CAR_Public/020926.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, September 26, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 191

                           Headlines
                           
ARIZONA: Judge's Ruling Moves Taxpayers Closer To Refunds
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Have Until October 7 to File Appeal
CARDIZEM LITIGATION: Court Preliminarily OKs Aventis, Andrx Settlement
FIREPOND INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY
HAYES LEMMERZ: Bankruptcy Court Soon To Hear Relief From Stay Motion

KMART CORPORATION: Officers, Auditor Named in Michigan Securities Suit
KMART CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
KMART CORPORATION: California Suits Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Procedure
LOUISVILLE CITY: Property Owners May Seek Tax Refunds by Court Action
NOVELL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Utah Securities Fraud Suit

NOVELL INC.: Unit Moves for Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NOVELL INC.: Dismissal of $300 Million Antitrust Suit in Utah Appealed
PB PIPE LITIGATION: New Homeowners May Qualify for Free Replacement
ROYALTY CLAIMS: High Court Says Gas Royalty Claimants Can Sue Anywhere
SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Settles Suit, Estimates $1.9 MM Charge in Q1

SYPRIS SOLUTIONS: Lawsuit Over Coker Plant Explosion Remains Undecided
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Okays $7.5 MM Settlement of Securities Suit
TRANSUNION: Lauds Court For Favorable Ruling on Potential Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Speak At Congressional Black Caucus
WHEREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in L.A. for Non-payment of Overtime Work

* Expert Says REIT Stocks 'Tool' for Reducing 401k Fiduciary Risk
* Hong Kong's Securities Czar Wants Adoption of U.S.-type Class Action

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CUTTER & BUCK: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
DUANE READE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Suit in N.D. Alabama
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

IPALCO: Hagens Berman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Indianapolis
METRIS COMPANIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D NY

                           *********

ARIZONA: Judge's Ruling Moves Taxpayers Closer To Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
Tax Court Judge Paul Katz's recent decision moved some taxpayers one
step loser to getting the tax refunds owed to them because the state
improperly taxed some corporate dividends in the late 1980s, the
Associated Press Newswires reported recently.

Judge Katz gave preliminary approval to a settlement that will split
the better part of $350 million among hundreds of thousands of
taxpayers.  More terms of the settlement are available than earlier.

"I believe that this settlement is the result of good negotiations, and
it is fair to members of the class," Judge Katz said.  He scheduled a
December 16 hearing to decide whether he will give the settlement his
final approval.

Attorneys have said about 675,000 taxpayer may be eligible for refunds
because of the case, which resulted in a groundbreaking Arizona Supreme
Court ruling that taxpayers could band together in class-action
lawsuits to press tax claims.

Class attorney Randall Wilkins said the settlement will benefit a wide
range of taxpayers, particularly those who could not normally have paid
a lawyer or a CPA to process a claim for them.  "This is the first time
that the average person can achieve this type of relief," Mr. Wilkins
said.

The case involved income taxes ruled to have been collected illegally
from thousands of taxpayers for some corporate dividends in 1986-89.
The state agreed it should not have taxed non-Arizona companies'
dividends at one rate, while giving more favorable treatment to
dividends paid by in-state companies.

The state will calculate the money owed to plaintiffs, using a standard
formula applied to dividend income listed in tax documents.  The state
will figure that approximately half the dividends were taxed correctly
and half were not in order to calculate the refunds.  This will save
the state from manually processing individual tax returns, which would
have otherwise taken more than a decade, attorneys have said.

Most claimants will not have to file claim forms, because they will be
identified using tax records.  Potential recipients will be notified by
mail of the case's existence and the proposed settlement.  Unless they
opt out of the settlement, they will receive a check for the refund by
mail.

Notices of the lawsuit and the proposed settlement will be published in
November.  And the first two payment installments will be issued no
later than August 2004.

It still remains to be seen how much the lawyers for the class will
receive.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Have Until October 7 to File Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corporation and its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
were named as defendants in a purported class action (resulting from
the consolidation of five actions, the first of which was filed on
February 5, 2002) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of Biopure's common stock and
subsequently amended.

The complaints claimed that Biopure violated the federal securities
laws by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated time of a biologic license
application Biopure expected to make to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and that Biopure failed to disclose materially adverse
information regarding the data Biopure gathered in the Phase III
clinical trials in support of its FDA application, resulting in the
artificial inflation of Biopure's common stock price during the
purported class period of May 8, 2001 through March 21, 2002.

By Memorandum And Order dated September 4, 2002, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.  The deadline to appeal is October
7, 2002.


