CAR_Public/020925.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Wednesday, September 25, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 190

                              Headlines
                   
ARCHER DANIELS: Summary Judgment on Antitrust Suit Reversed on Appeal
ARCHER DANIELS: Antitrust Suits in California Coordinated in one Court
ARCHER DANIELS: Alabama Court Nixes Corn Syrup Price-fixing Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: Lysine Antitrust Settlement in Canada Awaits Court Nod
ARCHER DANIELS: Unjust Enrichment Case Remains Undecided by Alabama SC

ARCHER DANIELS: 7-year-old Antitrust Suit in WV Remains Undecided
ARCHER DANIELS: Plaintiffs in D.C. Suit Want to Conduct More Discovery
ARCHER DANIELS: Class Certification in Kansas Suit Still Unresolved
ARCHER DANIELS: Class Certification on Nucleotides Suits Set for 2003
ARCHER DANIELS: $1.25 Million MSG Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval

ARCHER DANIELS: MSG Monopoly Lawsuits in California Consolidated
ARCHER DANIELS: Has Pending MSG Monopoly Suit in Massachusetts
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Kansas for Fixing MSG Price
DOW CORNING: Judge Awards Government Refund for Breast Implant Expenses
FIDELITY GROUP: Fairness Hearing for $1.35 M Settlement Set for October

FLEMING COMPANIES: Deadline for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Nears
HONDA MOTOR: Extends Warranties on Cars with Problematic Transmissions
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls Seven Car Models, Motorcycles for Various Defects
HONG KONG: Cohen Milstein Commences ERISA Lawsuit in New York
LAKES GAMING: RICO Case in Nevada District Court Remains Uncertified

MORGAN STANLEY: Agreements Signed Not To Testify v. Bank Unlawful
PAINT INDUSTRY: Lead Paint Suit in R.I. to Cost Industry Billions
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Sues Andersen, Affiliates for Fraud and $250M Loss
ROYAL DUTCH: Sued in S.D. New York for Various Human Rights Violations
SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Settles 1997 Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Permits Class Action Over Punitive Damages
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Opening of Louisiana Trial Moved to October 2
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Cases Seeking Pay for Forced Labor Still Undecided
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Deems Price-fixing Suit in CA "Immaterial"

                     New Securities Fraud Cases  

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
CONCORD EFS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
CUTTER & BUCK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
FLEMING COMPANIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in E.D. TX
METRIS COMPANIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Minnesota

RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                            *********

ARCHER DANIELS: Summary Judgment on Antitrust Suit Reversed on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company told the Securities and Exchange
Commission recently that it has been named, along with other companies,
as a defendant in thirty-one antitrust suits involving the sale of high
fructose corn syrup in the United States.  

Thirty of these actions have been brought as putative class actions.  
Twenty-two of these putative class actions allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of
high fructose corn syrup, and seek injunctions against continued
alleged illegal conduct, treble damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers
of high fructose corn syrup during certain periods in the 1990s.  These
twenty-two actions have been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois and consolidated under the
caption In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1087 and Master File No. 95-1477.

On April 3, 2001, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
for summary judgment. On August 23, 2001, the Court entered a written
order granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment.  On June
18, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants.
On August 5, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied defendants petitions for
rehearing and rehearing en banc.

Archer Daniels is one of the world's largest processors of oilseeds,
corn, and wheat, according to a Hoovers.com dossier.  About two-thirds
of the company's sales come from soybean, peanut, and other oilseed
products, including vegetable oils, animal feeds, and emulsifiers.  
From corn, it produces syrups, sweeteners, citric acids, and ethanol,
among other items.  ADM also produces flour for bakeries and pasta
makers, and it processes cocoa beans and has a variety of other
business interests, ranging from fish farming to a regional railroad.
It has interests in food processors in Asia, Canada, Europe, South
America, and the US. About one-third of ADM's sales are outside the US.


ARCHER DANIELS: Antitrust Suits in California Coordinated in one Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company, along with other companies, also has
been named as a defendant in seven putative class action antitrust
suits filed in California state court involving the sale of high
fructose corn syrup.

These California actions allege violations of the California antitrust
and unfair competition laws, including allegations that the defendants
agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the
prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seek treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, restitution and other
unspecified relief.

One of the California putative classes comprises certain direct
purchasers of high fructose corn syrup in the State of California
during certain periods in the 1990s.  This action was filed on October
17, 1995 in Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus, California and
captioned Kagome Foods, Inc. v Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. et al., Civil
Action No. 37236.  This action has been removed to federal court and
consolidated with the federal class action litigation pending in the
Central District of Illinois referred to above.  

The other six California putative classes comprise certain indirect
purchasers of high fructose corn syrup and dextrose in the State of
California during certain periods in the 1990s.  One such action was
filed on July 21, 1995 in the Superior Court of the County of Los
Angeles, California and is captioned Borgeson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., et al., Civil Action No. BC131940.

This action and four other indirect purchaser actions have been
coordinated before a single court in Stanislaus County, California
under the caption Food Additives (HFCS) cases, Master File No. 39693.

The other four actions are captioned:

     (i) Goings v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No.
         750276 (Filed on July 21, 1995, Orange County Superior Court);

    (ii) Rainbow Acres v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil
         Action No. 974271 (Filed on November 22, 1995, San Francisco
         County Superior Court);

   (iii) Patane v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No.
         212610 (Filed on January 17, 1996, Sonoma County Superior
         Court); and

    (iv) St. Stan's Brewing Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 37237 (Filed on October 17, 1995, Stanislaus
         County Superior Court).

On October 8, 1997, Varni Brothers Corp. filed a complaint in
intervention with respect to the coordinated action pending in
Stanislaus County Superior Court, asserting the same claims as those
advanced in the consolidated class action.


ARCHER DANIELS: Alabama Court Nixes Corn Syrup Price-fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also a putative class action antitrust
suit in Alabama.   This suit alleges violations of the Alabama,
Michigan and Minnesota antitrust laws, including allegations that
defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high
levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup, and seeks an injunction
against continued illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.  

The putative class in the Alabama action comprises certain indirect
purchasers in Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota during the period March
18, 1994 to March 18, 1996.  This action was filed on March 18, 1996 in
the Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama, and is captioned Caldwell
v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 96-17.

On April 23, 1997, the court granted the defendants' motion to sever
and dismiss the non-Alabama claims.  On March 27, 2000, defendants
moved for summary judgment in light of a recent Alabama Supreme Court
case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws apply only to intrastate
commerce.

On June 28, 2000, and August 11, 2000, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints.  On September 6, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss or in
the alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaints.  On April 5,
2002, the Court granted defendants' motions.


ARCHER DANIELS: Lysine Antitrust Settlement in Canada Awaits Court Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces one putative class action
antitrust suit filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice in which the
plaintiffs allege the defendants reached agreements with other
companies as to the price at which each of them would sell lysine to
customers in Ontario and as to the total volume of lysine that each
company would supply in Ontario in violation of Part VI of the
Competition Act and for damages for the civil tort of conspiracy and
intentional interference with economic relations.

The putative class is comprised of all corporations in Canada and all
consumers, other than those in the Province of Quebec, who purchased
lysine, products containing lysine, or products derived from animals
that consumed lysine during the period from June 1, 1992 to June 27,
1995.

The plaintiffs seek CA$15 million for violations of the Competition
Act, CA$30 million as damages for alleged tortious conduct, CA$5
million in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages, interest and
costs of the action.

This action was served upon the Company on June 11, 1999 and is
captioned Rein Minnema and Minnema Farms Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company, et al., Court File No. G23495-99CP.

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a respondent
in a motion seeking authorization to institute a class action filed on
or about October 20, 1999 in Superior Court in the Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal, in which the applicants allege the respondents
conspired, combined, agreed or arranged to prevent or lessen, unduly,
competition with respect to the sale of lysine in Canada in violation
of Section 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act.

The putative class is comprised of certain indirect purchasers in
Quebec after June 1992. The applicants seek at least CA$4.4 million,
costs of investigation, attorneys' fees and interest.  This motion is
captioned Option Consommateurs, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company, et al., Court No. 500-06-00008 9-991.

On or about July 15, 2002, the plaintiffs and the defendants in the
Ontario and Quebec actions described above entered into a settlement
agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the plaintiffs CA$4.5
million.  This settlement agreement is subject to court approval.


