CAR_Public/021002.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Wednesday, October 2, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 195

                          Headlines
                          
AAMES FINANCIAL: Labor Claims in California Stuck in Discovery Stage
AAMES FINANCIAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for December 2, 2002
AKZO NOBEL: $16M Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 7, 2003
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Deal Set October 15
BRACEROS REPARATION: CA Governor Signs Bills To Protect Bracero Rights

CINAR CORPORATION: November 19 $27M Settlement Hearing Set
CONVERGYS: Fired Staff of Newly Acquired Unit Launch Class Action
CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Trial of 4-year-old Suit Set for March 2004
ELECTRONIC DATA: Rallies After Week of Setbacks Caused by Class Actions
ENRON CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Wants Full Document Disclosure

HANDSPRING INC.: Motion to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Still Undecided
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Suits by Survivors' Kin
INDIANA: Claims Over Illegal Strip Searches Fewer than Expected
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: Fairness Hearing Set for November 25, 2002
MILWAUKEE: Settlement Promises Benefits for Foster Kids

SPORT-HALEY INC.: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Undecided
UNITED STATES: Memorial to Braceros Unveiled In Stockton, California
WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs in NY Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal
WARNACO GROUP: Auditor Added to Second NY Securities Fraud Suit
WOLSELEY PLC: Sets Aside Money for Possible Asbestos Claims

                  New Securities Fraud Suits

ALLIED RISER: Beatie and Osborn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Lawsuit in N.D. GA
CONSECO INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Indiana
DUANE READE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ELECTRONIC DATA: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX

ELECTRONIC DATA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
FLEMING COMPANIES: Nix Patterson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Suit in N.D. AL
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in N.D. IL


                         *********


AAMES FINANCIAL: Labor Claims in California Stuck in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Aames Financial Corporation disclosed recently that the discovery phase
in the California class action filed against the company in May 2001 is
still continuing.

The company said it filed its answer to the complaint September last
year.  Since then, the suit, captioned Fowler et. al. v. Aames
Financial Corporation and Aames Funding Corporation, has remained in
discovery stage.

The putative class is currently pending in the U.S. District Court of
California, case 2:01cv04330.  Plaintiff, a former loan executive,
filed this action on behalf of himself and current and former loan
executives employed by the Company, and seeks, among others:

     (i) certification of class;

    (ii) damages consisting of alleged unpaid overtime;

   (iii) statutory liquidated damages and waiting time penalties;

    (iv) attorneys' fees and costs; and  

     (v) restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges that during his employment, he and other loan
executives worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week,
that the Company willfully failed to pay overtime in violation of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and, with respect to loan executives
employed in California, in violation of the California Labor Code and
Business; and Professional Code.

According to a Hoovers.com dossier, the company provides home mortgage
equity loans to individuals with poor credit records, who have trouble
getting financing from traditional lenders.

Aames has about 100 retail loan offices under the Aames Home Loan brand
making direct loans in about 30 states, but about half the company's
loans are produced through a network of almost 3,000 independent
mortgage brokers.

Aames has quit making correspondent purchases of mortgages from other
financial institutions. The company sells its loans on the secondary
market and sometimes sells the servicing rights as well. Asset
management firm Capital Z Partners owns over 90% of the company.


AAMES FINANCIAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for December 2, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AAMES FINANCIAL Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants in Aslami et. al. v. Aames Home Loan, Aames Financial
Corporation, et. al., a putative class action filed on April 11, 2000,
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case No. BC228027.

Plaintiffs, former customers, filed this action on behalf of themselves
and all persons who applied for or obtained loans from the Company
during the prior four years. Plaintiffs allege various state law claims
premised on their contention that the Company routinely "upcharges"
third party fees and under-discloses annual percentage rates.

On April 26, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint limiting
the purported class to California borrowers and asserting claims based
upon the payment of a yield spread premium to their broker. Plaintiffs
contend that such yield spread premium payments constitute kickbacks
and/or illegal referrals under California law and/or that the Company
failed to properly disclose the nature of a yield spread premium.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the class, damages consisting of fees
paid to mortgage brokers, statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, restitution, disgorgement of improperly collected charges,
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

"The Company has answered the amended complaint, again asserting
various affirmative defenses. The court has set December 2, 2002 as the
date upon which it will consider Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  
No trial has been set," Aames Financial said in its latest SEC report.


AKZO NOBEL: $16M Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 7, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:  ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO DIRECTLY PURCHASED ORGANIC PEROXIDES   
     FROM A DEFENDANT OR ANY CO-CONSPIRATOR DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1997
     THROUGH 2000 IN THE UNITED STATES OR FRO DELIVERY IN THE UNITED
     STATES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, that a hearing will be
held on January 7, 2003 at 10 am, before the Hon. James Robertson,
United States District Judge, in Courtroom No. 16, United States
Courthouse, located at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20001, for the purpose of determining whether the proposed settlement
of the litigation -- captioned IVAX CORPORATION et al. versus AKZO
NOBEL CHEMICALS B.V. and AKZO NOBEL INC. -- consisting of a cash
payment in the amount of $16 million for the benefit of the above-
referenced settlement class of purchasers of Organic Peroxides directly
from a defendant or any co-conspirator from 1997 through 2000 in the
United States or for delivery in the United States, in accordance with
the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement between plaintiffs
and certain defendants, dated as of August 9, 2001, on file with the
Court, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate
to the to the settlement class, and the above-entitled litigation
should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as against Akzo
Nobel Inc. and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V., as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.  Plaintiffs' counsel intend to make a request for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in
connection with this settlement at a point in the future.

Your rights may be affected by this litigation and the settlement
thereof if you directly purchased Organic Peroxides from a defendant or
co-conspirator in the United States or for delivery in the United
States from 1997 through 2000.

If you have not received a printed Notice of Class Action Settlement
with Azko Nobel and hearing Thereon, you may obtain a copy by writing
to Organic Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 470, Philadelphia,
PA 19105-0470.  The Notice contains further information regarding the
proposed settlement with Akzo Nobel Inc. and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V.
and the rights of Akzo Settlement Class Members with respect thereto.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

By James Robertson
United States District Judge


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Deal Set October 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF UNITS OF ALLIANCE
    CAPITAL MANAGEMENT HOLDING L.P., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLIANCE CAPITAL
    MANAGEMENT L.P. (ALLIANCE HOLDING OR THE PARTNERSHIP), ON ANY DAY
    DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING APRIL 8, 1999 TO AND INCLUDING
    OCTOBER 29, 1999 (OTHER THAN DEFENDANTS) INCLUDING THEIR LEGAL
    REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, AND ASSIGNS BY GIFT
    OR OPERATION OF LAW OF ALL SUCH FOREGOING HOLDERS AND/OR OWNERS,
    IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE.

    YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the plaintiffs and the defendants in
    the class action -- captioned R.S.M. INC. and MEL MOHR, TRUSTEE for
    the IRENE MOHR REVOCABLE TRUST on behalf of themselves and all
    other similarly situated versus ALLIANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
    HOLDINGS L.P., ALLIANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ALLIANCE
    CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P., DAVE H. WILLIAMS, BRUCE W. CALVERT, ROBERT
    H. JOSEPH, JR. and JOHN D. CARIFA -- have entered into an agreement
    to settle this Action.


PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated September 5, 2002, a hearing
will be held on October 15, 2002, at 2:00 p.m., at the New Castle
County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware:

     (i) to determine whether a Stipulation of Settlement dated August
         30, 2002, and the terms and conditions of the Settlement
         proposed in the Stipulation are procedurally and substantively
         fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the
         Class;

    (ii) to determine whether a class should be certified in the
         Action;

   (iii) to determine whether the Class was adequately represented by
         plaintiffs and their attorneys;

    (iv) to determine whether final judgment should be entered
         dismissing the Action as to all defendants named herein and
         their affiliates and with prejudice as against the plaintiffs
         and all members of the class;

     (v) to hear and determine any objections to the Settlement; and

    (vi) if the Court approves the Stipulation and the Settlement and
         enters the Order and Final Judgment, to determine whether it
         should award attorney' fees and expenses to plaintiffs'
         attorneys pursuant to the application described in the
         Stipulation.

The Action and the Settlement address claim arising out of a proposed
restructuring publicly announced on April 8 1999, and consummated on
October 29, 1999 in which Alliance Holding reorganized by establishing
a private partnership named Alliance Capital Management L.P. II
(Alliance Capital) to which it transferred its business in exchange for
all units of Alliance Capital (the Reorganization), and thereafter,
through an exchange offer (the Exchange Offer), offered its unitholders
the choice of continuing to hold their Alliance Holding units or
exchanging their Alliance Holding units on a one-for-one basis for
Alliance Capital units.  As a result of the prosecution of the Action
by plaintiffs and the Settlement,

     (i) the Partnership has made certain amendments to its partnership
         agreement;

    (ii) Alliance Capital has made certain amendments to its
         partnership agreement;

   (iii) defendants will implement a one-time, 30-day exchange program
         pursuant to which members of the Class who are holders of
         Alliance Holding public units and desire to exchange their
         Alliance Holding public units for Alliance Capital private
         units and members of the Class who are holders of Alliance
         Capital private units desiring to exchange their Alliance
         Capital private units for Alliance Holding public units or
         cash will be permitted to do so subject to certain
         restrictions; and

    (iv) following completion of the aforementioned exchange program,
         Alliance Capital will implement and abide by an agreed-upon
         policy regarding requests for consent to transfer limited
         partnership interests to third parties pursuant to the 2% safe
         harbor in Treasury Regulations Section 1.7704-1 (j).  

In consideration for these substantial benefits, plaintiffs have
agreed, subject to approval of the Settlement by the Court, to dismiss
all claims made by and that could have been made by plaintiffs and any
Class members relating to the Reorganization and/or the Exchange offer
-- including all claims in this action.

If you owned units of the Partnership on any day from and including
April 8, 1999 through and including October 29, 1999, your rights may
be affected by the Settlement.  A member of the Class who wishes to
contest either the Settlement or the amount of attorneys' fees to be
awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel may do so by following the procedure
set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing under the heading
RIGHT TO APPEAR AT SETTLEMENT HEARING.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing, you may
obtain copies by contacting Equiserve Trust Company, P.O. Box 43035,
Providence, RI 02940-3035, (800) 251-4215.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY.


Dated September 13, 2002             BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY
                                     OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


BRACEROS REPARATION: CA Governor Signs Bills To Protect Bracero Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aiding the half-century struggle of Mexican farm workers to recover
their lost wages, Governor Gray Davis recently signed a bill that will
give the workers more time to file legal action for payment, reports
the Associated Press Newswires.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-Los Angeles,
extends the statute of limitations for claims until December 31, 2005.
The new law is intended to help braceros, which include more than
300,000 Mexican farm workers who were contracted by the U.S. government
to relieve the labor shortage during World War II.

"It is an outrage that many braceros who worked in California during a
national time of need have never been paid [in full] for their labor,"
Governor Davis said in a statement recently released.  "This bill will
help me pay a long-overdue debt."

The labor agreement between the United States and Mexican governments
required a portion of the braceros' wages to be withheld as a savings
fund, to be paid to them upon their return to Mexico.  But many never
received such a payment -- some never knew about the money owed to
them; while others tried to claim it but could not get through the
bureaucracy.

Braceros or their heirs filed a class-action lawsuit against the United
States and Mexican governments and Wells Fargo Bank for mismanaging the
funds.  Experts have estimated that the 10 percent of the wages
withheld between 1942 and 1950 could not total up to $1 billion,
including the interest.

Gov. Davis also signed a bill at the same time clarifying the state's
position on worker rights in relation to immigration status.  This
bill, sponsored by Senator Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, ensures that
all protections, right and remedies available under state law are
available to California workers, regardless of their immigration
status, except those prohibited under federal law.

The bill was drafted and passed by the state Legislature in response to
a recent Supreme Court case, in which a company tried to deny a former
employee back pay because he was an undocumented immigrant.  The Court
ruled that the company violated federal labor laws and awarded the back
pay.


CINAR CORPORATION: November 19 $27M Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF CINAR
    CORPORATION CLASS A AND/OR CLASS B STOCK FROM APRIL 8, 1997 THROUGH
    MARCH 10, 2000, INCLUSIVE.

This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, dated July 25, 2002, and an Order of
the Quebec Superior Court for the District of Montreal dated August 27,
2002, pursuant to Article 1025 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the proposed
US$25,000,000 partial settlement that has been reached in these
proceedings:

     (i) IN RE CINAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION (United States
         District Court, Eastern District of New York)

    (ii) ASSOCIATION DE PROTECTION DES EPARGNANTS ET INVESTISSEURS DU
         QUEBEC (APEIQ) and LOUIS-ANTOINE METHOT against CINAR
         CORPORATION, and MICHELINE CHAREST, and RONALD A. WEINBERG,
         and HASANAIN PANJU, and JEFFREY GERSTEIN (Canada Province of
         Quebec District of Montreal)

By and between plaintiffs and respondents CINAR, Marie-Josee Corbeil,
and Ernst & Young LLP (a Canadian partnership) and the US$2,250,000
partial settlement that has been reached in the Class Actions by and
between plaintiffs and respondents Micheline, Charest and Ronald A.
Weinberg (collectively with CINAR, Ms. Corbeil and Ernst & Young LLP,
the Settling Respondents) (collectively, both partial settlements, the
Settlements).  The settlement consideration consists of US$27,250,000
in cash.  Residents of the United States, Canada, and other countries
are entitled to participate in the proposed Settlements. The proposed
Settlements also involve the withdrawal of the Canadian Proceedings as
against Jeffrey Gerstein, but do not resolve the claims against the
non-settling respondent Hasanain Panju.