CARDIZEM LITIGATION: Court Preliminarily OKs Aventis, Andrx Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation (Nasdaq:ADRX) announced Tuesday that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
preliminarily approved the settlement which Aventis Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Andrx entered into with the direct purchaser class of
plaintiffs in the Cardizem CD antitrust litigation.

The settlement requires a total payment of $110 million by Aventis and
Andrx to this class, and the split between these two parties remains
confidential. Andrx's portion of that settlement is a part of the $60
million charge previously announced by Andrx and taken in the second
quarter of 2002. Though Andrx will continue to attempt to settle the
remaining claims on reasonable terms, the Company is committed to
vigorously litigating any of the cases that cannot be settled on that
basis.

Andrx Corporation is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
commercialization of oral controlled-release generic and brand
pharmaceuticals utilizing its proprietary drug delivery technologies.
Andrx also distributes generic pharmaceutical products manufactured by
third parties.

For more information, contact Andrx Corporation, Fort Lauderdale
through its Investor Relations: Gale A. Blackburn by Phone:
954-217-4344 or by e-mail: gblackburn@andrx.com.  You may also contact
Scott Lodin by Phone: 954-585-1751 or by e-mail: slodin@andrx.com


FIREPOND INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in August 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York seeking an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons
who purchased shares of FirePond, Inc.'s common stock between the date
of their initial public offering and December 6, 2000.

The complaints name as defendants Firepond and certain of its directors
and officers, and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens and other parties as
underwriters of our initial public offering.  The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission was materially false and misleading because it
failed to disclose that the investment banks which underwrote
Firepond's initial public offering of securities received undisclosed
and excessive brokerage commissions, and required investors to agree to
buy shares of the company's securities after the initial public
offering was completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to
obtaining initial public offering allocations.

The plaintiffs further allege that these actions artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock after the initial public
offering.  

"While the Company believes the claims against them are without merit
and intend to defend the actions vigorously, the litigation is in the
preliminary stage, and the Company cannot predict the outcome with
certainty," a Securities and Exchange Commission report said.

FirePond provides enterprise software that is used to manage customer
interactions across a variety of sales channels. Its SalesPerformer
software includes tools for sales force automation, customer profiling,
order configuration, and needs analysis, and can be implemented across
direct, indirect, and Web-based sales channels.

According to a Hoovers.com dossier, the company also offers software
(eServicePerformer) for managing online customer service operations.
Firepond's customers come from industries such as financial services,
telecommunications, and manufacturing.  Entities affiliated with
General Atlantic Partners own 45% of the company.


HAYES LEMMERZ: Bankruptcy Court Soon To Hear Relief From Stay Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2002, a group of purported purchasers of the bonds of HAYES
LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. commenced a putative class action lawsuit
against thirteen present or former directors and officers of the
Company (but not the Company) and KPMG LLP, the Company's independent
auditor, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged class of persons who
purchased Company bonds between June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and
claim to have been injured because they relied on the Company's
allegedly materially false and misleading financial statements.  

On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint adding CIBC World Markets Corp. and Credit Suisse First
Boston Corporation, underwriters for certain bonds issued by the
Company, as defendants.  

Additionally, before the date the Company commenced its Chapter 11
Bankruptcy case, four other putative class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, on
behalf of a class of purchasers of Company common stock from June 3,
1999 to December 13, 2001, based on similar allegations of securities
fraud.

On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class
action complaint seeking damages against the Company's present and
former officers and directors (but not the Company) and KPMG.

On June 13, 2002, the Company filed an adversary complaint and motion
for a preliminary injunction in the Bankruptcy Court requesting the
Court to stay the class action litigation commenced by the bond
purchasers and equity purchasers.  Additionally, on July 25, 2002, the
Company filed with the Bankruptcy Court a motion to lift the automatic
stay in the Chapter 11 Filings to allow the insurance company that
provides officer and director liability insurance to the Company to pay
the defense costs of the Company's present and former officers and
directors in such litigation.

The Bankruptcy Court currently is scheduled to hear these matters at a
hearing scheduled for September 30, 2002.


KMART CORPORATION: Officers, Auditor Named in Michigan Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since February 21, 2002, five separate purported class actions have
been filed on behalf of purchasers of Kmart common stock between May
17, 2001 and January 22, 2002, inclusive, naming Charles Conaway as CEO
and Chairman of the Board of Kmart as the sole defendant.

The complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan allege that Mr. Conaway made material
misstatements or omissions during the alleged class period that
inflated the trading prices of Kmart's common stock and seek, among
other things, damages under Section 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934. Kmart is not a defendant.

On August 15, 2002, an amended consolidated complaint was filed that
enlarged the class of persons on whose behalf the action was brought to
include purchasers of Kmart securities between March 13, 2001 and May
15, 2002, and added Jeffrey N. Boyer, Mark S. Schwartz, Matthew F.
Hilzinger, Martin E. Welch III and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as
defendants.