ARCHER DANIELS: Unjust Enrichment Case Remains Undecided by Alabama SC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces, along with other companies,
one putative class action antitrust suit alleging violations of the
Alabama antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants
agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the
prices of lysine, and seeking an injunction against continued alleged
illegal conduct, damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other unspecified relief.

The putative class in this action comprises certain indirect purchasers
of lysine in the State of Alabama during certain periods in the 1990s.
This action was filed on August 17, 1995 in the Circuit Court of DeKalb
County, Alabama, and is captioned Ashley v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,
et al., Civil Action No. 95-336.

On March 13, 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint to
add approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  On March 23, 2000,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent
Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws
apply only to intrastate commerce.  On August 11, 2000, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

On September 15, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss or in the
alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 19, 2001,
the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' claim for restraint of trade in interstate commerce and
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim.

The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' restraint of
trade in intrastate commerce claim.  However, on July 3, 2001,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim.  On July 18, 2001,
plaintiffs moved to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the
unjust enrichment claim.  On July 24, 2001, plaintiffs noticed an
appeal of that part of the Court's order granting defendants' summary
judgment motion.

On October 9, 2001, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend, alter
or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.  The
plaintiffs subsequently noticed an appeal of the Court's order dated
June 19, 2001 regarding the unjust enrichment claim.

These appeals are currently pending in the Alabama Supreme Court. On
May 30, 2002, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a claim
under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Statute.  On July 2, 2002,
defendants filed a motion to strike and/or dismiss that claim.


ARCHER DANIELS: 7-year-old Antitrust Suit in WV Remains Undecided
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces, along with other companies,
one putative class action antitrust suit filed in West Virginia state
court involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid.

This action also alleges violations of the West Virginia antitrust
laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The putative class in the West Virginia action comprises certain
entities within the State of West Virginia that purchased products
containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid for resale from
at least 1992 until 1994.  This action was filed on October 26, 1995,
in the Circuit Court for Boone County, West Virginia, and is captioned
Freda's v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 95-C-
125.


ARCHER DANIELS: Plaintiffs in D.C. Suit Want to Conduct More Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces, along with other companies,
a putative class action antitrust suit filed in the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup
and citric acid.

This action alleges violations of the District of Columbia antitrust
laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorney's fees and costs, and other unspecified
relief.

The putative class in the District of Columbia action comprises certain
persons within the District of Columbia that purchased products
containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the
period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994. This action was filed
on April 12, 1996 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia,
and is encaptioned Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil
Action No. 96-2975.

On November 13, 1998, plaintiff's motion for class certification was
granted.  Plaintiffs are seeking to conduct additional discovery.


ARCHER DANIELS: Class Certification in Kansas Suit Still Unresolved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces a putative class action
antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court involving the sale of high
fructose corn syrup and citric acid.

This action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including
allegations that the company agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at
artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn syrup and
citric acid, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount, court
costs and other unspecified relief.

The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain persons
within the State of Kansas that purchased products containing high
fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during at least the period
January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994.  This action was filed on
May 7, 1996 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas and is
captioned Waugh v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Case No. 96-C-
2029.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is currently pending.


ARCHER DANIELS: Class Certification on Nucleotides Suits Set for 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company also faces, along with other companies,
three actions filed pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act in which the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Competition Act with
respect to the sale of nucleotides in Canada.

The putative classes are comprised of direct and indirect purchasers in
Canada during the period from January 1, 1990 to November 1, 1999. The
plaintiffs in these actions seek general, punitive and exemplary
damages and "disgorgement of ill-gotten overcharges," plus prejudgment
interest and costs of the actions.

The first action was filed on or about September 7, 2001 in the
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, and is captioned Long
Duc Ngo and Christopher McLean v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Court
File No. 37708. The second action was filed on or about October 4, 2001
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver and is captioned
Abel Lam and Klas Consulting & Investment Ltd. v. Aji
nomoto U.S.A., Inc., et alCourt File No. S015589.  The third action was
filed on or about October 18, 2001 in the "Cour Superieure" in the
Province of Quebec and District of Quebec, and is captioned Colette
Brochu v. Ajinomoto U.S.A. Inc., et al., No.: 200-06-000019-011.

The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
Ontario action has been scheduled for March 2003.  No schedule has been
established for the actions pending in British Columbia and Quebec.


ARCHER DANIELS: $1.25 Million MSG Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the three actions in Canada, Archer Daniels Midland Company
also faces eight putative class actions alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of
monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate,
seeking various relief, including treble damages of an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers
of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate
during certain periods in the 1990's to the present. The Company has
never produced or sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate.

One such action was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned
Thorp, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., NoC99 4752
(VRW). The second was filed on October 27, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned
Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C
99 4742(MJJ).

A third action was filed on October 28, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned
Felbro Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., No.C99
4761(MJJ).  The fourth action was filed on November 17, 1999 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
and is captioned First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland
Co., et al., No. C 99 4977 (PJH).

The fifth action, filed on November 23, 1999 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey is captioned Diversified
Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Inc. et al.,
No. 99 CV 5501. The sixth was filed on December 16, 1999 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and is
captioned M. Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co. Inc., et al., No. 99 Div
06514 (EK).

The seventh action, filed on January 27, 2000 in the Northern District
of California, is captioned Chicago Ingredients, Inc. v. Archer-
Daniels-Midland Co., et al., No. C 00 0308 (JL).  The eighth action was
filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is
captioned Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v. Ajinomoto
U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-1905.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these
actions for coordinated pretrial discovery in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  On June 3, 2001, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company and the plaintiffs in these eight actions have executed a
settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the
plaintiffs $1.25 million.  On August 15, 2002 the court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement is subject
to final approval by the court.


ARCHER DANIELS: MSG Monopoly Lawsuits in California Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company faces four putative class action
antitrust suits filed in California state court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers.

These actions allege violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the price of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers, and seek
treble damages of an unspecified amount, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other unspecified relief. The putative classes in these
actions comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate
and/or other food flavor enhancers in the State of California during
certain periods in the 1990's.

The first action, originally filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior
Court of San Francisco County, is captioned Fu's Garden Restaurant v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Civil Action No. 304471. The
second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the Superior Court of
San Francisco County and is captioned JMN Restaurant Management, Inc.
v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 309236.

The third action was filed on May 2, 2000 in the Superior Court of San
Francisco County and is captioned Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta
v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al, Civil Action No. 311871. The
fourth action, filed on May 24, 2000 in the Superior Court of San
Francisco County, is captioned Tasty Sunrise Burgers v. Archer Daniels
Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 312373.

On June 19, 2000, the Court consolidated all of these cases for
pretrial and trial purposes.


ARCHER DANIELS: Has Pending MSG Monopoly Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company has also been named as a defendant in
one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Massachusetts state
court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food
flavor enhancers.

The action alleges violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix prices,
allocate market shares and eliminate and suppress competition in the
sale of monosodium glutamate, nucleotides and other food flavor
enhancers, and seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

The putative class in this action comprises persons within the State of
Massachusetts that purchased for consumer purposes products containing
monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides during anytime between January
1990 and August 23, 2001. This action was filed on June 5, 2002 in
Middlesex Superior Court, and is encaptioned Fortin v. Ajinomoto
U.S.A., Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 02-2345.


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Kansas for Fixing MSG Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Company has also been named as a defendant in
one putative class action antitrust suit filed in Kansas state court
involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides.

The action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including
allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and
maintain prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks
damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.

The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in
the State of Kansas that indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate
and/or nucleotides during any time between January 1990 and November 1,
1999 for use as an ingredient in the manufacture or preparation of
final food products. This action was filed on July 22, 2002 in the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas and is captioned Williams
Foods, Inc. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-
04661.


DOW CORNING: Judge Awards Government Refund for Breast Implant Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A judge overseeing the Dow Corning bankruptcy signed last week an order
authorizing a $9.8 million settlement with the U.S. Government for
medical expenses from breast implant related injuries.  The settlement
resolves the government's claim to reimburse federal agencies for
payments related to the devices.

Ironically, the government is being paid millions of dollars even
though silicone breast implants are still commercially available and
manufacturers are requesting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
put the devices back on the market without restriction. Manufacturers
Inamed, Mentor and Silimed have announced their plans to file the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's Pre-Market Approval applications for
unrestricted sale of silicone implants by the end of 2002. Currently
all three companies are allowed to sell the devices for cosmetic
purposes as part of clinical studies.