A hearing will be held by the U.S. Court on November 19, 2002, at 11:00
a.m., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York,
and in the Canadian Court on November 25, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., in
courtroom 2.08, in Superior Court of the Province of, Quebec, District
of Montreal; Court House, 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec,
H2Y 186. The purpose of these hearings will be, among other things:

     (1) to determine whether the proposed Settlements are fair,
         reasonable, and adequate and should be approved and,
         therefore, whether the Class Action's should be dismissed on
         the merits and with prejudice and without costs to the
         Settling Defendants in the U.S., and whether the Canadian
         Proceedings should be declared to be definitively settled as
         to CINAR, Ms. Charest and Mr. Weinberg pursuant to a
         "transaction" in accordance with Article 2631 and following of
         the Quebec Civil Code, and whether the Canadian Petitioners
         should be granted leave to discontinue the Canadian
         Proceedings as against Mr. Gerstein without costs; and

     (2) to consider the reasonableness of an application of
         plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
         reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting the class
         action, and the application of the Association de protection
         des epargnants et investisseurs du Quebec for US$35,000.00 for
         their past, present and future involvement in and for
         reimbursement of expenses incurred in the prosecution of the
         Canadian Proceedings.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CINAR Class A and/or Class B
stock, during the period set forth above, you may be a Class member or
may be entitled to participate voluntarily in the Settlements, unless
otherwise excluded by virtue of affiliation with any of the
respondents.  In particular, if you wish to share in the US$27,250,000,
which total aggregates the partial settlements, you must file a claim,
on a Proof of Claim form, no later than December 31, 2002 establishing
that you are entitled to recovery.  PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A
PROPER PROOF OF CLAIM FORM, YOU WILL NOT SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENTS BUT
YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  If you have not
already received a copy of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Partial Settlements of Class Action and Settlement Hearing, or a copy
of the Proofs of Claim, you may obtain such information by contacting:

     In the U.S.:      Claims Administrator
                       CINAR Securities Litigation
                       c/o Berdon LLP P.O. Box 9014 Jericho, NY
                       11753-8914
                       Telephone: (800) 766-3330
                       Fax: (516) 931-0810
                       Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims


     or in Canada:     Claims Administrator
                       CINAR Securities Litigation
                       c/o Horwath Appel 1 Westmount Square - Suite 900
                       Montreal, Quebec H3Z 2P9 Canada
                       Telephone: (514) 932-4115
                       Fax: (514) 932-6766
                       E-mail: info@howarthappel.com

or the following law firm serving as Court-appointed Lead Counsel for
Plaintiffs in the United States:

      LOWEY DANNENBERG BEMPORAD & SELINGER, P.C.
Attn: Neil L. Selinger, Esq.
One North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601-1714

Or in Canada:    
      UNTERBERG, LABELLE,                  BELLEAU LAPOINTE '
      LEBEAU & MORGAN                      Attn: Daniel Belleau, Esq.
Attn: Paul G. Unterberg, Esq.        306 Place d'Youville
1980, Rue Sherbrooke Ouest   Bureau B-10
Bureau 700                          Montreal, QC H2Y 2B6
Montreal, QC H3H 1E8         Canada
Canada

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.
IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS AND THE SETTLEMENT, YOU MAY
DO SO BY FILING A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 5, 2002.
IF YOU WISH TO BE HEARD IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE SETTLEMENTS
OR THE GRANT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, YOU MAY DO SO BY FILING A NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO APPEAR NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 5, 2002.


Dated: September 13, 2002  BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW       
                                    YORK

                                    AND

                                    QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT
                                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL


CONVERGYS: Fired Staff of Newly Acquired Unit Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some 170 persons fired from an Edinburgh telecommunications company
have joined forces to launch the biggest employment lawsuit ever
brought in Scotland to recoup unpaid wages and seek compensation for
unfair dismissal, the Evening News (Scotland) reported recently.

The workers who were fired from TelesensKSCL were told they will
receive only a fifth of the wages due them by the receivers Deloitte
and Touche.  The firm had told their staff about the receivership only
two days after directors assured them that there was enough money in
the bank to pay their wages.  With no warning, a staff of 220 persons,
including expectant mothers and those on sick leave, were made
redundant and told to leave the company's offices.

Three days later, the company was sold to Convergys, the United States
telecom billing company.  The fired staff received no salary for the
month, no redundancy and no payment for notice or for a statutory
consultation period.

Around 170 of the workers have vowed to continue with their class-
action lawsuit against Deloitte and Touche and the company's new owner,
Convergys.


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Trial of 4-year-old Suit Set for March 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CyberGuard Corporation vowed anew to mount a vigorous defense in the
securities class action filed against it and several of its officers.  
In its latest Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure, the
company said the suit is set for trial March 2004.

The company said the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted on August 14, 2002 plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and certified the class to include all investors
who acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996 and
August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such stock.

The suit stems from a restatement of the company's financial results in
August 1998.  Some twenty-five purported class action lawsuits were
filed by alleged shareholders following the announcement of the
restatement.

Pursuant to an order issued by the Court, these actions were
consolidated into one action, styled Stephen Cheney, et al. v.
CyberGuard Corporation, et al., Case No.98-6879-CIV-Gold.

On August 23, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint.  They allege, among other things, that as a
result of accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue
recognition policies, the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading and that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly published these financial statements which
caused the Company's common stock prices to rise artificially.

The action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.   Subsequently, the defendants,
including the Company, filed their respective motions to dismiss the
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.

On July 31, 2000, the Court issued a ruling denying the Company's and
Robert L. Carberry's (the Company's CEO from June 1996 through August
1998) motions to dismiss.  The court granted the motions to dismiss
with prejudice for defendants William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from
November 1997 through August 1998), Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's
CFO from April 1996 through October 1997), C. Shelton James (the
Company's former Audit Committee Chairman), and KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of that order. The Company filed an answer to the plaintiffs'
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint on August 24, 2000.

On March 20, 2001, the Court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration that the previously dismissed defendants William D.
Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and C. Shelton James should not have been
dismissed from the action and shall be defendants in this action under
the control person liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and that the plaintiffs may amend the Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint to bring claims against C. Shelton James under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint to include amended claims against C.
Shelton James. On May 10, 2001, the Company filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' Second Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On August 14, 2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and certified the class to include all investors who
acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996 and August
24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such stock.

"The Company intends to vigorously defend this action, and believes
that in the event that it is unsuccessful, insurance coverage will be
available to defray a portion, or substantially all, of the expense of
defending and settling the lawsuit or paying a judgment," the SEC
document says.

CyberGuard provides firewalls, network security products that include
hardware, a firewall application, an operating system, and networking
software. The company's firewall appliances and software (available in
both Unix and Windows NT-based versions) allow for network access
control and the remote monitoring of system activity.

CyberGuard offers products for global businesses (KnightSTAR) as well
as small and mid-sized businesses (FireSTAR). The company also offers
network security testing, consulting, and training services, which
account for about 25% of sales.  About half of CyberGuard's sales come
from outside the US.  Fernwood Partners II owns 48% of CyberGuard, a
Hoovers.com dossier says.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Rallies After Week of Setbacks Caused by Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of Electronic Data Systems (EDS) continued to rebound as the
company defends itself against shareholder lawsuits and questions about
how a $225 million derivatives settlement will affect its cash flow,
reports The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch analyst Stephen McClellan reiterated his
concerns about the company's financial prospects.  EDS said Mr.
McClellan had erred by stating in a research report that the settlement
would eliminate its free cash flow for 2002.