KMART CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2002, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
participants or beneficiaries of the Kmart Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan against various officers and directors of Kmart alleging
breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for excessive investment in
company stock; failure to provide complete and accurate information
about Kmart common stock and failure to provide accurate information
regarding our financial condition.  Class action allegations are also
made for current and former employees who participate in the Kmart
Corporation Retirement Savings Plan.

"Kmart is not a defendant," the company stressed in its latest
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure.


KMART CORPORATION: California Suits Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Procedure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart is a defendant in six putative class actions and one multi-
plaintiff case pending in California, all relating to its
classification of assistant managers and various other employees as
"exempt" employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code and its alleged failure to pay overtime wages as
required by these laws.

These seven wage-and-hour cases were all filed during 2001 and are
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Henderson v. Kmart), the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Gulley v. Kmart, the multi-plaintiff
case, which was originally brought in state court) and the Superior
Courts of the State of California for the Counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles and Riverside (Panossian v. Kmart, Wallace v. Kmart, Pierce v.
Kmart, Hancock v. Kmart, Pryor v. Kmart).

"If all of these cases were determined adversely to Kmart, the
resulting damages would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations and financial condition," the company said its recent SEC
disclosure.  "However, there have been no class certifications, all of
the cases are stayed as a result of Kmart's bankruptcy and, based on
our initial investigations, we believe that we have numerous defenses
to each of these claims."  


LOUISVILLE CITY: Property Owners May Seek Tax Refunds by Court Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Louisville property owners may seek a refund of property
taxes paid for 1998 and 1999, without going through the Kentucky Board
of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals recently ruled, according to the
Associated Press Newswires.

The decision by the appellate court does not determine whether the
taxpayers may seek refunds on behalf of all property owners in the
city.

Eric P. Light and Connie Light sued the city, alleging it did not
follow proper precautions when it set property tax rates for the two
years of 1998 and 1999.  They asked for refunds of the difference
between what they paid and what they maintain they should have paid.  
The protested amounts were not included in the court's ruling.

The city had argued that protests of property taxes must go to the
board of tax appeals.

The recently released unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the
court said city property taxes are not covered by the state board of
appeals.  The tax appeal board has jurisdiction over tax matters
arising from "any agency of state or county government," according to
the ruling written by Judge Paul Gudgel.

The court said the city of Louisville is not included in that scheme;
it creates its own tax bills.  Therefore, said the court, the Lights
may go to court directly to seek their refunds because they already
asked the city for refunds and were turned down.

And even though the city has said the lawsuit should not be able to
qualify as a class action, that is an issue, wrote Judge Gudgel, that
the Jefferson County Circuit Court will have to determine.


NOVELL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Utah Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1998, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court, District
of Utah, against Novell and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging violation of federal securities laws by concealing the true
nature of Novell's financial condition and seeking unspecified damages.

The lawsuit was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of Novell common stock from November 1, 1996 through April
22, 1997.  After a first dismissal and a subsequent amendment to the
complaint, the Federal District Judge dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals and Novell intends to vigorously defend to uphold the
Federal District Court's ruling.

"While there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of the
lawsuit, Novell does not believe that the resolution of this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows," a Securities and Exchange Commission
report of the company said.


NOVELL INC.: Unit Moves for Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SilverStream, a unit of Novell, Inc., and several of its former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters who handled
SilverStream's public offerings, are named as defendants in several
class action complaints that have been filed on behalf of certain of
former stockholders of SilverStream who purchased securities between
August 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  

These complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  In
particular, they allege, among other things, that there was undisclosed
compensation received by the underwriters of SilverStream's initial and
secondary public offerings.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, statutory compensation and
other relief that may be deemed appropriate by the court. The
plaintiffs have brought similar actions against a large number of other
issuers and underwriters, making similar allegations.  A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed, in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002.  All issuers, including
SilverStream, filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 15, 2002.  

"Novell believes that SilverStream and the individual defendants have
meritorious defenses to the claims made in the complaints and intends
to contest the lawsuits vigorously," said the company's latest
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure.


NOVELL INC.: Dismissal of $300 Million Antitrust Suit in Utah Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1995, Lantec, Inc. filed a suit against Novell in the U.S.
District Court, the District of Utah, for alleged antitrust violations
arising from Novell's acquisition of the GroupWise technology.

The plaintiffs were seeking to demonstrate damages of $300 million. On
April 19, 2001, the judge ruled in favor of Novell and dismissed the
entire complaint.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals and Novell intends to vigorously defend to uphold the Federal
District Court's ruling.