"Injuries from silicone breast implants have cost the U.S. Government
millions in medical expenses; it is inconceivable that the FDA would
consider lifting any restrictions on their sale," said Sybil Niden
Goldrich, Founder and Executive Director of the Command Trust Network
and implant survivors' representative on the Tort Claimants' Committee.

Due to a regulatory loophole, the FDA has never approved silicone
breast implants, nor have they ever been proven safe. However, as many
as two million women had received the devices by 1992 when the FDA
declared a partial moratorium on their sale due to health complaints.
Until the first augmentation-only clinical trial was approved by the
FDA in 1998, implants were only available to breast cancer survivors
and women replacing the devices, provided they participated in a
manufacturer-sponsored study. However, members of the U.S. Congress
have raised concerns about the data and poor follow-up of these trials
and have pointed to on-going criminal investigations of Mentor, one of
the manufacturers conducting the trials.

The U.S. government sought reimbursement on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Defense, Veteran Affairs, Health and Human Services, the
Indian Health Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration).

Although Dow Corning's plan to compensate women injured by silicone
breast implants was approved nearly three years ago, no checks have
been sent to claimants to date. The U.S. Government claim was one of
the last legal roadblocks to implementing the plan. Other appeals are
pending.

The agreement prevents the government from seeking any additional
compensation for implant claims from Dow Corning or from claimants who
had Dow Corning breast implants except in instances of criminal or
fraudulent activity. However, the government is free to pursue
compensation from other manufacturers. The U.S. is in litigation
against former implant makers 3M, Bristol Myers Squibb and Baxter
Healthcare Corporation.


FIDELITY GROUP: Fairness Hearing for $1.35 M Settlement Set for October
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court judge in South Carolina is scheduled to rule next
month on the fairness of tentative settlements reached by Fidelity
Group affiliates with beneficiaries, who have pending class actions for
unpaid medical bills.

According to the Tribune Business News, U.S. District Judge P. Michael
Duffy will hear the case on October 17 at 11 a.m. in Charleston, South
Carolina.  At issue is the insurance settlement of at least $1.35
million to people covered by Fidelity Group and its affiliates.

At least nine agents and agencies have agreed to settle.  The
settlement would involve at least 750 families that had Fidelity
coverage through the agents and agencies, which sold the benefits as
group coverage for small businesses, the report says. The settling
parties have liability insurance, which is expected to handle the
payouts.

A $446,181 request for attorneys' fees would come out of the
settlement, which would lower the payout figure to less than $906,000.
The families would receive 80 percent or more of the total medical
bills, the report adds.

Agents John Larry Collins, Michael L. Massey, Raymond R. Olivi Jr.,
Kenneth Tallmadge, Steven Broughton and Lee Taylor and The Taylor
Agency are among the agents and affiliates that have opted to settle so
far.  Their settlement total $787,971 and involve at least 305 people
who have outstanding medical claims.

Andrew E. Haseldon, a Columbia attorney, represents Misters Collins,
Massey and Olivi; while Charleston lawyers Keating Simons III and
Thomas J. Keaveny II represent Misters Taylor, Broughton, Tallmadge and
The Taylor Agency.  In February, four other agents agreed to settle for
a total of $564,000 involving about 370 people with unpaid bills.

A group of agents, agencies and a claims administrator appealed Duffy's
ruling last year certifying the Fidelity Group victims as a class, the
report says.  One of the appealing parties is Third Party Claims
Management Inc., which processed claims made by Fidelity Group benefits
holders for a period of time before 1997.  The case is before the U.S.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, the report says class-action lawyers have already reached a
settlement with one of Fidelity's liability insurance carriers to
contribute another $200,000 to be allocated to families with
outstanding claims in South Carolina.

That money could help beneficiaries such as Rich Godbee, whose coverage
came from an agent who did not have sufficient liability coverage. Mr.
Godbee said he has $15,000 in unpaid bills, including one from the
Medical University of South Carolina when his wife had a baby girl, now
2 1/2 years old.

The Fidelity coverage, which offered attractive benefits and liberal
terms at low rates, was sold in more than a dozen states, primarily on
the East Coast. South Carolina was one of the more active states.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Deadline for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Nears
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced Monday that the deadline
for purchasers of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE:FLM) publicly traded
securities to move for lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class
action recently brought against the Company is rapidly approaching.

If you purchased Fleming securities between February 27, 2002 and July
30, 2002, inclusive, and you wish to be a lead plaintiff in the case,
you must move to serve as lead plaintiff by filing a motion in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by
October 28, 2002.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.cauleygeller.com/pr/fleming.pdf

Shares of Fleming hit new all time lows on Monday as investors worried
about its finances, the departure of some top executives and fears that
a restructuring of key customer, Kmart Corp. could falter. Fleming
closed down 5.05 percent, or 23 cents, to $4.32 in New York Stock
Exchange trade, and is now at its lowest levels in nearly 35 years.

The action, numbered 502-CV-178, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.
The complaint alleges violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a), of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the suit, beginning in early 2002, defendants Fleming,
Mark Hansen (CEO, Chairman), Neal J. Rider (CFO) and Thomas G. Dahlen
(Executive FP, President of retail operations) issued numerous positive
statements regarding Fleming's "price-impact" retail supermarket
division.  Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the "price-
impact" stores were not living up to defendants' expectations, yet the
statements were released to the investing public nonetheless. The
effect of these statements was to falsely portray Fleming's business
prospects and to artificially inflate and maintain the price of Fleming
common stock.

In addition, the defendants used the artificially high stock price to:

     (1) lower the interest rate and extend the maturity on $250
         million of Fleming's debt;

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

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

     (4) to use 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 Fleming's
         implementation of its strategic transformation into an
         efficient, national, multi-tier supply chain for consumer
         packaged goods.

According to the complaint, after only approximately six weeks after
defendants sold $355 million worth of Fleming securities, Fleming
startled the market by announcing after the close of trading on July
30, 2002 that its "price-impact" retail supermarket division was not
only performing poorly, but performing so poorly that Fleming was
considering abandoning this line of business entirely.

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

For more information, contact CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Investor Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Ellie Baker by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by
Phone: 888-551-9944 (toll free) or by e-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


HONDA MOTOR: Extends Warranties on Cars with Problematic Transmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese carmaker, Honda Motor Co. is extending warranties to about 1.2
million car owners who bought four of its models between 2000 and 2002,
the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

The company said it has discovered that some surface finishes on
certain transmission parts of these models could flake off over time,
gumming up the transmission fluid and causing transmission to shift
sluggishly, or, in some cases, to downshift unexpectedly.  The carmaker
said it will also reimburse owners who have paid to fix transmissions
experiencing the problem.

The warranties and reimbursement apply to these models equipped with
automatic transmission:

     (i) 2000 and 2001 model-year Honda Accords,

    (ii) 2000 and 2001 model-year Odysseys and Preludes

   (iii) 2000 to 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 TL cars, and

    (iv) 2001, 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 CL cars.

Honda said it was extending warranties on just the transmissions of
these vehicles to seven years or 100,000 miles.  The standard bumper-
to-bumper warranty, which includes transmissions, is three years or
36,000 miles for Hondas, and four years or 50,000 miles for Acuras.

The report says Honda attributed its transmission problems partly to
suppliers and partly to itself.  In the Honda models, which have four-
speed automatic transmissions, the surface finish on a bearing wasn't
always smooth or hard enough, and could flake off.  In Acura models,
which have five-speed transmissions, the finish on a clutch plate
wasn't always smooth enough, and also could flake off.

Honda said it didn't issue a recall because the transmission problems
didn't raise safety concerns.


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls Seven Car Models, Motorcycles for Various Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain models of the Silverwing motorcycle manufactured by Honda Motor
Co. between October 2001 and August 2002 have defective rear wheel
spokes that could fracture if the bike repeatedly hits potholes, the
Associated Press says citing a company press release.

The company is now recalling these motorcycles, which are believed to
number 21,395.  About 2,509 Silverwings are believed to be in the
United States and 600 in the United Kingdom.  The balance was
distributed throughout Europe, Honda spokeswoman Yuriko Yabe told the
news agency.

Aside from the motorcycles, the company is also recalling 160,131
vehicles in Japan, which include seven models -- Accord Inspire,
Inspire, Vigor, Saber, Ascot, Rafaga and Capa (a truck).  These cars
have defective start motors.