"The essence of my commentary is completely intact," said Mr.
McClellan, whose "sell" recommendation spared a sell-off in EDS stock
last Tuesday.  Mr. McClellan said he has not retracted his report.

Shareholder lawsuits allege that EDS misrepresented its financial
condition, violated accounting principles, and unwisely speculated on
the value of its own stock.

Milberg Weiss, a New York law firm, recently filed a class-action
lawsuit in federal court in Texarkana.  Another lawsuit has been filed
by Washington, D.C. lawyer, Mark McNair.

Jeff Baum, an EDS spokesman, said that the company believes the
lawsuits have absolutely no merit, and that "we intend to vigorously
defend ourselves."

Mr. Baum said that EDS remains strong financially despite being placed
on credit watches by bond-rating agencies and paying marginally higher
interest rates on its short-term borrowing.

Mr. Baum said the company properly disclosed its financial picture,
including a warning on September 18 that third-quarter earnings would
fall 80 percent below analysts' estimates.

Both Moody's and Standard & Poor's placed EDS on review for possible
downgrades in its short-term credit ratings.  Bloomberg News reported
Friday that EDS is paying 1.95 percent on commercial paper, or very
short-term loans.  The rate reflects a 0.15 percent premium.  Mr. Baum
says the difference is insignificant, amounting to $300,000 a year.

"We do not anticipate any significant changes in our credit rating,"
Mr. Baum said.  "We have full access to commercial paper.  Even if we
were downgraded, we would have full access."


ENRON CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Wants Full Document Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the federal Enron shareholder lawsuit has asked
that lawyers in the case be allowed to publicly discuss documents about
fraud and the fall of the company that come to light in the discovery
process, according to a report by the Houston Chronicle.

The University of California Board of Regents, the lead plaintiff in a
would-be-class-action lawsuit, recently filed a motion before U.S.
District Judge Melinda Harmon opposing any efforts to keep documents
under seal or protective order.

"This case is ultimately about a spectacular failure of public
disclosure -- disclosure that is the very purpose of the securities
laws," said William S. Lerach, the California-based lead counsel for
the Enron shareholder plaintiffs.  "It would be ironic and perverse if
public disclosure were to be blocked in this litigation."

Judge Harmon, who oversees the conglomeration of dozens of lawsuits
into two class-action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders and employees,
already has ordered that the lawyers establish a document depository in
order to organize, store and disseminate to the parties as many as 20
million documents that may be produced by both sides in the lawsuits.

The lawsuits against the company, its executives, auditors, lawyers and
bankers, allege that the defendants engaged in fraud that wrongfully
cheated shareholders and employees.

Access to the document depository will be limited to the parties in the
Enron-related lawsuits.  The depository will not be open to journalists
or the public.  But if the University of California's motion is
granted, attorneys could disclose the content of documents in court
pleadings and to the public.

A variety of lawsuits filed in state courts in Texas and elsewhere
likely will also share in the costs and the use of the document
depository.  Document depositories are frequently used in large class-
action cases.

In litigation, one or both sides frequently seek protective orders to
keep under seal information that is particularly sensitive, like
personal medical information or trade secrets.  Orders requiring
confidentiality prohibit the attorneys from talking about or sharing
the documents.

The document depository will be in two floors of a three-story building
in Houston.  It will be administered by Lex Solutio, a Phoenic-based
document management company.  The operation of the facility will be
funded by part of the $40 million settlement that some of the
plaintiffs received from Andersen Worldwide, the international parent
company for accounting from Arthur Andersen.


HANDSPRING INC.: Motion to Dismiss NY Securities Suit Still Undecided
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. disclosed in its latest Securities and Exchange
Commission report that its motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities suits in New York remains undecided.

Two of the company's officers are defendants in this lawsuit,
originally filed August last year.  The suit is currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

According to the SEC disclosure, the complaint asserts that the
prospectus for Handspring's June 20, 2000 initial public offering
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the
offering.

The complaints allege claims against Handspring and the defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The complaints also name as defendants the
underwriters for Handspring's initial public offering.

"We have sought indemnification from our underwriters pursuant to the
Underwriting Agreement dated as of June 20, 2000 with our underwriters
in connection with our initial public offering," the company said.  "A
Motion to Dismiss has been filed by a number of defendants, including
Handspring and our named officers, but the court has not yet ruled on
the motion."

The company is the manufacturer of Visor handheld computers.  Faced
with competition from both Palm and companies such as Hewlett-Packard
that use Microsoft's Pocket PC operating system, Handspring has shifted
focus to its Treo devices, which combine organizer and mobile phone
functions.

Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky, the co-founders of market leader Palm,
formed Handspring in 1998 after Palm became part of 3Com.  Mr. Hawkins
owns about 31% of the company, Dubinsky, about 17%.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Suits by Survivors' Kin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American relatives of Holocaust victims won an important victory in
their long legal battle to force European insurance companies to pay
claims on life insurance policies of people killed by the Nazis and
other Axis powers, as a federal judge in Manhattan, refused defendant
insurance companies' motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit brought
by the relatives, reported the New York Times News Service recently.

But lawyers for the families and for the insurance companies say it
probably will be years before the lawsuits, which could be worth
hundreds of millions of dollars are resolved.

In the recent decision, Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the U.S. District
Court in Manhattan, rejected a request by two insurers, Assicurazioni
Generali of Italy and the Zurich Life Insurance Co. of Switzerland, to
dismiss about a dozen lawsuits that were filed more than five years
ago.  The insurers argued that any life insurance claims should be
handled by a commission financed by the insurers or by European courts.

Judge Mukasey said neither alternative was in the best interest of the
families.  The ruling opens the way for the lawsuits to go to trial in
American courts. Shifting the cases to European courts would be costly
for the relatives of the victims, Judge Mukasey said, adding that they
would have fewer legal options in Europe.  For example, he said, class-
action lawsuits are not possible in many European legal systems.

Judge Mukasey said further that the International Commission on
Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims, which was formed in Washington and
London in 1998, by a half dozen European insurers, could not be relied
upon to treat the families' claims fairly.

"It is, in a sense, the company store," Judge Mukasey wrote in his
65-page decision.  Although the Commission has the support of the U.S.
government as well as several Holocaust survivor and Jewish
organizations, he said, it "is entirely a creature of the six founding
insurance companies that formed the commission, two of which are
defendants in this case."

Kenneth Bialkin, a New York lawyer representing Assicurazioni Generali,
said he did not regard Judge Mukasey's decision as a major blow.  "We
intend to make a bunch of motions to get the case dismissed on other
grounds," he said.

Mr. Bialkin said the Italian insurance company was offering to pay
claims through the Commission as "an act of compassion," even though
the company believed many of them legally could be ignored.  He said
the plaintiffs believed they could get much more by pleading their
cases to a jury.