"While there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of the
lawsuit, Novell does not believe that the resolution of this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows," the company said in its latest
Securities and Exchange Commission report.


PB PIPE LITIGATION: New Homeowners May Qualify for Free Replacement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with polybutylene (PB) plumbing inside their homes or
outside used for yard service lines may qualify for a free replacement
of their plumbing system. If they bought their house, mobile home, or
multi-family structure after September 12, 1999, this may be the first
time they are eligible to participate this program.

The first step for those who purchased residential property since
September 12, 1999 is to inspect the structure's plumbing.

PB systems are distinguished by flexible, gray plastic pipes joined by
plastic or metal insert fittings held in place by small aluminum or
copper bands, a little wider than a man's wedding band. Inside a home,
these may be found in the attic, crawl space or water heater closet,
often beneath insulation materials. Outside a home, blue, gray or black
piping at the water meter or pipe entry site may indicate the presence
of a PB yard service line.

Under the terms of a class action settlement between consumers and PB
pipe manufacturers and raw material suppliers reached seven years ago,
systems that qualify for replacement must have been installed between
January 1, 1978 and July 31, 1995.

Homeowners, especially those who bought their homes within the past 36
months and find that their properties have PB plumbing that has leaked
or that leaks in the future should call the Consumer Plumbing Recovery
Center (CPRC) toll-free at 1-800-392-7591 or visit
http://www.pbpipe.com. The Web site features all information needed to  
file a claim, including a Claims Eligibility Form making it a simple
process.

"Homeowners with leaking PB pipe should call the CPRC or access the Web
site as soon as possible. Consumers have found the plumbing replacement
process quite simple and easy," explained Tim Taylor, General Manager
of the Center. "We are eager to inform them about the relief they are
eligible to receive and to help them through the plumbing replacement
process."

PB pipe was installed in millions of residential properties in the U.S.
beginning in the late 1970s, but it was never used for drains, waste or
vent piping, yard sprinkler systems, irrigation systems, fire sprinkler
systems, sewer lines, faucets or fixtures. PB pipe should also not be
confused with PVC or CPVC products that are rigid and white or off-
white plastic. The CPRC website includes photos of the PB pipes and
fittings that qualify for replacement.

A homeowner who has polybutylene (PB) plumbing but does not wish to
participate in the benefits of the replacement program may be excluded
from obtaining relief under this settlement by signing and returning an
exclusion request form by December 31, 2002. The toll free number and
the Web site have information on how to do this and also have the
official Notice of Class Action and Settlement.

Since the conclusion of the class action suit in the Chancery Court for
Obion County, Union City, Tennessee, in November 1995, the CPRC has
received more than a million and a half inquiries and more than 600,000
consumers have filed claims. In the past seven years, the Center has
spent over $500 million re-plumbing more than 300,000 affected houses,
mobile homes, multi-unit structures, and yard lines in a program that,
despite its national scope and large number of qualified claimants, is
hassle-free.

"The CPRC provides extensive support to qualifying claimants to ensure
that eligibility is established quickly and that the plumbing
replacement takes place with minimum disruption," said Mr. Taylor. "We
evaluate the claim and check the basic information. We then send an
inspector for a site visit to qualify the home and determine the extent
of the work. If you qualify, you can select your own plumber or use one
of the plumbers recommended by the CPRC. Our goal is to make the
process quick and painless."


ROYALTY CLAIMS: High Court Says Gas Royalty Claimants Can Sue Anywhere
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming district courts have no geographical limit on claims filed for
oil and gas royalties, the state Supreme Court ruled in a class-action
lawsuit covering claims in Lincoln and other counties in the state,
reported the Associated Press Newswires.

The unanimous opinion released last weekend said that the Legislature
intended that cases filed under the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act may be
brought in any county where one of the wells in question is located.

"This reading of the statute is more reasonable than the alternative --
that multiple suits involving the same issues and between the same
parties must be brought in all the counties where the well [in
question] is located," said the opinion written by Justice Barton
Voigt.

The opinion came in a civil case out of Lincoln County.  A number of
royalty owners are seeking additional royalties from BP America
Production Co. and Marathon Oil.

The oil companies had argued that state law allows claims to be brought
only in the district court for the county where the oil well is
located.


SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Settles Suit, Estimates $1.9 MM Charge in Q1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholastic Corporation (NasdaqNM: SCHL), announced Tuesday that it has
agreed in principle to settle the shareholder class action entitled In
re Scholastic Corporation Securities Litigation, 97 Civ. 2447 (JFK).

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.

