. The Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter Technology Fund recently changed its name to the Morgan Stanley
Technology Fund.

The defendants were:

     (1) the underwriters for the common stock of certain of the
         companies in the Technology Fund's portfolio;

     (2) the investment bankers and corporate finance specialists for
         certain of the companies whose securities are in the Fund's
         portfolio;

     (3) seeking to obtain additional investment banking business from
         these present and former clients and from other companies
         whose shares also were/are in the Fund's portfolio;

     (4) the issuers of the shares in the Fund;

     (5) preparing and publicly disseminating research reports and
         recommendations on many of the companies whose shares were in
         the Fund's portfolio; and

     (6) the broker for certain members of the Class.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of
shares in the Fund, and concerns material misstatements and omissions
by defendants in the Prospectus, relating to defendants' conflicts of
interest, which include but are not limited to the following:

     (i) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         that MSDW had had investment banking relationships with,
         including having brought public, certain of the companies
         whose securities were part of the Fund's portfolio.
         Defendants disclosed neither this general fact nor the
         identities of the particular companies with which it had
         investment banking relationships;

    (ii) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         concerning that MSDW was continuing to seek investment banking
         relationships with many of the companies whose securities were
         part of the Fund's portfolio; and

   (iii) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         concerning that a material part of the total compensation paid
         to MSDW research analysts was based upon obtaining investment
         banking business for MSDW and not upon the accuracy of their
         research about a given company.

Hence, MSDW and its affiliated companies including the Fund recommended
investments in and/or invested in companies in order to enhance MSDW's
opportunity to obtain investment banking business from those companies
(without regard to whether they were good investments for the investors
including plaintiffs and the Class).

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


OHSL: Gene Mesh Commences Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Mesh and Associates initiated a securities class action on behalf
of all persons who held OHSL common stock between September 27, 1999
and December 3, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint charges OHSL and its former directors, its then outside
counsel, Provident Financial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:PFGI), its directors,
and its outside counsel with violating the Federal Securities laws,
including the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing materially false
and misleading statements and omitting to state material facts in the
Proxy Materials relating to the merger.

The proxy materials stated, inter alia, that the Company's Board of
Directors had unanimously approved the transaction and believed the
merger with Provident was in the best interest of the Company and its
shareholders.

Instead, it is alleged that the vote was not unanimous in that only 5
of 8 OHSL directors approved the transaction, and that former Company
CEO and director Ken Hanauer never believed that the transaction was in
the best interests of OHSL and its shareholders.

It is further alleged that former OHSL CEO and director Ken Hanauer
voted his personal shares against the transaction, despite Mr. Hanauer
leading the October 25, 1999 Special Meeting of Shareholders to approve
the transaction.

For more details, contact Gene Mesh by Mail: 2605 Burnet Avenue,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45219-2502 by Phone: 513-221-8800 or 888-221-8889 by
E-mail: GeneMesh@aol.com.


PEMSTAR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of PEMSTAR, Inc. (Nasdaq:PMTR) between June 8, 2001 and May 3,
2002 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The action alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Allen J. Berning, and

     (2) William J. Kullback

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants caused the issuance of false and
misleading statements.

In particular, the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
Secondary Offering and other public statements were materially false
and misleading when issued, as they misrepresented and/or omitted one
or more of the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements made not false
and/or misleading.

Principally, in order to attract and maintain the appearance of a
diverse customer base, the Company:

     (i) executed orders from customers without industry track records
         or acceptable financial conditions and which often were on the
         brink of bankruptcy; and

    (ii) had an extremely liberal policy of accepting and holding
         inventory for and from existing and prospective customers
         (often without ever obtaining a written contract), increasing
         its costs and forcing it to write down obsolete inventory.

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

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

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


                              *********

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  * * *