Ms. Yabe said investigations into the defects turned up no deaths or
injuries overseas or domestically, but four fires have been reported in
the engines of the domestically recalled cars.  Honda anticipates the
total costs of the recall at JPY1.9 billion ($15.70 million), but no
earnings estimate downgrades are planned, Ms. Yabe said.


HONG KONG: Cohen Milstein Commences ERISA Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed on September 20, 2002,
a class action in federal district court in Buffalo, N.Y. against the
trustee HSBC, the named fiduciary and plan administrator James Donovan,
and the Directors of Azon, Inc.(a), a manufacturer of specialty papers
headquartered in Binghamton, N.Y. (Beam v. HSBC Bank USA et al., No.
02-CV-0682).

Suit was brought on behalf of approximately five hundred participants
of the Azon, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and their
beneficiaries.

The suit alleges that in September of 1999, the fiduciaries of the Azon
ESOP caused the plan to overpay for Azon stock purchased from certain
corporate directors, thereby destroying the value of existing shares
held by the ESOP, and driving Azon into bankruptcy.  As a result, the
defendants destroyed the Azon ESOP and the Company by paying 25 million
dollars for overpriced Azon stock with money that Azon borrowed from a
bank to finance the ESOP's purchase of shares from the company's
directors.

According to the complaint, when Azon was unable to make payments on
the bank loan it had taken out to finance the ESOP purchase, Azon had
no choice but to file for bankruptcy. The end result of this corporate
chicanery, according to the suit, was that the selling shareholders,
all Azon directors, walked off with 25 million dollars, and the ESOP, a
retirement plan for the employees of Azon was wiped out.

The suit, brought under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), alleged that the defendants who were responsible for the
management of the ESOP's assets knew or should have known that the
stock was overpriced.

According to the suit, a careful investigation at the time of the
purchase would have revealed that Azon's most important product was
becoming obsolete; the debt taken on by the Company to finance the
ESOP's purchase reduced the value of both newly purchased and existing
shares owned by the ESOP; the ESOP paid a control premium for the newly
purchased shares even though less than a control block was sold to the
ESOP; and Azon would not likely be able to repay the debt it took on to
finance the ESOP's 1999 stock purchase.

The Complaint alleges that by engaging in the 1999 purchase transaction
in spite of evidence that the transaction was not in the interest of
the participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP, the defendants violated
myriad provisions of ERISA which imposes strict standards of conduct on
those who run employee benefit plans like the Azon ESOP.

For more information, contact Marc I. Machiz, Esq. by Phone:
888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by Fax: 202-408-4699 by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 or by e-
mail: mmachiz@cmht.com


LAKES GAMING: RICO Case in Nevada District Court Remains Uncertified
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1994, William H. Poulos brought an action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division -- William
H. Poulos, et al v. Caesars World, Inc. et al -- Case No. 39-478-CIV-
ORL-22 -- in which various parties alleged to operate casinos or be
slot machine manufacturers were named as defendants. The plaintiff
sought to have the action certified as a class action.

A subsequently filed Action -- William Ahearn, et al v. Caesars World,
Inc. et al -- Case No. 94-532-CIV-ORL-22 -- made similar allegations
and was consolidated with the Poulos action.

Both actions included claims under the federal Racketeering-Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and under state law, and sought
compensatory and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs claimed that the
defendants are involved in a scheme to induce people to play electronic
video poker and slot machines based on false beliefs regarding how such
machines operate and the extent to which a player is likely to win on
any given play.  In December 1994, the consolidated actions were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.  

In September 1995, Larry Schreier brought an action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada -- Larry Schreier, et al v.
Caesars World, Inc. et al -- Case No. CV-95-00923-DWH(RJJ). The
plaintiffs' allegations in the Schreier action were similar to those
made by the plaintiffs in the Poulos and Ahearn actions, except that
Schreier claimed to represent a more precisely defined class of
plaintiffs than Poulos or Ahearn.

In December 1996, the court ordered the Poulos, Ahearn and Schreier
actions consolidated under the title William H. Poulos, et al v.
Caesars World, Inc., et al -- Case No. CV-S-94-11236-DAE(RJJ) -- (Base
File), and required the plaintiffs to file a consolidated and amended
complaint. In February 1997, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended complaint.

In March 1997, various defendants filed motions to dismiss or stay the
consolidated action until the plaintiffs submitted their claims to
gaming authorities and those authorities considered the claims
submitted by the plaintiffs.

In December 1997, the court denied all of the motions submitted by the
defendants, and ordered the plaintiffs to file a new consolidated and
amended complaint.  That complaint has been filed. The plaintiffs have
filed a motion seeking an order certifying the action as a class
action.  The defendants have opposed the motion.  The Court has not
ruled on the motion.

Lakes Gaming, now known as Lakes Entertainment, managed the Grand
Casino Coushatta (owned by the Coushatta Tribe in Louisiana) until its
contract ran out in 2002.  Opened in 1995, the casino features a
childcare center run by New Horizon Kids Quest (27%-owned by Lakes
Gaming).  Lakes Entertainment kept 40% of the casino's profits.  It
also owns 78% of World Poker Tour, which televises poker tournaments.
The company is developing a new casino in Michigan and three in
California.


MORGAN STANLEY: Agreements Signed Not To Testify vs. Bank Unlawful
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers bringing a sex discrimination lawsuit against Morgan Stanley
recently claimed to have won a breakthrough in the case, The Financial
News recently reported.

A U.S. judge has ruled that agreements Morgan Stanley employees signed,
in which they promised not to offer assistance or testimony in lawsuits
against the bank, are unlawful.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) is organizing
a class action of women claiming they suffered from sex discrimination
while at the investment bank.  The EEOC believes that the ruling will
be important in persuading more women to come forward.

The judge further ruled that Morgan Stanley's release agreements and
its code of conduct violate public policy, because they could deter
past and present employees from joining the class action.  Release
agreements are documents signed by employees on reaching a settlement
with the firm and leaving.

Rachael Adams, an EEOC lawyer, said,  "Clearly, these clauses
restrained a lot of women.  We have had many calls from women who feel
that they would not have been able to come forward before this ruling."  
So far, 25 women have joined the class action, and Ms. Adams believes
the number could grow to 100.

Morgan Stanley says that the judge's ruling in the U.S. District Court
of the Southern District of New York should not greatly influence the
case's end result.  Sources at the bank believe that the EEOC is simply
using minor rulings to win public attention for the class action.
Morgan Stanley said it is confident it could win the case in court, but
acknowledges that the EEOC could push for an out-of-court settlement.

The court's ruling said that sections of the bank's release forms
"clearly could have a chilling impact on claimants."  The court said
the agreements "can be interpreted to prevent potential claimants from
talking to the EEOC about this action."

The court also ruled that the bank's code of conduct "violates public
policy, because it chills employee communication with the EEOC."  The
code bans employees from contacting agencies like the EEOC without
contacting its legal department first.

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said that it is common practice for
release statements to contain language designed to "maintain
confidentiality."

The spokeswoman defended the bank's code of conduct, saying, "We have
never interpreted the code of conduct as precluding employees from
communicating with any government body regarding individual rights,
including workplace rights."


PAINT INDUSTRY: Lead Paint Suit in R.I. to Cost Industry Billions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The blood level of tens of thousands of children showed they were being
poisoned by lead paint, the nation's cities sued the building owners
who didn't paint the apartments more often, but let the paint peel and
chip off.   This route did not seem to help the situation all that
much, The New York Times reported.

Now, state and local governments are aiming, instead, at the companies
that make the paint, suing the manufacturers in a growing wave of
cases, that analysts say, echoes the legal assault that ultimately held
tobacco companies responsible for the health hazards of smoking.

A trial is presently under way in Rhode Island, the first state to file
such a lawsuit against the paint manufacturers.  It is a lawsuit in
which nearly 80 percent of the housing is believed to contain lead
paint, and is being watched closely by cities and states around the
country.

Several jurisdictions, including New York City, Chicago, St. Louis,
Milwaukee and San Francisco, have filed similar lawsuits, contending
that the companies are responsible for the learning and behavioral
problems suffered by lead-poisoned children.

"Lead paint litigation has the potential to become the next major
corporate plague, analogous to asbestos litigation in corporate
America," said Tim Gerdeman, an industry analyst with Lehman Brothers.
"It could become a major, major financial drain for my companies.  A
few years ago, people seemed to discount asbestos and tobacco
litigation, and shame on those people who did, because look what
happened."