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


SYPRIS SOLUTIONS: Lawsuit Over Coker Plant Explosion Remains Undecided
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sypris Technologies, a subsidiary of Sypris Solutions, Inc., is a co-
defendant in two lawsuits arising out of an explosion at a coker plant
owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  In
each of these lawsuits, it is alleged that a carbon steel pipe elbow
that Sypris Technologies manufactured was improperly installed and the
failure of which caused the explosion.

One of the actions was brought by Exxon Mobil in 1994 in state district
court in Louisiana and claims damages for destruction of the plant,
which Exxon Mobil estimates exceed one hundred million dollars.  Sypris
Technologies is a co-defendant in this action with the fabricator who
built the pipeline into which the elbow was incorporated and with the
general contractor for the plant.

The second action is a class action suit also filed in 1994 in federal
court in Louisiana on behalf of the residents living around the plant
and claims unspecified damages.  Sypris Technologies is a co-defendant
in this action with Exxon Mobil, the contractor and the fabricator.

In both actions, the Company maintains that the carbon steel pipe elbow
at issue was appropriately marked as carbon steel and was improperly
installed, without Sypris Technologies' knowledge, by the fabricator
and general contractor in circumstances that required the use of a
chromium steel elbow.

Although the Company believes these defenses to be meritorious, there
can be no assurance that the Company will not be found liable for some
or all of the alleged damages.  If the Company was to be found liable
and the damages exceeded available insurance coverage, the impact could
materially and adversely affect the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Okays $7.5 MM Settlement of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since December 2001, thirteen purported class action lawsuits have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  The actions were
consolidated in one lawsuit, Gershon Bassman v. Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., in April 2002.

The consolidated complaint includes claims under Sections 10 (b) and 20
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under Section 10 (b), and generally alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading public filings, press releases and other
statements regarding the Company's financial condition during a class
period commencing on February 24, 2001 through December 17, 2001 in a
scheme to artificially inflate the value of the Company's common stock.

In June 2002, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the consolidated class action lawsuits for $7.5
million in cash.  During the three months ended April 30, 2002, the
Company recorded $1.46 million of class action settlement costs, which
represents the settlement of $7.5 million and related legal fees, net
of $6.14 million of insurance proceeds. The settlement amount is
included in accounts payable at July 31, 2002.

The insurance proceeds are included in prepaid expenses and other
current assets at July 31, 2002.  In July 2002, the United States
District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement.


TRANSUNION: Lauds Court For Favorable Ruling on Potential Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion, a leading global information solutions company, on Tuesday
praised the Federal Court of the Northern District of Illinois'
favorable ruling relating to potential class action lawsuits that were
based on the company's previous dispute with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) about target marketing lists.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling against TransUnion in June created
unwarranted concern about the financial impact that class action
lawsuits could have on TransUnion. The Federal Court recently ruled in
favor of TransUnion's request that certain claims in the federal
lawsuits should not be allowed to proceed as class actions.

"We are pleased with the ruling," said Harry Gambill, president of
TransUnion. "The ruling affirms that there is already an existing
regulatory framework that governs our business and protects consumers."

According to the 43-page decision, the court recognized that the
statutory framework created by Congress and enforced by the FTC "is
superior to a class action for statutory damages by tens of millions of
consumer who claim no actual economic loss." In addition, the opinion
stated that consumers "continue to be protected by the FTC's
enforcement of the statute and regulations."

TransUnion is a leading global information solutions company that
customers trust as a business intelligence partner and commerce
facilitator. TransUnion offers accurate and reliable financial data
through a broad range of products and services that enable customers to
manage risk and capitalize on market opportunities. The company uses
leading-edge technology coupled with extensive analytical capabilities
to prevent fraud and facilitate credit transactions between businesses
and consumers across multiple industries and channels, including the
Internet. Founded in 1968, Chicago-based TransUnion employs 3,600
associates that support clients in 24 countries.

For more information, contact TransUnion through Clark Walter by Phone:
312/985-3734 or by e-mail: cwalter@transunion.com


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Speak At Congressional Black Caucus
----------------------------------------------------------------
The air was filled with invective aimed at USDA when black farmer
leaders and lawyers stated their grievances at a forum recently held in
Washington, and sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, according
to a report by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Stephen S. Hill, a lawyer for Hispanic farmers who are suing the
Agriculture Department for millions of dollars and lasting changes in
the way USDA operates, also spoke at the forum and promised "bombshells
to come" from friendly witnesses familiar with USDA operations.

Critical written statements by two former high-ranking USDA officials
already have been filed in the Hispanic farmers' lawsuit: One is a
statement from Rosalind D. Gray, named in July 1998, to head the Office
of Civil Rights, who questioned USDA's will to reform itself.  She said
that "systemic exclusion of minority farmers remains the standard
operating procedure" at the Farm Service Agency (FSA).  