He made it clear that the Italian company would fight very hard to
block them.  "If they want to take a shot at the brass ring," he said,
"we are going to defend our stockholders' and policy holders'
interests.  All the defenses will be raised."

Any delays in the litigation probably would benefit the insurance
companies because they are being sued by predominantly elderly people.

Mara Rudman, the general counsel for the Cohen Group, a Washington
consulting company, and the chief operational officer of the insurance
commission, disagreed with the judge's characterization, saying that it
was "simply not accurate" that the Commission served as the insurers'
company store.

Ms. Rudman acknowledged that the Commission had been slow in resolving
claims.  But, she said, that with her appointment as chief operational
officer in July, and the naming of a chief financial officer in August,
the Commission was "turning a corner" in assuring that "valid claims
are paid as effectively as possible."

Ms. Rudman said that the Commission had received inquiries from more
than 80,000 people about possible Holocaust-era life insurance claims.
She said the Commission had focused on 56,000 of the inquiries, because
about 24,000 came from people with no connection to the Holocaust.

By now, four years since the Commission's establishment, it has offered
settlement payments to 2,420 people, Ms. Rudman said.  She estimated
that about 90 percent of the offers had been accepted.  She said the
offers ranged from about $500 to $75,000, but most were  $10,000 to
$12,000.  Altogether, she said, the Commission has paid out about $22
million.

Christopher Carnicelli, the president of Assicurazioni Generali's
operations in New York, said his company had paid more than $14 million
in claims through the Commission and at least $4 million through a
separate trust.

But lawyers for the relatives of the victims said that those payments
amounted to a small fraction of the actual value of the insurance
policies and the accumulated interest on them, many of which were
issued in the 1920s and the 1930s.

The policies themselves are worth millions," said William M. Shernoff,
a California lawyer representing six relatives of Holocaust victims.
"When you consider emotional distress and punitive damages, the value
of these cases could be way up there -- possibly over $l billion."


INDIANA: Claims Over Illegal Strip Searches Fewer than Expected
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 600 people have filed claims to share in the settlement of a
federal lawsuit over the practice of Floyd County Jail to strip-search
those being held on minor offenses, Associated Press Newswires recently
reported.

The $1.3 million the county is expected to have to pay, however, will
be about half of the agreed maximum, since fewer inmates than expected
came forward with claims.

The lawsuit contended that the jail had violated the civil rights of 11
people by requiring them to strip for a visual search by guards of the
same sex as the inmates.  It was later made a class-action lawsuit, and
federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled that such a blanket strip search
policy was unconstitutional.

Floyd County Sheriff Randy Hubbard changed the jail policy to allow
strip searches only if an inmate was suspected of having weapons or
other contraband.

The settlement agreement calls for Floyd County to pay a maximum of
$2.5 million to settle all claims in the lawsuit.  The inmates who
filed the claims will be paid about $600,000, while the attorneys who
handled the suit will receive $700,000.

Insurance will cover most of the settlement, county officials said.

Bart Betteau, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, said he was
disappointed that only 618 former inmates responded by the September 1
deadline to become eligible for the $1,000-a-person payments.  More
than 2,700 former inmates had been ruled eligible for the settlement.

Mr. Betteau won a $300,000 settlement last year for nearly 200 people
who sued Harrison County because they had been strip-searched in the
county jail.  He now has similar suits pending over jail strip searches
in Hamilton and Johnson counties of central Indiana.

Colleen Durbin of New Albany, who was strip searched after an arrest
for drunken driving, said she had spoken with several of the people who
were eligible, but did not respond to Mr. Betteau's letters.

"Some people were afraid," she said, and they told her they did not
fill out the settlement documents because they feared repercussions
from the local judicial system.


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: Fairness Hearing Set for November 25, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:  ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF
     INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM
     AUGUST 12, 1999 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 18, 1999, EXCLUDING
     THE DEFENDANTS, THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND ANY SUBSIDIARY OR
     CONTROLLING OR CONTROLLED PERSON OF ANY SUCH PERSONS OR ENTITIES.

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, that a hearing will be
held on November 25, 2002 at 4:00 pm before the Honorable Alvin W.
Thompson at the United States Courthouse, Abraham Ribicoff Federal
Building, 450 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut, for the purpose of
determining whether:

     (i) the proposed settlement of the claims in the litigation for
         the sum of $4,100,000 in cash shall approved by the Court as
         fair, just, reasonable and adequate;

    (ii) this action should be dismissed with prejudice;

   (iii) the Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable and adequate
         and therefore should be approved; and

    (iv) the application of plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of
         attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses
         incurred in connection with this litigation should be
         approved.

If you purchased the common stock of Information Management Associates,
Inc., during the period from August 12, 1999 through and including
November 18, 1999, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
settlement of this litigation.  You may obtain a copy of a detailed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Settlement and Hearing Thereon and
Proof of Claim and Release by writing to:

          Claims Administrator
          Information Management Associates, Inc.
          Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services,
          Concord Plaza, 91-A Concord Road,
          Suite 5, Aston, PA 19014
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.org

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no
later than January 17, 2003, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the litigation
whether or not you make a claim.

All Class Members who desire to exclude themselves from the Class must
do so on or before November 8, 2002 by written request to the Claims
Administrator and Clerk of the Court.

Any objection to the proposed settlement must be mailed or delivered
such that it is received by each of the following no later than
November 8, 2002.

Clerk of Court
United States District Court
For the District of Connecticut
Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building
450 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103

-----------------------------------------------------
CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109

Steven E. Cauley, Esq.
Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Coates, LLP
P.O. Box 25438
Little Rock, AR 72221
  
-----------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEYS FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Young, Esq.
Patrick J. Carty, Esq.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ALBERT R. SUBBLOIE, JR. AND GARY R. MARTINO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard LLP
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, CT 06901


PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.


BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


MILWAUKEE: Settlement Promises Benefits for Foster Kids
-------------------------------------------------------
The recent settlement of a class-action lawsuit seeking reform of
Milwaukee's child welfare system holds the promise of real and prompt
enefits for foster children, writes Eric Thompson, an attorney with
Children's Rights Inc. in a report in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The settlement agreement was reached by the state of Wisconsin with
lawyers representing the children from Children's Rights and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin (ACLU).

The settlement agreement requires the state's Bureau of Milwaukee Child
Welfare to immediately improve the lives of children in foster care by
taking the following action:

     (1) Cutting caseworker caseloads,

     (2) Ending the use of shelters to house foster children,

     (3) Reducing abuse and neglect in foster care and speeding up
         investigations,

     (4) Reducing the number of placement moves children are subjected
         to while in foster care,

     (5) Ensuring that foster children are seen at least monthly by
         their caseworkers,

     (6) Reducing the time it takes to return children to their parents
         when that goal is appropriate, and

     (7) Reducing the time it takes foster children to get adopted when
         that goal is required by law.

"If the state does not live up to its agreement," writes Mr. Thompson,
"we, as attorneys for the plaintiff children, can return to federal
court and seek a contempt of court finding and whatever additional
measures are necessary to ensure compliance."