The potential costs are significant.   The Rhode Island lawsuit is
asking paint companies to pay for the cost of removing the lead paint
from the 331,000 dwelling units the state says contain it.  The lawsuit
does not name a figure; but Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse said it
would cost $2,000 to $10,000 to remove lead from each house.  This
calculation puts the total cost at roughly $600 million to $3 billion.

The lawsuit also seeks money for the treatment of lead-poisoned
children.  In Rhode Island, more than 35,000 children under age 6 have
been found to have elevated lead levels since 1993, said Dr. Patricia
A. Nolan, director of the state's health department, who said the
authorities were continuing to see new cases at an average rate of
seven a day.

National studies in the 1990s found that two-thirds of the nation's
housing still contained lead paint and 890,000 children, ages 1 to
5 had elevated lead levels in their blood.

The lead paint lawsuits are clearly lifting some pages from the tobacco
suits, combining the resources of state and city legal arms, with the
expertise and staff of private law firms.  One of the law firms
involved in the Rhode Island case represented 28 states in the tobacco
litigation.

Legal experts and industry analysts are curious to see whether the
Rhode Island case has found a way around some of the legal minefields
that have caused other lawsuits against the paint industry, many of
them filed by individuals, to founder or have some or all of their
claims dismissed.

Local paint cases face some legal hurdles the tobacco cases did not.
Lead paint, unlike cigarettes, is no longer manufactured, having been
banned by the federal government in 1978.  While the Rhode Island
lawsuit accuses the industry of promoting the use of lead paint while
covering up its danger to children, much like the accusations against
the tobacco companies, the paint industry answers by saying it acted
immediately and curtailed its use after it learned of the risks,
beginning in the 1950s.

While cigarettes, when used as directed, are known to cause cancer,
paint manufacturers have long contended that lead paint itself is not
hazardous, but causes poisoning only when allowed to deteriorate to the
point at which paint flakes or dust can be ingested or inhaled.

Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly, USA, says, "The companies say,
'We did not manufacture this product to be peeled off and eaten.  And
the landlords, the building owners, could remove this material if they
wanted to.' "  Mr. Martinek has been following the lead paint cases for
a while, and that is the case that the paint companies are making in
the Rhode Island case.

"Lead paint is a good product," said Bonnie Campbell, former attorney
general for Iowa, who now advises some of the paint companies being
sued.  "It is not the presence of the lead paint which causes the
problem.  Properly maintained, leaded paint generally poses no hazard
or risk.  There is a culprit here, and that is the landlord."

The arguments, in the past, have been successful; therefore, say the
experts, it is striking that the Rhode Island case has gotten this far.
The case was filed in 1999, against a lead industry trade group and
eight paint makers, including E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and the
Sherwin-Williams Company.

In the courtroom this month, in the first of four phases of the trial,
pediatric and environmental health experts have testified that lead
paint is always a potential problem, and that even in homes where the
lead level is low enough to meet Environmental Protection Agency
standards, there is no proof the paint will not cause problems.

Leonard Decof, a lawyer for the state, said in opening arguments that
lead paint chips and dust could be released into the air by hanging a
picture or opening a window.  He said, also, that the paint
deteriorated naturally, no matter how well-kept a property may be.

"What more can we say than this:  Lead paint, even when it is painted
over, is harmful," Mr. Decof said.

The Rhode Island case is the first to come to trial accusing the paint
companies of causing a public nuisance, a relatively untraditional
legal strategy that is being used increasingly in other lawsuits,
including some filed by the cities against gun manufacturers.  In the
first phase of the trial, the state is simply trying to prove that lead
paint is a public nuisance, something posing an immediate or potential
public hazard.

If the state wins the first phase, it will then try to show that the
paint companies should be held responsible for helping to correct the
problem.  Among other things, the state will introduce documents that,
it says, show the industry knew about the hazards before it took action
and described the problem as relegated to "slum children."

Industry representatives say such documents were dismissed in a
previous lawsuit.

"They were fighting a losing battle and tried to keep their product on
the shelves for as long as they could, and they did so at a time when
they knew that the product was dangerous, in particular for children,"
said Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island's attorney general.

Mr. Whitehouse said that causing a public nuisance did not require
fault or intent; someone can be held responsible, he said, even if they
acted "innocently and lawfully."

The Attorney General added:  "More than one person can be responsible
for a public nuisance.  To the extent that landlords may bear some
responsibility, that does not mean that the industry's responsibility
is zero."


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Sues Andersen, Affiliates for Fraud and $250M Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleging a conspiracy of negligence, fraud, concealment, and breach of
audit and accounting duties, Peregrine Systems, Inc. (OTC: PRGN.PK),
which is facing several securities suits, filed on Monday a suit
against Arthur Andersen, LLP, Arthur Andersen Germany, Andersen
Worldwide S.C., (collectively referred to as Andersen Worldwide) and
Daniel Stulac (Stulac), the audit partner in charge of Peregrine's
account, plus other defendants to be named later.  Peregrine intends to
show how these actions have resulted in injury and significant losses
to Peregrine in excess of $250 million, subject to proof at trial.

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court for the State of California in
San Diego, claims that "as a result of negligence, fraud and the breach
of audit and accounting duties and responsibilities by Andersen,
Andersen Worldwide and Stulac, two years of Peregrine's previously
audited statements (for the 2000 and 2001 fiscal years) have been
withdrawn and Peregrine is in the process of re-auditing those years of
operations.  The Defendants' conduct has also resulted in a delay in
completing Peregrine's audit of the last (2001) fiscal year, which new
independent auditors are in the process of completing.  The negative
impact of these events, caused by the conduct of Andersen, Andersen
Worldwide and Stulac, has been significant."

What Andersen Promised

Peregrine and Andersen entered into an audit and accounting
relationship in July of 1996, approximately eight months before
Peregrine became a public company in April of 1997. In Andersen's
February 1996 marketing proposal to Peregrine, Andersen represented
that it would perform its audit services with diligence and care,
emphasizing, "We audit the business, not just the financial
statements."  In that same proposal, Andersen asserted:

"Our inquiries of your business operations and controls will extend
beyond the accounting and finance functions and include sales and
marketing, customer service, software development, administration and
organization and information systems. Accordingly, we anticipate
maintaining a continuous dialog with Peregrine throughout the year, not
just at audit time. In short, we want to be a partner of Peregrine
throughout the year so that the year-end audit is a non-event, with no
last minute `surprises' or unanticipated accounting adjustments."

The lawsuit says that, "Andersen, Andersen Worldwide and Stulac
asserted that they understood the nature and complexity of Peregrine's
business and the auditing and accounting issues that relate to the
software industry. Specifically, they represented that they understood
that the audit issues surrounding Peregrine were complex and intricate
and required careful auditing and the installation of appropriate
checks and balances into the audit process in accordance with the
normal custom and standard in the software industry."

The lawsuit states that, "Andersen also boasted about and promoted
Andersen Worldwide as an intricate part of the services being offered
Peregrine: With a combined total of over 70,000 professionals operating
in 360 locations in 75 countries, Andersen Worldwide is the world's
largest professional services organization. You will have working for
you a strong, dynamic practice that has grown by quality service and
client satisfaction...  The San Diego practice consists of
approximately 70 professionals and operates as part of our Southern
California practice. As such, it has access to the services provided by
the entire group as well as the worldwide organization."

It was on the basis of these representations that Peregrine engaged
Andersen in July of 1996 to provide auditing and accounting services.

The lawsuit notes that, "Defendants also acknowledged that they had a
duty under applicable law, regulations and accounting rules to examine
the books and records of Peregrine in order to discover any unusual or
irregular financial activity and to disclose this activity promptly to
Peregrine's Audit Committee, as well as to Peregrine's Board of
Directors, as appropriate."

The lawsuit states that, "Indeed, in their September 21, 2000 audit
engagement letter to the Audit Committee they acknowledged their
obligation to bring to the attention of Peregrine's Audit Committee any
misstatements, fraudulent or illegal acts of which they became aware,
including immaterial misstatements, asserting:

"... an audit is not designed to detect error or fraud that is
immaterial to the financial statements. However, we will bring to your
attention immaterial misstatements and any fraudulent or illegal acts
of which we become aware during our audit."