The FSA is a USDA branch, organized in 1994, to handle farm loans,
conservation and farm commodity programs.  Its programs are delivered
through a far-flung field office system overseen by predominantly
white- and male-elected county committees.

"This system of control by a few white farmers over federal farm
dollars moving into the counties has been used to perpetuate and expand
the farms of many county committee members and their families, at the
expense of disfavored minority farmers," Ms. Gray said, echoing some of
the black farmers' harshest allegations.

A second statement was filed, as well, in the Hispanic farmers'
lawsuit.  Dallas R. Smith, who retired in 1999, from the post of deputy
undersecretary, said discrimination in USDA loan programs was "an open
secret, but very difficult to combat."

These charges, from black and Hispanic farmers, arise in a climate of
despair, different from the hopeful atmosphere accompanying the
settlement approved by a federal judge on April 14, 1999.  The
settlement was believed to punctuate with a "happy ending" the black
farmers' class-action lawsuit against the USDA.  Perhaps, the seed of
the unhappiness that has attended the settlement was planted at its
inception, when a settlement was approved which did not order
operational changes at USDA.

Under the settlement, almost 13,000 farmers have won payments of more
than $629 million under the simpler and quicker of two claim routes
provided.  Claims by about 8,500 farmers were turned down.

Failure by tens of thousands of black farmers to win any compensation
under the settlement, whether their claims were rejected or were ruled
ineligible for filing late, has stirred wide disappointment and finger-
pointing.  A bid by unhappy black farmers to vacate the settlement was
rejected in court recently.

These figures do not give the entire view of the settlement, however.
The settlement addressed the claims made by the black farmers that USDA
systematically discriminated against the black farmers applying for
loans and subsidy programs.  USDA admitted the discrimination.  The
settlement was supposed to pay black farmers $50,000 dollars each and
forgive their farm loans from 1983 to 1998 as compensation for the
years of discrimination.  An estimated $2.2 billion was expected to be
paid and forgiven.


WHEREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued in L.A. for Non-payment of Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2001, Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. was sued in the Los
Angeles Superior Court by a former store manager, claiming alleged
failure to pay overtime wages to herself and all similarly situated
salaried store employees.  The complaint does not specify any amount of
the claims, either individually or on behalf of the class.

Thereafter, the complaint was amended to add three additional named
plaintiffs.  The amended complaint seeks relief on behalf of both store
managers and assistant managers going back to 1997. The company's
motions to strike the class action allegations have been denied.

In October 2001, a second class-action suit was filed with respect to
store managers and assistant managers by different named plaintiffs and
different lawyers.  It also seeks overtime pay and, in addition,
asserts claims for meal break and rest break penalties.  The plaintiffs
in the two suits have filed a consolidated complaint. A limited amount
of discovery has been conducted to date.

"While the company believes it has meritorious defenses against the
suits, the ultimate resolution of the matter, could result in a loss in
excess of the amount accrued during the second quarter of Fiscal 2003,"
the company said in its latest Securities and Exchange Commission
disclosure.


* Expert Says REIT Stocks 'Tool' for Reducing 401k Fiduciary Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REITs' low correlation with other stocks and bonds makes them "a
potentially powerful tool" for the 401(k) plan fiduciary in selecting
investment options, according to a newly-published article by noted
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) attorney Evan Miller.

ERISA, the 1974 federal law that guides private-sector pension plan
management, requires fiduciaries - persons with the authority to make
decisions regarding a plan's assets - to invest prudently and to
diversify the investments of a pension plan so as to lessen the risk of
large losses.

Writing in the Fall 2002 issue of The Journal of Pension Planning and
Compliance, Mr. Miller notes that the global bear market has caused a
spate of recent ERISA class action litigation brought by 401(k)
participants challenging the appropriateness of specific 401(k)
investments.

As these 401(k) plan class actions proceed, it is Mr. Miller's view
that courts should apply modern portfolio theory concepts - especially
principals of covariance - to scrutinize 401(k) plan fiduciary conduct.

In this regard, if an employer is faced with significant losses in a
401(k) investment option, its legal position would be strengthened if
it can argue that the plan chose all investment options, including the
challenged one, based upon a process that relied on the concepts of low
correlation and diversification among all asset classes, and that the
plan clearly informed participants of the importance of low correlation
and diversification benefits of the various investment choices.

"This is where REIT security investing can play a significant role in
boosting fiduciary prudence," he writes.

Mr. Miller's article, "Real Estate Stocks, Correlation and the ERISA
Prudence Rule," observes that "the low correlative impact of REITs vis-
a-vis other publicly traded equity and debt, without the 'lumpy'
features of traditional real estate, makes it a particularly attractive
asset class for defined benefit and 401(k) plans."

REITs also have advantages over other types of less traditional 401(k)
investments, such as high yield bonds, international bond funds and
hedge funds, in Mr. Miller's view. "Real estate is an investment that
is far easier to understand and exists in every 401(k) participant's
hometown," he writes. "REITs provide easy, low cost access to the
diversification benefits of real estate and thus have significant
practical and economic advantages over many of these other portfolio
diversifiers."

"From a legal perspective, (REITs') inclusion in pension portfolios or
401(k) plan option sets should significantly bolster the fiduciary's
prudence position," Mr. Miller observes.

"Mr. Miller's article has great significance to all defined
contribution plan sponsors and providers," remarked Michael R. Grupe,
NAREIT's Senior Vice President of Research and Investment Affairs.
"Because of the low correlation of REIT stock returns with the returns
to other equities and bonds, the inclusion of REITs can help to reduce
a fiduciary's legal exposure that a 401(k) plan's investments are
either too volatile or too risky. This is valuable guidance that should
be embraced by every 401(k) plan manager."

Mr. Miller is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Hogan &
Hartson, L.L.P., where he specializes in counseling and litigation
matters involving the conduct of ERISA-regulated fiduciaries. In 1998,
he was named by The National Law Journal as one of the top 40 benefits
lawyers in the United States.

Published quarterly, The Journal of Pension Planning and Compliance is
a leading source for in-depth coverage of pension compliance and design
issues.

The National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts(R) (NAREIT)
is the national trade association for REITs and publicly traded real
estate companies. Members are real estate investment trusts (REITs) and
other businesses that own, operate and finance income-producing real
estate, as well as those firms and individuals who advise, study and
service those businesses.

For more information, contact the National Association of Real Estate
Investment Trusts through Jay Hyde or Rob Valero by Phone: 202-739-9400
or 1-800-3NAREIT or visit the group's Web sites: http://www.nareit.com
and http://www.investinreits.com


* Hong Kong's Securities Czar Wants Adoption of U.S.-type Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Securities and Futures Commission Chairman Andrew Sheng has decided
tough rules are needed to tackle the problems of corporate governance,
as well as a system by which small shareholders might undertake action
against bad management; namely, some form of the U.S. class-action
system, the South China Morning Post reported recently.

Speaking recently to some 300 market practitioners, Mr. Sheng said in
respect of corporate transactions, that there was a "middle ground" in
between the regimes of the two local regulators -- the Securities and
Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing.

In his speech, Mr. Sheng also pointed to another weakness of Hong
Kong's corporate governance system -- the absence of a United States-
style class-action contingency fee system.

Such a system could allow small shareholders to jointly undertake
direct legal action against bad management with relatively low cost.  
Given the lack of such a system, "litigation is expensive in Hong Kong
... so it is not surprising that shareholders call for the regulators
to intervene in disputed transactions," Mr. Sheng said.

Mr. Sheng indicated that in order to deal effectively with the
transactions that appear unfair, there will have to be changes in the
rules.  He told the gathered market practitioners that his views today
were different from those expressed in his public remarks some four
months ago.

He indicated that the government has more information about the extent
of corporate malfeasance than had been the case four months ago.  Mr.
Sheng indicated that the SFC was investigating a number of instances of
bad transactions and was working on the possibility of developing a
derivative action power under the Companies Ordinance.

Unlike a class-action lawsuit, a derivative action allows a shareholder
to take legal action on behalf of the company in question rather than
himself.  Such legal action is based on the rights derived from a
shareholder's position or relationship to the company, and recovery
would be for the company, not for himself.

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CUTTER & BUNK: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed on Tuesday a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Cutter & Buck, Inc.
(Nasdaq:CBUKE) securities between June 23, 2000 and August 12, 2002,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, against defendants Cutter & Buck and certain of
its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact the Law Offices of Charles J. Piven by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by
Phone: 410-986-0036


DUANE READE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed Tuesday a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Duane Reade, Inc.
(NYSE:DRD) securities between April 25, 2002 and July 24, 2002,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants Duane Reade, Inc. and
Anthony J. Cuti.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in this action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by
Phone: 410-986-0036


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Lovell Stewart Initiates Suit in N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP filed Tuesday a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of HealthSouth Corp.
(NYSE:HRC) between January 14, 2002 and August 26, 2002, inclusive.

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

The action, Gerstle v. HealthSouth Corp., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division (1729 Fifth Avenue, North Birmingham, Alabama) and has been
assigned to the Hon. William M. Acker, Jr., U.S. District Judge.

According to the complaint, defendants made misstatements of material
facts and omitted to state material facts in their public statements
and elsewhere, including failing to disclose:

     (i) that imminent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
         directives would cause HealthSouth to lose millions of dollars
         in revenue and earnings going forward;

    (ii) that HealthSouth's operations would have to be substantially
         reorganized because of the CMS directives, at great expense to
         HealthSouth; and

   (iii) that because of the foregoing developments, the defendants'
         repeated reassurances that HealthSouth's fundamentals were
         strong and that it would meet its earnings targets for 2002
         were lacking in any reasonable basis.

The complaint alleges that after defendants disclosed that
HealthSouth's 2002 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization would be lower than previously projected by approximately
$175 million on August 27, 2002 and discontinued and disavowed the
earnings guidance that they had previously given to the market for 2002
and 2003, HealthSouth's share price plummeted by more than 43 percent
to close at $6.71.

For more details, contact Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP through John
Halebian or Christopher J. Gray by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New
York 10110 by Phone: 212-608-1900 or by e-mail: classaction@lshllp.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced Tuesday that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders
who acquired Household International, Inc. (NYSE:HI) securities between
October 23, 1997 and August 14, 2002, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, against defendants Household
International, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by
Phone: 410-986-0036


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced Tuesday that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders
who acquired The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (NYSE:IPG)
securities between October 28, 1997 and August 13, 2002, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants The Interpublic Group
of Companies, Inc., John J. Dooner, Jr., H. Greier, Sean F. Orr,
Frederick Molz, Eugene P. Beard, Richard P. Sneeder, Jr., David I. C.
Weatherseed and Joseph M. Studley.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by
Phone: 410-986-0036


IPALCO: Hagens Berman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Indianapolis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman filed Tuesday a securities class action on behalf of
IPALCO shareholders against the company's officers stemming from the
utilities purchase by AES Corporation (NYSE:AES).

The suit contends that IPALCO insiders misled investors about the
financial condition of the energy company AES Corporation and the
volatile nature of its stock, a sale that has led to IPALCO investors
losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

"We intend to show that while IPALCO company executives were publicly
touting the sale to AES, they had information that painted a much
different picture which they never disclosed," said attorney Steve
Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "On one hand, the
company was flaunting the deal as a boon to shareholders while the
insiders were dumping IPALCO stock.

The defendants include Bush administration Budget Director Mitch
Daniels, who served on the IPALCO board.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, the proposed class-action
names Chairman, President, and CEO John Hodowal along with 22 IPALCO
officers and board members as defendants.

Mr. Berman asserts that AES originally offered to acquire the utility
for $25 a share in cash, an offer it later retracted without
explanation and replaced with a stock-swap scheme.  According to him,
the switch raises questions about the board's motives.

"It appears that the board of IPALCO was single-mindedly focused on
closing the deal with AES, regardless of the terms or risk," Mr. Berman
added.

According to the suit, the former IPALCO executives pocketed more than
$46 million in stock sales and other compensation packages, agreements
that would pay out only if the transaction was completed. Mr. Hodowal
alone received nearly $16 million.

"We intend to prove that the board knew that AES was a sinking ship,
but knew they would be handsomely rewarded for their acquiescence," Mr.
Berman said. "That wasn't the case, though, for the thousands of
investors whose life-savings went down with that sinking ship."

Almost immediately after the March 27, 2001, closing date of the
acquisition, AES's stock began a free-fall. Fueled by an announcement
of poor financial results in late September 2001, the stock dropped 50
percent in one day.

Shares of AES traded at $49.60 the day the IPALCO merger was completed
in March 2001 and trade at $2.72 per share as of Sept. 23, 2002.

Filed on behalf of four IPALCO investors, the suit seeks to represent
all IPALCO investors who held IPALCO stock as of Sept. 8, 2000.  The
suit claims that the defendants violated various sections of the
Securities Act, and seeks compensatory damages for class members.

For more details, contact Steve Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 or by e-
mail: steve@hagens-berman.com.  You may also contact Firmani &
Associates through Mark Firmani by Phone: 206-443-9357 or by e-mail:
mark@firmani.com


METRIS COMPANIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed Tuesday a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Metris Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:MXT) securities between November 5, 2001 through July 17, 2002,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, against defendant Metris and certain of its
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by
Phone: 410-986-0036


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced Tuesday that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders
who acquired MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE:MSM) securities
between January 11, 1999 and August 5, 2002, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against defendants MSC Industrial, Mitchell
Jacobson, Sidney Jacobson, Shelley M. Boxer, Charles Boehlke, David
Sandler and James Schroeder.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For additional information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J.
Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by e-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by Phone: 410-986-0036



                              *********



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  * * *