Mr. Thompson points out in the report that an attack on the settlement
had been made by one Richard Wexler, director of a Virginia-based
organization working for "child protection reform."

His key complaint is about what he calls the settlement's betrayal of
children who may be subjected to inadequate protective services for
families before the children are placed in foster care.

It is important to remember, writes Mr. Thompson, that courts enforce
laws and not general social policy.  There is no enforceable law on the
issue Mr. Wexler raised.  While the courts can be useful tools for
protecting children's rights, they cannot act in the absence of a
recognizable legal claim, Mr. Thompson writes.

There is no legal basis to assert claims for children not yet in foster
care.  Plaintiffs' counsel could not ask the court to impose settlement
terms on the state on behalf of children who do not have legal claims
in the case.

What Children's Rights and the ACLU did obtain from the state on behalf
of the plaintiff class of children in foster care, was a court-
enforceable agreement that requires the Bureau of Milwaukee Child
Welfare to improve outcomes for those children in the case, based on
national best-practice standards.

These objective outcomes will be measured by state quality-assurance
staff, the same that uncovered and reported bureau non-compliance with
state and federal standards, as well as past document falsification and
back-dating at the bureau's service sites.

The quality assurance reports are required to be made public, thereby
increasing state accountability, writes Mr. Thompson, as well as our
ability to monitor progress each step of the way.

A trial would not have come until April 2003.  Court-granted relief
would have come at least a year from now, and the case would likely
have been appealed by the state, guaranteeing more years of litigation

Today's foster children do not have the luxury of waiting for the
possibility of reform years hence, when they can obtain court-
enforceable reforms immediately.

"Those of us familiar with the legal claims and evidence in the case,"
wrote Mr. Thompson, "believe Milwaukee's foster children will be
substantially better off as a result of the legal entitlements and
reforms established by the settlement agreement."

The agreement still requires approval by the federal court, but if that
approval is granted, Children's Rights and the ACLU will be
aggressively monitoring the state's implementation.   

"And we will return to court if necessary, to ensure that the children
we represent actually receive the benefits of the agreement we have
reached on their behalf," writes Mr. Thompson.


SPORT-HALEY INC.: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Undecided
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sport-Haley, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
recently that it had moved for the dismissal of the securities suit
currently pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The motion to dismiss, filed in February this year, remains undecided,
the company said in its latest SEC disclosure.  It was also around this
time that the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, alleging
substantially the same claims.

The suit arose out of Sport-Haley's restatements of its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998, which
Sport-Haley previously reported.  The Court appointed a group of
investors to act as lead plaintiffs in the action.  Sport-Haley and
three of its officers and directors are the named defendants in this
putative class action lawsuit.

The action, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly overstating
Sport-Haley's financial results, thereby causing Sport-Haley's stock
price to be artificially inflated.  The complaint further alleges that
the individual Defendants are liable by virtue of being controlling
persons of Sport-Haley, pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"The Defendants believe that the action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit," the company said.  

Sport-Haley designs and markets classically styled, mid- and premium-
priced men's and women's golf sportswear under the Haley label. Its
apparel includes jackets, pants, shirts, sweaters, and the Elements
line of outerwear such as rain suits and jackets; the company stopped
making headgear in 1999, a Hoovers.com dossier says.

Sport-Haley products are mostly sold at pro shops, country clubs, and
resorts, and often are custom-embroidered for clubs, tournaments, and
companies.  The company's spring collection brings in about 60% of its
sales.  Sport-Haley has endorsement agreements with several
professional golfers, including Hal Sutton and Neal Lancaster.


UNITED STATES: Memorial to Braceros Unveiled In Stockton, California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A sculpture honoring the contributions of millions of Mexican immigrant
laborers who came to the United States more than 50 years ago, and who
are still seeking to recoup some of their wages by means of a class
action lawsuit, was unveiled in Stockton, California, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

Although recognized by the memorial, a group of remaining braceros and
their heirs are still trying to gain the recognition of the courts.

The bracero's lawsuit against the United States, Mexico and the Wells
Fargo Bank, recently received some help from Governor Gray Davis, when
he signed a bill into law that will give the workers more time to
recover wages.  The new law extends the statute of limitations for
claims until December 31, 2005.

Braceros' attorney Jonathan Rothstein said, that even before the
announcement of the Governor signing the bill, he was planning to
pursue the case, which met an obstacle when a federal judge, late last
month, dismissed most of the lawsuit.

The braceros had filed a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco, seeking
repayment of monies deducted from their paychecks as savings.

Under the agreement between the United States and the Mexican
government, 10 percent of each worker's wage was withheld and
transferred via U.S. and Mexican banks, to an individual savings fund.
But many braceros said they never received the money.

Between 1942 and 1964, as many as five million men worked as braceros
in the United States, but the withholding was discontinued after 1949,
and only applies to about 300,000 of the workers.  Advocates say at
least $500 million is owed to the braceros, including interest.

The class action targeted the U.S. and Mexican governments and Wells
Fargo Bank, which was in charge of transferring the funds.

"I'm very proud that people are finally showing interest in the work
that we did," said Leopoldo Hernandez, 68, who began working as a
"bracero" in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1957, speaking about the celebration
in Stockton.

Mr. Hernandez was one of millions of braceros -- named after the
Spanish word for arm -- who came to the United States during World War
II from Mexico to fill labor shortages caused when the American men
marched off to war.  He was among the 20 braceros who helped unveil the
sculpture honoring their efforts.

The sculpture was dedicated as part of the celebration of International
Bracero Day, marking the 60th anniversary of the date when the first
workers arrived in San Joaquin Valley.

"I think it is a great project," said Rafael Arrieta-Eskarzaga, the
Mexican-born artist who made the sculpture.  He said it is unusual,
because it recognizes people who don't get recognized for their work.
We usually recognize presidents and generals, the artist said, not the
ordinary people.

The day's celebration was filled with laughter, mariachi music, food
and men on horses carrying Mexican and American flags.

Fund-raising for a museum and a library dedicated to the history of
braceros are also being planned.


WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs in NY Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Between August 22, 2000 and October 26, 2000, seven putative class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against The Warnaco Group, Inc. and
certain current and former officers and directors.

The complaints, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the
Company who purchased Company stock between September 17, 1997 and July
19, 2000, allege, inter alia, that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by artificially inflating
the price of the Company's stock and failing to disclose certain
information during the First Class Period.

On November 17, 2000, the Court consolidated the complaints into a
single action, styled In Re The Warnaco Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 00-Civ-6266 (LMM), and appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved a lead counsel for the putative class.

A second amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 31, 2001. On
October 5, 2001, the defendants other than the Company filed a motion
to dismiss based upon, among other things, the statute of limitations,
failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with the requisite
particularity.

On April 25, 2002, the Court granted the motion to dismiss this action
based on the statute of limitations.  On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration in the District Court.  On May 24,
2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On July 23, 2002, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. On
July 30, 2002, the plaintiffs' voluntarily dismissed, without
prejudice, their claims against the Company.

The Warnaco Group is one of the leading marketers of bras to US
department and specialty stores.  Warnaco boasts a diverse portfolio of
its own and licensed brands, including Calvin Klein and Warner's.