The lawsuit continues, "Furthermore, representatives of Andersen,
including Stulac, acknowledged that they were responsible for ensuring
that Peregrine's Audit Committee was aware of any deficiencies relating
to internal controls and to meet with the Audit Committee with respect
to these and other important issues, and they regularly attended
Peregrine's Board of Director and Audit Committee meetings over the
years. Similarly, Andersen Worldwide had regular and substantial
contact with representatives of Peregrine. Accordingly, Defendants had
numerous opportunities to advise the Board of Directors as well as the
Audit Committee about the accounting irregularities (that were
subsequently discovered following the Defendants' dismissal by
Peregrine).

In fact, in their opinion letter filed on March 31, 2001, Andersen
wrote: "In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Peregrine Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
March 31, 2001 and 2000, and the results of their operations and their
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31,
2001, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States."

What Andersen Delivered

In this lawsuit, Peregrine alleges that the Defendants failed to meet
any of their professional, legal and contractual commitments and
obligations, and, in fact, conspired among themselves to conceal
material, accounting irregularities from the Board of Directors and the
Audit Committee.

The lawsuit asserts that, "during the Andersen/Peregrine audit
relationship, Andersen, Andersen Worldwide and Stulac not only failed
to implement procedures, protocols and evaluative mechanisms designed
to protect Peregrine from inaccurate, irregular and/or unlawful
accounting practices and entries, but they, in fact, promoted, crafted
and encouraged Peregrine and its management to engage in accounting
practices which the Defendants knew to be irregular and improper." In
particular, Andersen and Stulac:

     (i) Failed to identify and/or failed to alert the Audit Committee
         to various accounting irregularities;
                  
    (ii) Permitted, encouraged and consented to various accounting
         practices that they knew to be irregular;

   (iii) Crafted defective policies on behalf of Peregrine relating to
         stock options and the "sale' of receivables to financial
         institutions; and

    (iv) Permitted, encouraged and consented to Peregrine and its
         management to make accounting adjustments that Andersen and
         Stulac knew were improper, and which were inadequately
         disclosed in Peregrine's audited statements, all in violation
         of GAAP, SOP 97-2, GAAS and various other accounting rules and
         regulations.

As a result, the lawsuit alleges that, "Andersen, Andersen Worldwide
and Stulac failed to audit properly the books and records of Peregrine
and failed to report to Peregrine's Audit Committee or the Board of
Directors numerous accounting inaccuracies and irregularities, which
were implemented and perpetuated due to the accountancy malpractice of
the Defendants."

The lawsuit alleges that, "During the course of their malpractice,
Andersen, Andersen Worldwide, and Stulac allowed numerous financial
statements to be filed with the SEC (including 10-K's and 10-Q's) and
then to be distributed to investors in the public capital markets,
although Andersen, Andersen Worldwide, and Stulac knew that such
financial statements were misleading in that the statements included,
among other things:

     (a) overstated accounts receivable,

     (b) overstated revenues,

     (c) improperly valued stock options,

     (d) understated liabilities, and

     (e) improperly disclosed or failed to disclose the write-offs of
         bad receivables.

Defendants failed to identify and to report Peregrine's improper
treatment of underlying transactions in accordance with their true
nature and failed to identify and to report Peregrine's deficiencies
with respect to its financial statement disclosures."

The lawsuit claims that, "Because of Defendants' alleged malpractice,
these accounting irregularities remained unchecked for a substantial
period of time. Knowing that the Board of Directors and the Audit
Committee were in the dark about these irregularities, Defendants
refused to shine the light on their malpractice, and thereby kept
Peregrine, its Board of Directors and the Audit Committee in the dark."

A Pattern of Fraud and Concealment

The lawsuit alleges that, among other things, "Andersen -- a firm that
has been convicted of felony conduct on June 15, 2002 -- consistently
engaged in a wanton and reckless, and malicious, pattern of
aggressively dealing with Boards and Audit Committees to assure that
its fraud is neither criticized nor uncovered. This was all done for
financial gain, and out of greed."

According to the lawsuit, "Defendant Andersen intentionally concealed
material information from Peregrine and its Audit Committee and
intentionally misled Peregrine concerning various accounting issues in
order to protect and preserve the significant fees it was receiving
from Peregrine as a result of its auditing and consulting work. Indeed,
over the years, Andersen Defendants received in excess of $4 million
from Peregrine in connection with its auditing, accounting and
consulting work." As stated in the lawsuit, "These fees were
particularly important to the Andersen partners in the San Diego
office, including Defendant Stulac, since their incomes were dependent
on the continued business from Peregrine."

The lawsuit states, "Because Peregrine's Board of Directors and Audit
Committee were completely unaware of the accounting irregularities
(concealed by Andersen), the Audit Committee continued to engage
Andersen as its auditor until April of 2002. Had Peregrine known the
truth about the concealed information, it would not have continued to
engage Andersen and would have taken action to protect the value of
Peregrine by replacing Andersen and filing accurate and truthful
financial statements pursuant to Federal and State law, as well as
accepted accounting regulations."

The lawsuit asserts that, "The conduct of Andersen, Andersen Worldwide,
and Stulac in concealing these accounting irregularities from
Peregrine's Audit Committee and Board of Directors deprived Peregrine's
Audit committee and Board of Directors the opportunity to take steps --
short of a catastrophic restatement of earnings -- to rectify the
situations before the irregularities reached the material levels
uncovered to date. Indeed, by permitting the irregularities to fester
over several fiscal years, Defendants Andersen and Stulac left
Peregrine no choice but to:

     (a) Watch as Andersen withdrew previously audited financial
         statements for two fiscal years;

     (b) Commence a difficult, expensive and time-consuming effort to
         re-audit the work of Andersen, Andersen Worldwide, and Stulac;
         and

     (c) Issue a series of devastating public announcements relating to
         the accounting irregularities and monumental restatement of
         earnings."

Negative Impact on Peregrine Resulting from the Defendants' Actions

The lawsuit alleges that, "as a proximate and foreseeable result of the
foregoing malpractice and negligence, Peregrine has suffered the
following:

     (a) The value of its shares has fallen dramatically;

     (b) Its stock has been delisted by NASDAQ;

     (c) Its economic opportunities, such as an alliance, merger or
         acquisition, have been significantly eroded;

     (d) Its financial situation has deteriorated;

     (e) It has been forced to reduce its work force by almost one-
         half; and

     (f) It has been compelled to spend enormous amounts of money -- in
         the millions of dollars -- and precious employee resources in
         order to conduct an internal investigation, commence the re-
         audit of the work of Andersen, Andersen Worldwide, and Stulac;
         and

     (g) To address the necessary legal and regulatory issues left in
         the wake of Defendants' conduct."

Peregrine/Andersen Audit Relationship

Peregrine became a public company in April 1997. From or about July of
1996 Peregrine and Andersen entered into an audit and accounting
relationship that continued until Andersen's engagement was terminated
in April of 2002.

Peregrine is represented in this matter by Charles G. LaBella of
LaBella & McNamara, 401 West A Street, Suite 2300, San Diego,
California 92101 (619) 696-9200.

About Peregrine Systems

Founded in 1981 and headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Peregrine
Systems is the leading global provider of Infrastructure Management
software. Market-leading application suites delivered by Peregrine and
Remedy(R) product lines address diverse customer needs to better manage
and extend the life of infrastructure and manage business services.
Peregrine's Service Management and Asset Management solutions empower
companies to support and manage assets with best practice processes.
Remedy's comprehensive suite of packaged applications, including IT
Service Management and Customer Support solutions, enable customers to
improve reliability and quality of service for both internal and
external service management. Remedy's Action Request System(R) provides
a comprehensive platform to deliver business process authoring
capabilities to meet the unique requirements of organizations today and
into the future.

Peregrine Systems, Remedy and Action Request System are registered
trademarks of Peregrine Systems, Inc. or its wholly owned subsidiaries.
All other marks are the property of their respective owners.


ROYAL DUTCH: Sued in S.D. New York for Various Human Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. filed on September 20, 2002, a class action
complaint against Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport, p.l.c.,
(Shell) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York charging violations of customary international law under
the federal Alien Tort Claims Act relating to Shell's oil operations in
Ogoniland, an area located in the Niger River Delta area of Nigeria.

The suit, brought on behalf of fourteen individual plaintiffs alleges
that Shell engaged in militarized commerce in a conspiracy with the
former Military Government of Nigeria.

"Our investigation shows that Shell knowingly instigated, planned,
facilitated, and participated in unprovoked attacks by the Nigerian
military against the unarmed residents of Ogoniland, resulting in
extrajudicial murder, crimes against humanity, torture, rape, cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced
exile and the deliberate destruction of private property," the law firm
says.

Shell is charged with purchasing ammunition and using its helicopters
and boats and providing logistical support for "Operation Restore Order
in Ogoniland" a military foray into Ogoniland designed to terrorize the
civilian population into ending peaceful protests against Shell's
environmentally unsound oil exploration and extraction activities in
Ogoniland.

One of the plaintiffs, President of the National Union of Ogoni
Students, Dornubari John- Miller, announced: "Shell has ruined our land
and our lives. Shell used Nigerian military forces to burn our villages
and slaughter innocent men, women and children in a failed attempt to
silence our peaceful protests. It is finally time to bring Shell to
trial for planning, financing and supporting the systematic violation
of human rights perpetrated against the Ogoni people in Nigeria."

The action is brought by on behalf of the Estate of Dr. Barinem Kiobel,
the former Minister of Commerce and Tourism for River State, and
fourteen other victims of human rights violations, individually, and on
behalf of those similarly situated.  More than 1,000 residents of
Ogoniland have been killed and many more have been injured or forced to
flee Nigeria since the anti-Shell protests began in 1992.

Oil was discovered in Ogoniland and a consortium lead by Shell received
the contract to develop and extract petroleum products. Since Shell
started operations in Nigeria, Ogoniland has yielded approximately $30
billion in oil revenue.

For information contact Carey R. D'Avino, Esq. or Stephen A. Whinston,
Esq. by Phone: (215) 875-3000


SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Settles 1997 Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scholastic Corporation (NMS: SCHL), the global children's publishing
and media company, announced Monday it has agreed in principle to
settle the shareholder class action entitled In re Scholastic
Corporation Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 2447 (JFK).

The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, covers
those who purchased the Company's common stock between December 10,
1996 and February 20, 1997.

Scholastic will record a non-recurring pre-tax charge of $1.9 million
in the quarter ended August 31, 2002 to reflect the 25% of the $7.5
million settlement that will not be paid by the Company's insurers. On
an after-tax basis, the charge is equal to approximately $l.2 million
or $0.03 per share.

Charles B. Deull, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said,
"Scholastic acted appropriately at all times in this matter; however,
we believe it is prudent to settle this case and put this matter behind
us, along with its attendant legal fees and uncertainties of
litigation. With this settlement, Scholastic will have resolved its
only shareholder litigation."

Scholastic is the world's largest publisher and distributor of
children's books. Scholastic creates quality educational and
entertaining materials and products for use in school and at home,
including children's books, textbooks, magazines, technology-based
products, teacher materials, television programming, videos and toys.

The Company distributes its products and services through a variety of
channels, including proprietary school-based book clubs, school-based
book fairs, school-based and direct-to-home continuity programs; retail
stores, schools, libraries, and television networks; and the Company's
Internet Site, http://www.scholastic.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Permits Class Action Over Punitive Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a nationwide class-action lawsuit against the
country's largest tobacco companies, according to a report by The Wall
Street Journal.  The cigarette makers said they were confident the
decision would be reversed on appeal.

Judge Jack Weinstein of the U.S. District Court, in Brooklyn, New York,
ruled recently that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit can seek punitive
damages on behalf of all U.S. residents who have been diagnosed with
tobacco-related diseases since 1993.

Lawyers for Philip Morris, one of the defendants, said they would ask a
federal appeals court to set aside Judge Weinstein's ruling.

"Federal courts across the country overwhelmingly have rejected class
actions in tobacco cases, and we believe this case will be treated no
differently," said William S. Ohlemeyer, a Philip Morris associate
general counsel.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Opening of Louisiana Trial Moved to October 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to plumbing problems in the courthouse, the opening of the class
action suit against tobacco companies in New Orleans has been reset for
October 2, says the Associated Press.

The report says further delays are possible because the tobacco
industry is asking the Louisiana Supreme Court to postpone the trial.  
Already, this suit has taken more than a year just to seat a jury while
lawyers appealed decisions by the judge, and the high court
disqualified several potential jurors.  Jury selection was only
completed Friday last week.

The suit seeks to force manufacturers to pay for health monitoring and
kick-the-habit help for at least a half-million Louisiana smokers.
Attorneys have given no estimate of the cost of health monitoring for
healthy smokers and stop-smoking programs for those want to quit, the
report says.  The defendants include R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and
Brown & Williamson.

The nation's first class-action lawsuit seeking health monitoring for
smokers went to trial in West Virginia last year.  But the jury ruled
in favor of the tobacco industry.  Attorneys said a victory by smokers
could have cost the industry hundreds of millions.

In Louisiana, attorneys for smokers claim nicotine is addictive and
that major tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes
to keep smokers hooked.  The industry denies that claim.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Cases Seeking Pay for Forced Labor Still Undecided
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent Securities and Exchange Commission report, Unocal
Corporation admitted that it is currently a defendant in lawsuits by
anonymous representatives purportedly on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs consisting of residents and former residents of the
Tenasserim region of Myanmar.  

The lawsuits were initially filed in 1996 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal
Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 96-6959-RWSL, referred to as the "Doe"
action; and John Roe III, et al. v. Unocal, Inc. [sic], et al., Case
No. CV 96-6112-RWSL, referred to as the "Roe" action).  

The plaintiffs alleged that the company was liable for alleged acts of
mistreatment and forced labor by the government of Myanmar allegedly in
connection with the construction of the Yadana natural gas pipeline,
which transports natural gas from fields in the Andaman Sea across
Myanmar to Thailand.

The complaints contained numerous counts and alleged violations of
several U.S. and California laws and U.S. treaties. The plaintiffs
sought compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs, as well as disgorgement of profits. Injunctive and
declaratory relief were also requested on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and the purported class to direct the defendants to cease
payments to the Myanmar government and to cease participation in the
Yadana project.

In its answers to amended complaints in both actions, the Company
denied that it was either properly named as a party or subject to joint
venture, partnership or other liability with respect to the Yadana
pipeline.  In 2000, the court granted the Company's motions for summary
judgment in the two proceedings, ordered the federal law claims
dismissed with prejudice and, after declining to exercise jurisdiction
over the pendant state law claims, ordered them dismissed without
prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs in both actions appealed the final
judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case Nos.
00-56603 and 00-56628, respectively), where oral argument was conducted
in December 2001.  The court's ruling on the appeals remains pending.

Meanwhile, in 2000, following the dismissal of their claims by the
federal court, the plaintiffs filed actions against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District (John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal Corp., et al.,
No. BC237980; and John Roe III, et al. v. Unocal Corporation, et al.,
No.  BC237679).  

The complaints allege that, by virtue of the Company's participation in
the Yadana project, it is liable under California law for alleged acts
of mistreatment and forced labor by the government of Myanmar.

The complaints contain numerous counts alleging various violations by
the defendants of the constitution, statutes and common law of
California. With respect to liability for alleged unfair business
practices, the Doe action is also styled as a purported class action on
behalf of two classes of plaintiffs: all affected residents and former
residents of the Tenasserim region of Myanmar and all California
residents and the general public within the State of California. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and the purported classes, as well as injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief.

The Company's demurrers, which sought to have the actions dismissed
from the state court, were denied in September 2001.  Subsequently, the
Company moved for summary judgment in both actions on all claims, which
motions remain pending.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Deems Price-fixing Suit in CA "Immaterial"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, a purported class action was filed (Cal-Tex Citrus Juice,
Inc., et al. v. Unocal Corporation, et al., in the California Superior
Court for Sacramento County) against Unocal Corporation and eight major
California oil refiners by direct and indirect purchasers of diesel
fuel in the state of California from March 1996 through 1997.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to restrict the
production and fix the price of "CARB" diesel fuel in violation of the
California Cartwright and Unfair Competition Acts. The total amount of
damages sought by the plaintiffs is unknown.

If liability were established, the Company would be jointly and
severally liable for any damages awarded. Any such damages would be
trebled if a Cartwright Act violation were to be found and attorneys'
fees and costs would also be recoverable.

"Fluid recovery" and cy pres restitution would be available under the
Unfair Competition Act if a violation of that act were found. Any
damages awarded would be allocated among the defendants according to
their market shares.

"The Company and its co-defendants believe that there is no merit to
the plaintiffs' claim that there was a conspiracy to fix prices or
restrict the supply of CARB diesel fuel," said Unocal's SEC report.  
"Moreover, even if such an agreement did exist among some of the
defendants, the Company believes that there is no evidence linking it
to such an agreement.  Further, the Company believes that the sale of
its marketing and refining assets to Tosco in 1997 would be deemed to
constitute an effective withdrawal from any alleged conspiracy."

In 2000, the court entered a stay in this case pending the decision of
the California Supreme Court in the case of Aguilar v. Atlantic
Richfield Company. In light of the decision favorable to the defendants
in the Aguilar case by the California Supreme Court in June 2001, the
Company no longer considers this case to be material.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases  

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm, a securities class action trial law firm, recently
filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Bellsouth
Corporation (NYSE:BLS) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 22, 2001 and July 19, 2002, inclusive

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by artificially
inflating the price of BellSouth securities during the Class Period
through a series of material misrepresentations.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants reported quarter after quarter of
"record" financial results and growth despite a deteriorating market
for telecommunications companies.

The complaint alleges that 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, thus
violating Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The complaint alleges that on July 22, 2002, defendants revealed that
BellSouth's earnings had dropped by 67% for the second quarter of 2002.
The complaint alleges that 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.

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

For more information, contact THE EMERSON FIRM through its Investor
Relations Department: Tanya R. Autry by Mail: 830 Apollo Lane, Houston,
TX 77058 by Phone: 1-800-663-9817 (toll free) or by e-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


CONCORD EFS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated recently a
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Concord EFS, Inc.
(Nasdaq: CEFT) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 30, 2001 and September 4, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Concord EFS, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, Concord and its top officers issued false
and misleading statements and concealed the truth about the Company's
results and business in order to allow Concord stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

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

The complaint says the truth 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 Concord to report
favorable results despite the fact that its business operations were
not as strong as represented.

According to the complaint, on September 5, 2002, Concord 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,
Concord's stock dropped to $12.60 per share. Concord's stock price has
fallen more than 60% from its Class Period high of more than $35 per
share.

For additional information, contact CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Ellie Baker by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by
Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by e-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


CUTTER & BUCK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Marc S. Henzel recently initiated a class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of purchasers of Cutter & Buck, Inc. (NASDAQ:CBUKE) publicly
traded securities during the period between June 23, 2000 and August
12, 2002.

The complaint charges Cutter & Buck and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Cutter & Buck designs and markets upscale men's and women's sportswear
and outerwear under the Cutter & Buck brand. The Company sells its
products primarily through golf pro shops and resorts, corporate
accounts, specialty retail, and Company-owned retail stores.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused
Cutter & Buck's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through
the issuance of false and misleading financial statements.

On August 12, 2002, Cutter & Buck issued a press release entitled,
"Cutter & Buck Announces Discovery of Accounting Irregularities in
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001; Reports Resignation of Chief Financial
Officer; Announces Preliminary First Quarter Fiscal Year 2003 Operating
Results." On this news, the stock dropped to below $4 per share on
volume of more than 468,000 shares.

For additional information, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by e-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


FLEMING COMPANIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in E.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed recently a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Texarkana Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE: FLM) between February 27, 2002 and
July 30, 2002, against defendants Fleming and certain of its officers
and directors.

The case name and index number are Sved v. Fleming, et al. and 5:02-CV-
198.  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.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous optimistic statements concerning the Company's "price-impact"
retail supermarket division.  The Complaint alleges that these
statements were made omitting the fact that defendants knew, or
recklessly overlooked, that the performance of Fleming's "price-impact"
retail supermarket division was, in the words of the defendants,
"disappointing." These statements erroneously depicted the Company's
business projections and artificially inflated and preserved the price
of Fleming common stock.

The complaint alleges that the defendants profited on the false and
misleading statements by:

     (1) reducing the interest rate and lengthening the maturity on
         $250 million of Fleming's debt;

     (2) selling 8 million shares of Fleming common stock on June 13,
         2002, for over $155 million;

     (3) selling Fleming Notes due 2010 on June 13, 2002, for an
         additional $200 million; and

     (4) utilizing the profits of the June 13, 2002 securities sales to
         finalize the acquisition of Core-Mark International, Inc. and
         Head Distributing for $330 million in cash, purchases depicted
         by defendants as "key" to Fleming's execution of its strategic
         conversion into an efficient, national, multi-tier supply
         chain for consumer packaged products.

The complaint further alleges that roughly six weeks after defendants
sold $355 million worth of the Company's securities, on July 30, 2002,
Fleming revealed, contrary to the reiterated, optimistic statements of
the past, that its "price-impact" retail supermarket division was
operating so unsuccessfully that the Company was contemplating
discontinuing this line of business wholly. The price of Fleming common
stock decreased following this release, falling from $15.21 on July 30,
2002 to $13.75 on July 31, 2002, on large trading volume of 3.9 million
shares, and continually declined over the next two heavy trading days
to a 52-week low of $10.76 on August 2, 2002.

For more information, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
800-575-0735 (Fred Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael
Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke) by e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whafh.com


METRIS COMPANIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody recently initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Metris Companies, Inc. (NYSE:MXT) securities between Nov.
5, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

Metris is in the business of providing financial products and services,
including issuing and managing credit cards through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank, N.A.  

The Complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action alleges that defendants issued
a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
financial condition. Specifically, defendants misled the investing
community concerning the existence of a Report of Examination (the ROE)
released by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the OCC),
the primary federal regulator of Direct Merchants. Moreover, the
Complaint charges that defendants misled the investing community
regarding the adverse material effect the ROE would have on Metris'
financial condition.

The Complaint alleges that the OCC released the ROE to defendants on
November 5, 2002, but that defendants failed to reveal the existence of
the ROE to the public until April 17, 2002, and thereafter
misrepresented the effect it would have on Metris.

As outlined in the Complaint, the findings of the ROE were ultimately
addressed in a consent agreement between Direct Merchants and the OCC,
and obligated Direct Merchants to restructure significant parts of its
operations including its credit policies, credit risk assessment, debt
forbearance, allowance for loan and lease losses and internal controls.
The Complaint further alleges that as a result of defendants' actions,
plaintiff and the Class were damaged.

For more details, contact Michael Braun or Patrice Bishop of Stull,
Stull & Brody by Phone: 888-388-4605 (toll free) by e-mail:
info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.secfraud.com


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed recently a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Riverstone
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: RSTN) between August 10, 2001 and June 5, 2002,
inclusive, against defendants Riverstone and certain officers and
directors.

The case name and index number are Tang v. Riverstone Networks, et al.
and (3:02-CV-04584 VRW).   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.

According to the complaint, Riverstone is a provider of metropolitan
area networking solutions that enable service providers to convert raw
bandwidth into beneficial services over legacy and next-generation
infrastructures.  

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants urgently
desired to manufacture the impression that Riverstone was able to
directly enter these markets with a captive customer base. Riverstone,
through its relationship with Hutchison Global Crossing (Hutchison),
was able to contend head-to-head with the leading companies in the
industry. Preceding its association with Hutchison, the Company was
having difficulty increasing operational momentum within these
potentially profitable Asian markets.

The Complaint further alleges that each defendant was aware that
Riverstone would not meet its anticipated Q2 02 to Q1 03 revenue and
earnings per share targets unless they influenced the Company's
revenue, earnings and receivables. Yet, because the "appearance" of
growth was vital to defendants' plan to raise the price of Riverstone
shares, sell their own shares, and raise monies via its $150 million
debt offer, defendants continually represented during the Class Period
that Riverstone would achieve revenue projections and EPS when,
truthfully, defendants knew that Riverstone could not meet their
forecasts without trying to fraudulently book revenue by encouraging
customers who defendants knew lacked the ability to pay to consent to
take delivery of goods and that Riverstone was, in fact, suffering from
greater losses.

The Complaint also alleges that defendants realized that if
Riverstone's inability to produce legitimate sales growth from clients
who could pay was disclosed, together with the fact that Riverstone's
estimated growth was contingent upon sales to customers which
defendants knew would be unable to pay pursuant to the Company's
internal policy, due to their own financial decline, defendants would
not collect the financial rewards of selling their own shares at
artificially inflated prices which totaled $7.1, and the $150 million
debt offering would not occur.

For more information, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
800-575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke) by e-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.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  * * *