Warnaco also makes menswear under the brands Calvin Klein and Chaps by
Ralph Lauren; its Authentic Fitness unit is the North American
distributor of Speedo swimwear.  


WARNACO GROUP: Auditor Added to Second NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 20, 2001 and May 31, 2001, five putative class action
complaints, against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the
Company who purchased Company stock between September 29, 2000 and
April 18, 2001, allege, inter alia, that defendants violated the
Exchange Act by artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock
and failing to disclose negative information during the Second Class
Period.

On August 3, 2001, the Court consolidated the actions into a single
action, styled In Re The Warnaco Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
(II), No. 01 CIV 3346 (MCG), and appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved a lead counsel for the putative class.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed against certain current and
former officers and directors of the Company, which expanded the
Second Class Period to encompass August 16, 2000 to June 8, 2001. The
amended complaint also dropped the Company as a defendant, but added as
defendants certain outside directors.

On April 18, 2002, the Court dismissed the amended complaint, but
granted plaintiffs leave to replead.  On June 7, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, which again expanded the Second Class
Period to encompass August 15, 2000 to June 8, 2001.

On June 24, 2002, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which motions are pending. On August 21, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding the Company's current
independent auditors as a defendant.


WOLSELEY PLC: Sets Aside Money for Possible Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolseley Plc, the world's largest plumbers' merchant, watched millions
of dollars in the market value of its shares diminish recently, as it
revealed it was facing unspecified asbestos claims, The Express
newspaper reported.

Chief Executive Charles Banks said the claims arose from years ago when
Wolseley distributed pipes that contained asbestos.  But he said the
company was not involved in the huge class action in the United States,
in which around 250 business defendants were moving to settle out of
court.

Mr. Banks also said insurance cover for the claims "significantly
exceeds the estimated liabilities." And he reported annual profits up
41 percent to UK $410 million.

As asbestos victims are becoming ever more litigious, particularly in
the United States, there are growing fears that claims will expand out
of control.  Shares in the building products group Hanson have been hit
by similar worries.

Analysts were divided about the potential for impact.  Steve Charnock,
of ING, said, "An overreaction to asbestos fears could provide a buying
opportunity."

But Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein said asbestos claims were
"unquantifiable given the market view that litigation will balloon in
the future.  We expect shares to be weaker as a result."


                              *********


ALLIED RISER: Beatie and Osborn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Beatie and Osborn LLP announced Monday that a class
action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of individuals who purchased
Allied Riser Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: ARCC) common stock during
the period between November 23, 1999 and July 11, 2001.

The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs & Co. urged investors to
purchase Allied Riser stock when it knew or should have known that such
purchases were not a good investment.

The complaint alleges that defendant issued "Buy" recommendations about
Allied Riser without any rational economic basis; failed to disclose
that they were issuing "Buy" recommendations to obtain investment
banking business; and concealed significant, material conflicts of
interests that prevented them from providing independent objective
analysis.

For additional information, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. or Benjamin
D. Coleman, Legal Assistant by Mail: 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New
York, New York 10175 by Phone: 800-891-6305 by Fax: 212-888-9664 by e-
mail: clientrelations@bandolaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bandolaw.com


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Lawsuit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP announced Monday that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the securities of BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) between
January 22, 2001 and July 19, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
investing community during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of BellSouth securities.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants reported quarter after quarter
of "record" financial results and growth despite a deteriorating market
for telecommunications companies. The complaint alleges that BellSouth
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by recognizing
advertising and publishing revenues, purportedly in connection with the
performance of services for customers who had not been billed, and that
$163 million of this revenue was required to be reversed.

The complaint alleges that on July 22, 2002, defendants revealed that
BellSouth's earnings had dropped by 67% for the second quarter of 2002.
BellSouth stated that weak economic conditions in Central and Latin
America had been, and were continuing to have a material, adverse
impact on its earnings and profitability. The complaint alleges that in
response to the July 22, 2002 revelation, BellSouth stock dropped by
more than 18% to $22 per share.

For more information, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn by
Phone: 1-800-721-3900 by e-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.zsz.com


CONSECO INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed recently a securities class
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Conseco, Inc. (NYSE:CNC)
(OTCBB:CNCE) securities between October 30, 2001 and July 15, 2002,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana against defendant Conseco, 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


DUANE READE: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed recently a class action
suit against Duane Reade, Inc. (NYSE:DRD) for misleading investors
about its business and financial condition.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (02-CV-6962). Plaintiff seeks damages for
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who purchased Duane Reade, Inc. securities between April 25, 2002 and
July 24, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the New York-based Duane Reade, Inc., on
April 25, 2002, the start of the Class Period, defendants issued
Duane's First Quarter 2002 earnings new release for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002. Duane reported recorded first quarter sales and
earnings results as follows: net sales increased 12.5% to $305.8
million and net income was $5.3 million, or $0.22 per diluted share,
before a previously disclosed one-time non-cash charge, compared to net
income of $2.6 million, or $0.14 per diluted share, in the prior year
period.

With respect to the slight decline in gross profit margin for the
quarter, defendants stated in the news release that it was "primarily
attributable to the temporary dampening of front-end sales in the post
September 11 period and also due to a $0.4 million LIFO provision in
the period."

Additionally, defendants misled the public by presenting a very
positive outlook for the second quarter projecting that Duane Reade
would earn between $0.40 to $0.44 cents per share.

Suddenly, on July 25, 2002, defendants issued a news release announcing
that Duane's second quarter profits had plummeted by more than half
because Duane had failed to disclose previously that:

     (a) in connection with the "$218 convertible notes offering,"
         which was completed in April 2002, had incurred expenses of
         $7.7 million, after tax, which expenses would sharply reduce
         Duane's profits in the second quarter of 2002 and cause Duane
         to report earnings significantly lower than the level
         defendants told the market to expect;

     (b) had sharply lowered prices in their stores commencing in April
         2002 and planned to continue such program throughout the
         second quarter in an effort to increase revenues, knowing that
         this would cause reduced profit margins in the second quarter;
  
     (c) was experiencing increased "shrink," primarily due to
         increased theft and vendor errors, which would further erode
         profits in the second quarter of 2002;

     (d) was experiencing an increase in sales of generic drugs as a
         percentage of total drug sales, which sales were at lower
         prices than sales of branded equivalents;

     (e) was experiencing a fall-off in higher margin items, including
         cosmetics, snacks, jewelry and toys;

     (f) had embarked on a program, beginning in April 2002 when
         defendants learned that they would receive $9 million in
         business interruption insurance proceeds from the claims
         submitted in the aftermath of September 11, to spend
         approximately $5.0 million in the second quarter on product
         promotions due to lost vendor promotional allowances; and

     (g) had embarked on a program , beginning in April 2002 when
         defendants learned that they would receive $9 million in
         business interruption insurance proceeds from the claims
         submitted in the aftermath of September 11, to open in the
         second quarter five additional stores to the number of new
         stores originally planned to be opened during the second
         quarter which, together with the three additional unplanned
         stores opened in the first quarter of 2002, would cause Duane
         to incur additional costs of $1.5 million, including $800,000
         in store pre-opening expenses, in the second quarter of 2002.

In response to the surprise negative announcement on July 25, 2002, the
price of Duane common stock dropped precipitously, falling from a
closing price of $23.55 per share on July 24, 2002 to a closing price
of $14.60 per share on July 25, 2002, decline of approximately 38%, on
volume of 5.4 million shares traded, compared to average trading volume
of 321,000 shares for the previous five trading days.

For more information, contact Schiffrin & Barroway through Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by e-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood commenced lately a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Electronic Data
Systems Corp. (NYSE: EDS) between September 7, 1999 and September 24,
2002, inclusive.

The Complaint, currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, charges that Electronic Data Systems
Corp. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made misstatements
of material facts and omitted to state material facts in their public
statements and elsewhere, including:

     (i) failing to disclose that EDS's backbone revenue from its
         Information Solutions IT outsourcing business is highly
         susceptible to interruption due to terms in EDS's service
         contracts that enable EDS customers to unilaterally suspend
         discretionary spending on IT outsourcing,

    (ii) affirmatively misrepresenting the predictability of EDS's
         future cash flows by touting the anticipated revenue that EDS
         would supposedly receive from its IT outsourcing service
         contracts with customers without disclosing that payments
         under such contracts were not guaranteed, and

   (iii) failing to disclose that EDS faced significant potential
         threats to its liquidity if its share price fell because of
         put-option and other obligations that ultimately obligated EDS
         to in effect buy back a total of 5.44 million shares of EDS
         stock at fixed prices averaging over $60.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that after Wall Street began to learn about the
foregoing on September 18, 2002 after executives of EDS warned that a
lack of new revenues would wipe out more than $0.60 per share of its Q3
earnings target of $0.74, the price of EDS stock plummeted to a 52-week
low of $20, down from a class period high of $72.45.

The complaint alleges that after further revelations regarding EDS's
put-option and other liabilities emerged in the wake of the foregoing
disclosures, EDS's share price tumbled even further, reaching an intra
day low of $10.09 on September 24, 2002.

For more information, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102
by Phone: 405-235-1560 by Fax: 405-239-2112 or by e-mail:
mailto:Wfederman@aol.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed recently a
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Electronic Data Systems
Corp. (NYSE: EDS) publicly traded securities during the period between
September 7, 1999 and September 24, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges EDS and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made misstatements
of material facts and omitted material facts in their public statements
and elsewhere, including:


     (i) failing to disclose that EDS's backbone revenue from its
         Information Solutions IT outsourcing business is highly
         susceptible to interruption due to terms in EDS's service   
         contracts that enable EDS customers to unilaterally suspend
         discretionary spending on IT outsourcing;

    (ii) affirmatively misrepresenting the predictability of EDS's
         future cash flows by touting the anticipated revenue that EDS
         would supposedly receive from its IT outsourcing service
         contracts with customers without disclosing that payments
         under such contracts were not guaranteed;

   (iii) failing to disclose that EDS faced significant potential
         threats to its liquidity if its share price fell because of
         put-option and other obligations that ultimately obligated EDS
         to in effect buy back a total of 5.44 million shares of EDS
         stock at fixed prices averaging over $60.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that after Wall Street began to learn about the
foregoing on September 18, 2002, after executives of EDS warned that a
lack of new revenues would wipe out more than $0.60 per share of its Q3
earnings target of $0.74, the price of EDS stock plummeted to a 52-week
low of $20, down from a class period high of $72.45.

The complaint alleges that after further revelations regarding EDS's
put-option and other liabilities emerged in the wake of the foregoing
disclosures, EDS's share price tumbled even further, reaching an intra
day low of $10.09 on September 24, 2002.

For more information, contact CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Heather Gann 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


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, 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 ESS
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESST), during the period between January 23,
2002 and September 12, 2002, inclusive, against ESS Technology and
certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 23, 2002 and September 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of ESS Technology securities.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued positive statements regarding the Company's operations, sales,
product demand, and its prospects for 2002. Defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them.

For example, the Company was shipping "excess" products to one
distributor and shifting expenses to a related company controlled by
ESS Technology's Chairman. As a result of these practices, the Company
was diminishing its ability to achieve its stated projections in its
Q3-Q4 2002 and to support its artificially inflated stock price.

On September 12, 2002, ESS Technology issued a press release revising
its revenue and earnings guidance for the third quarter of 2002, and
disclosed that the Company expected "revenue for the third quarter to
be between $60 million and $64 million, down from its earlier estimate
of $86 million to $90 million."

The press release also revealed that, as a result of slowing worldwide
demand for its products and increased competition from suppliers, the
Company expected "fourth quarter prices to fall 10% to 15% from the
third quarter." However, prior to these disclosures certain of ESS
Technology's officers sold over $1.8 million worth of their own ESST
securities and the Company itself sold $45.5 million worth of its own
stock.

For more information, contact Trig R. Smith of Dyer & Shuman, LLP by
Phone: 800-711-6483 or 303-861-3003 or by e-mail: tsmith@dyershuman.com
or by Mail: 801 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218


FLEMING COMPANIES: Nix Patterson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP filed recently a class action suit in the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, on behalf of purchasers
of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE: FLM) common stock during the period
between February 27, 2002 and July 30, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the suit alleges that beginning in early 2002, the
defendants issued numerous positive statements regarding Fleming's
"price-impact" retail supermarket division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, approximately six weeks after defendants sold $355 million worth
of Fleming securities, Fleming announced after the close of trading on
July 30, 2002, in an abrupt departure to the repeated and positive
statements made by the defendants during the Class Period, that its
"price-impact" retail supermarket division was not only performing
poorly, but performing so poorly that 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 details, contact NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. through Brad
Beckworth by Mail: 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, Texas by Phone:
903-645-7333 (ext. 221) or by e-mail: bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Commences Suit in N.D. AL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed recently a securities fraud
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of HealthSouth Corp. (NYSE:HRC) during the
period from January 14, 2002, through August 26, 2002.

The suit names HealthSouth as a defendant, along with Richard M.
Scrushy, HealthSouth's CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors;
Weston L. Smith, HealthSouth's CFO; and William T. Owens, HealthSouth's
President and COO. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact David Leifer of Wechsler Harwood LLP
Shareholder Relations Department by e-mail: dleifer@whhf.com by Mail:
488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022 or by Phone: 877-935-7400
(toll free)


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a securities class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (02-C-5934) against Household International, Inc. (NYSE:HI)
for misleading shareholders about its business and financial condition.

Plaintiff seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933)
on behalf of all investors who bought Household International, Inc.
securities between October 23, 1997 and August 14, 2002.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants caused
Household's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements by, among other
things, failing to properly amortize the Company's co-branding
agreements, and failing to record its expenses associated with its
marketing initiatives. In addition, the defendants improperly "re-aged"
Household's accounts, thereby concealing the Company's actual
delinquency ratios.

For additional details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway through Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by e-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *