CAR_Public/021011.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, October 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 202

                           Headlines
                             
AGILE SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Grants Employee Suit Class Certification
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Appeals Court Reverses Certification For Wage Suit
BANK ONE: Parents Sue Over Illegal Delay of Child Support Payments
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Fairness Hearing For $29 Mil Settlement Set Late 2002

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CONSECO INC.: Investor Files Lawsuit, Alleges Firm Misled Investors
HEWLETT PACKARD: NC Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: TX Court To Review Certification For Consumer Suit
HMO LITIGATION: Industry Appealing Court Order to Face Doctors' Suit

INSURANCE LITIGATION: Officials Probe Insurance Suit, Subpoena Records
JEWEL FOOD: Trial in Milk Antitrust Suit Set For January 2003 in IL
MASCO CORPORATION: Liability For Securities Fraud Lawsuit Weakens Stock
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Paying MA $4.8M As Part of Nationwide Settlement
MH MEYERSON: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification To Investor Suit

NIKU CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NORDSTROM INC.: Participates in Mediation Sessions For Antitrust Suit
OPSWARE INC.: Faces Consolidated Suit For Securities Violations in CA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: Civil Servants Labor Union Joins Price Battle
UNIFY INC.: Court Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit Settlement

VERSATA INC.: Reaches Settlement in Securities, Derivative Suits in CA
VIADOR INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Violations
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Store Managers File Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court

                          Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS ALERT: Insurers, Business Group Back USG, WR Grace on Asbestos
ASBESTOS ALERT: Supreme Court Denies Firms' Appeal in WV Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS ALERT: ABB Settles West Virginia Claims, Won't Reveal Costs
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Records $1.3 Million Asbestos Products Liability
BOWATER INC.: Faces 570 Asbestos-Related Claims in Five State Courts

COLLINS & AIKMAN: Faces 662 Asbestos-Related Personal Injury Cases
DOE RUN: Faces Asbestos Injury Suit Over Bixby, Viburnum MO Facilities
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Resolves Over 3,000 Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
TODD SHIPYARDS: Asserts US$9.4 Million Reserved For Asbestos Claims
ZURN INDUSTRIES: Faces $107M in Asbestos Liabilities Through 2001

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ELECTRONIC DATA: Levy Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VODAFONE PLC: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY



                              *********


AGILE SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Agile
Software, Inc. filed a consolidated amended securities suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suit also names as defendants several of the Company's officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The consolidated suit alleges that the prospectus for the initial
public offering of Company securities, 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, among other things, that the underwriters had made secret
arrangements for aftermarket purchases of the securities, and made
arrangements for excessive and improper underwriters compensation in
the form of increased brokerage commissions.

The suit additionally alleges that the prospectus for a secondary
offering of Company securities, conducted on December 13, 1999, and
incorporated into a Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, also was materially false and
misleading for the same alleged reasons.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated as a result of the alleged underwriter practices.  
Plaintiffs attempt to state and claim violations by the Company, the
individuals and the underwriters of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, violations by the individual defendants and underwriters of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and violations by the
underwriters of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The litigation is in an early phase, and no substantive rulings have
been issued by the court.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses against these actions and intends to vigorously defend them.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Grants Employee Suit Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California certified
as a class action a consolidated suit pending against Albertson's, Inc,
as well as its subsidiaries, namely:

     (1) American Stores Company,

     (2) American Drug Stores, Inc.,

     (3) Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and  

     (4) Lucky Stores, Inc.

One suit was initially commenced by bonusing managers seeking recovery
of additional bonus payments due to plaintiffs' allegation that the net
profit upon which their bonuses were calculated improperly included
workers' compensation costs, cash shortages, premises liability and
"shrink" losses in violation of California law.

In October 2001 the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sav-
on Drug Stores plaintiffs on this liability theory.  In August 2001, a
class action with very similar claims, also involving the bonusing
managers, was filed the same defendants in the same court.

In June 2002 the cases were consolidated and in August 2002 a class
action with respect to the consolidated case was certified by the
court.  

The Company has strong defenses against this lawsuit, and is vigorously
defending it.  Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties
inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently
available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate
resolution of this action will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Appeals Court Reverses Wage Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal for the State of California Second Appellate
District reversed the class certification for one of the class actions
pending against Albertson's, Inc. and its subsidiaries:

     (1) American Stores Company,

     (2) American Drug Stores, Inc.,

     (3) Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and  

     (4) Lucky  Stores,  Inc.

One suit was initially filed in the Superior Court for the County of
Los Angeles, California (Mario Gardner, et al. v. American Stores
Company, Albertson's, Inc., American Drug Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc.) by assistant managers and
operating managers seeking recovery of overtime due to plaintiffs'
allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under
California law.  A class action with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores
assistant managers was certified by the court.  

A case with very similar claims, also involving the assistant managers
and operating managers, was filed against the Company's subsidiary Sav-
on Drug Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California (Rocher, Dahlin et al. v.  Sav-on Drug Stores,
Inc.) and was also certified as a class action.  

In April 2002, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second
Appellate District reversed the Rocher class certification, leaving  
only two plaintiffs.  The California Supreme Court has accepted
plaintiffs' request for review of this class decertification.  The
decertification of the Gardner case is on hold pending the result in
the California Supreme Court.  

The Company has strong defenses against these lawsuits, and is
vigorously defending them.  Although these lawsuits are subject to the
uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the
information presently available to the Company, management does not
expect that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows.


BANK ONE: Parents Sue Over Illegal Delay of Child Support Payments
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four women have sued Bank One, accusing the operator of Ohio's child
support collection and payment system of illegally delaying payments,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

"They held onto them (the child support payments), kept a high bank
balance, collected interest on it and made millions off of the backs of
children," Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children
For Enforcement Of Support, said recently.

Four mothers represented by the national advocacy group filed the
lawsuit in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, in Dayton, Ohio, where
one of the women lives, in hopes of forcing Bank One to return all
interest it earned by allegedly delaying the payments.

The women asked the court to allow the suit to proceed as a class
action, meaning about 900,000 parents who collect child support in Ohio
each year would be included.  The suit seeks about $74,999 in damages
for each person in the class action.  The lawsuit says that Bank One
violated a federal law that requires checks to be processed and money
sent to families within two days of the receipt of the money.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services says Bank One processes
checks within two days in nearly every case.  When checks are delayed,
it is because they have insufficient information on them, making it
difficult to match the checks with recipients, said Jon Allen, an
agency spokesman.

The state has been criticized for awarding Bank One the contracts
without competitively bidding them.  In August, the state awarded a new
competitively bid seven-year, $234 million contract to ACS State and
Local Solutions of Washington, D.C.  This company won out over Bank
One, which had bid $274 million.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Fairness Hearing For $29M Settlement Set Late 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by Compaq Computer
Corporation to settle a consolidated securities class action is
expected to commence later this year in the United States District
Court in Texas.

Several securities suits were commenced in 1998 against the Company and
certain of its present and former directors and officers, on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from July 10, 1997
through March 6, 1998. These actions were later consolidated.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by withholding information and making misleading
statements about channel inventory, factoring of receivables and the
Company's marketing programs in order to inflate the price of Company
stock and further alleges that a number of individual defendants sold
Company stock at those purportedly inflated prices.

In July 2000, the case was certified as a class action, but this action
was later vacated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company
has reached a mediated settlement with lead plaintiffs and their
attorneys in the amount of approximately $29 million, of which $28
million is covered by insurance.  The parties presented this settlement
to the federal court for approval in June 2002.  The final hearing on
the fairness of the settlement is expected later this year.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it and certain of its executive officers.

The suit generally alleges violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of individuals who allege that they purchased the Company's
common stock during a purported class period between April 30, 2001 and
July 10, 2001.  

On April 22, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety.  The plaintiffs have opposed
the motion, and the company responded by filing a reply in support of
its dismissal motion.  The motion currently is pending before the
court.

The Company believes all claims in the consolidated complaint to be
without merit.


CONSECO INC.: Investor Files Lawsuit, Alleges Firm Misled Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Inc., an insurance and finance company, faces another in a
string of securities class actions, alleging that the Company misled
investors about financial problems that could lead to bankruptcy,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The latest complaint was filed in US District Court on behalf of
Conseco investor Barry Silvestian.  The lawsuit seeks certification as
a class action, which would allow others who invested from last October
30 to July 15 to join as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to at least three others that have been filed
against the Company in recent weeks as its financial condition has
deteriorated.  The lawsuits could be consolidated into a single case.

The suit filed Monday by the New York-based law firm Wechsler Harwood
seeks unspecified damages and alleges that the Company violated federal
securities laws by making misleading statements as to its debt
problems.  Those statements, the lawsuit alleges, artificially inflated
Company stock, which currently, however, is selling for just pennies a
share after being dropped this summer from the New York Stock Exchange.

The Company, based in the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, is negotiating
with creditors to restructure more than $6 billion in debt.  Analysts
and investors have said they expect the Company to seek Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.

The defendants are the Company and three executives:

     (1) Gary Wendt, who resigned last week as chief executive,

     (2) William Shea, current president and chief operating officer,
         and

     (3) Charles Chokel, who left as chief financial officer in March.


HEWLETT PACKARD: NC Court Grants Consumer Fraud Suit Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina State Court granted class certification to an unfair
business practices consumer suit pending against Hewlett Packard Co.,
one of many similar consumer suits filed in over 30 states.

The various plaintiffs throughout the country claim to have purchased
different models of HP inkjet printers over the past three years.  The
basic factual allegation of these actions is that when the affected
consumer purchased HP printers, they received half-full or "economy"
ink cartridges instead of full cartridges.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company's advertising, packaging and
marketing representations for the printers led the consumers to believe
they would receive full cartridges.  These actions seek, under various
state unfair business practices statutes and common law claims of fraud
and negligent misrepresentation:

     (1) injunctive relief,

     (2) disgorgement of profits,

     (3) compensatory damages,

     (4) punitive damages and

     (5) attorney fees


HEWLETT PACKARD: TX Court To Review Certification For Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for a review on the class certification ruling for a consumer
class action pending Hewlett Packard Co., and Compaq is set for
November 2002 in Texas Supreme Court.

Several nationwide defective product consumer class actions were filed
in different courts.  One suit, labeled "Alvis v. HP," was filed in a
Texas state district court by a resident of eastern Texas in April
2001.  In January 2000, a similar suit captioned "LaPray v. Compaq" was
filed in state court in Texas and in May 2000 another similar suit,
captioned "Sprung vs. Compaq" was filed in federal court in Colorado.  
These actions are part of a series of similar suits filed against
several computer manufacturers.

The basic allegation is that the Company and Compaq sold computers
containing floppy disk controller chips that fail to detect both
overruns and underruns.  That failure is alleged to result in data
loss, data corruption or system failure.  The plaintiffs in the "Alvis"
and "LaPray" suits seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
rescission and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the "LaPray" case.  
That class certification order was appealed by Compaq.  In June 2002,
the Beaumont Court of Appeals denied Compaq's appeal of the class
certification order.  On August 5, 2002, Compaq filed a petition for
review with the Texas Supreme Court.  

A class certification hearing in "Alvis" has been set for November
2002.  The "Sprung" case has been dismissed.  In addition, HP and
Compaq continue to provide information to the Federal government and
state attorneys general in California and Illinois in response to
inquiries regarding floppy disk controllers in computers sold to
government entities.


HMO LITIGATION: Industry Appealing Court Order to Face Doctors' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The managed care industry will challenge a court order forcing the
companies to face the nation's doctors in a single racketeering
lawsuit, their attorneys recently told a judge, Associated Press
Newswires reports.  In turn, the patients are expected to ask the judge
to reconsider his rejection of their class action against the industry.

The parallel cases offered a national platform for claims that health
care insurers are cheating both the public and doctors.  The industry
says, however, that the case covering an estimated 145 million patients
is all but dead, based on the class action ruling last month by US
District Judge Federico Moreno.  Patients' attorneys, led by David
Boies, who helped pursue the government's antitrust case against
Microsoft, were conspicuously absent from the recent hearing.

In the doctors' case, the industry will take its challenge to the class
action to a federal appeals court in Atlanta.  Companies also want an
order from Judge Moreno halting any review of confidential company
documents while the appeal is pending.

"The defendants think that is their best shot of putting it on hold
again," said doctors' attorney Archie Lamb.  The two-year-old case
languished for 15 months on a previous stay from the Atlanta court.

An appeal upholding class certification for more than 600,000 doctors
would be a "dark day" for insurers, industry attorney Richard Doren
told Judge Moreno.  

"Let's call it what it is.  This is an effort to derail this
litigation," said doctors' attorney Harley Tropin.  "We ask you to stop
them."

Doctors claim they are routinely shortchanged in a profit-driven system
that makes it costly and time-consuming for them to object when their
claims are underpaid.  Defendants include Aetna, Anthem, Cigna,
Coventry, Humana, Pacificare, United and Wellpoint.  Some of them are
in settlement talks with doctors, but no one has said who is
participating.  A mediator also has been assigned.

Patients claimed the industry promised quality care, but skimped on  
care provided, based the care on corporate finances rather than medical
need, concealed contracts with doctors that encouraged limited service
and overvalued policies.

A trial is set for May in the doctors' case, but all sides expect that
date to slide even without a stay.  Both sides have until Thursday to
respond to Judge Moreno's class action decisions.


INSURANCE LITIGATION: Officials Probe Insurance Suit, Subpoena Records
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A seemingly obscure insurance lawsuit is the subject of a federal
probe, a Harrison County, Mississippi, official confirmed recently, The
Sun Herald (Biloxi, MS) reports.

Federal investigators have subpoenaed records of The Peoples Bank vs.
United States Fidelity & Guarantee Company, a lawsuit filed by the bank
in August 1998, and settled earlier this year.  The settlement was
confidential.  US Attorney Dunn Lampton would not comment on the
investigation.

The Peoples Bank was sued by customers over the bank's policy of
requiring borrowers who use property as collateral on their loans to
insure it.  If the borrowers did not have insurance, the bank obtained
it for them and added it to the loans.  Customers claimed the insurance
premiums the bank charged were too high, and brought a class action
against the bank.

In their lawsuit against US Fidelity, The Peoples Bank alleged that US
Fidelity, the bank's insurance company, wrongfully denied coverage for
the bank's defense in the January 1996 class action.  

Chevis Swetman, president and chief executive of The Peoples Bank, said
he was not aware of any federal investigation involving his bank.  
"There was a lot of money at stake," said James Heidelberg, one of the
lawyers for the insurance company.  "It was a kind of complicated
case."


JEWEL FOOD: Trial in Milk Antitrust Suit Set For January 2003 in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action pending against Jewel Food Stores, Inc. is
set for January 2003 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleging milk price fixing.

In December 2001 the Company's motion for summary judgment was denied,
and leave to appeal was denied in April 2002.  In July 2002, a class
was certified, consisting of all people residing in the Chicagoland
area who bought milk at retail from either or both of the defendants
between August 23, 1996 and August 23, 2000.  

Trial is scheduled for January 2003.  The Company has strong defenses
against this lawsuit, and is vigorously defending it.  Although this
lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, based on the information presently available to the Company,
management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this action
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


MASCO CORPORATION: Liability For Securities Fraud Lawsuit Weakens Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation's stock price dropped last Friday after the Company
announced that its liability related to a class action against its Behr
wood-stains brand should not exceed $200 million before taxes,
according to a report by The Detroit News.

The case stems from a lawsuit that customers in Washington state filed
against the Company claiming its Behr stains and preservatives caused
large amounts of mildew to form on fences homes and wood structures.  
The Company said the liability could lower third-quarter earnings and
that the $200 million figure could grow, depending on how many
customers join the lawsuit.

After a series of trials and appeals, a Washington court ruled against
the company on September 19, sending Company shares down $3.88 to
$20.43, the largest one-day drop since 1987.  The Company, the
country's largest maker of KraftMaid cabinets, Peerless and Delta
faucets, locks and other home improvement products, suffered massive
losses last month.

"The company cannot assure that the ultimate liability will not be
higher than this estimate (of $200 million)," the Company said in an 8K
filing with the US Securities & Exchange Commission.  "The company is
continuing to refine its analysis in order to determine an appropriate
charge which may be taken against its third quarter earnings."

The Company recorded a loss of $183 million, or 39 cents per share
during the third quarter of 2001.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Paying MA $4.8M As Part of Nationwide Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Massachusetts' insurance regulators recently joined a
national class action settlement in which Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., by its parent company MetLife, has agreed to pay more than $150
million to settle charges that it discriminated against non-white
customers over a 71-year period, The Boston Globe reports.

The state's Division of Insurance said $4.8 million has been set aside
by New York-based MetLife to cover claims in Massachusetts. The agency
said that just one small piece of the nationwide settlement of more
than $150 million for policyholders of so-called "industrial plans,"
which often covered funeral and burial costs, and certain other life
insurance plans.  

The division said the settlement affects 2,500 existing MetLife
policyholders here and possibly thousands of other individuals who have
died and whose heirs and beneficiaries may be eligible for restitution.  
Julie Bowler, Commissioner of the Division of Insurance, signed the
agreement that allows the state to join the settlement reached by
MetLife, the insurer's parent company.

The case is one of several across the nation in which insurance
companies have been accused of issuing life insurance policies to
nonwhites that carried higher premiums and paid less in benefits.  In
some cases, the nonwhite customers were required to undergo medical
exams that white customers were not required to undergo.

While agreeing to the terms of the settlement, Metropolitan Life has
denied any wrongdoing.

The initial lawsuit against MetLife was filed by black policyholders,
who reached a tentative agreement with the insurance company in
December.  Following an investigation by the New York State Insurance
Department, the settlement was expanded to include more money and to
cover policies dating to 1901.  Most of the race-based policies sold by
Metropolitan Life from 1901 until 1972 were sold door-to-door and were
generally for small amounts.

According to the Web site, MetLife customers with existing policies
will either receive increased benefits or a lower amount of cash.  
"People whose policies already paid a death or maturity benefit will
get cash.  Most people whose policies terminated for other reasons will
get five years of free death benefit coverage, and some of them will
get cash," the Web site said.

The settlement is subject to a judge's final approval in February.


MH MEYERSON: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification To Investor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action pending against M.H. Meyerson & Co.,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami Dade,
Florida appealed the court's decision denying class certification to
the suit.

The suit was filed against the Company and:

     (1) Rainbow Medical Inc.,

     (2) Rainbow Pediatrics Inc.,

     (3) Hugo D. Goldstraj, M.D.,

     (4) Marcela C. Goldstraj, M.D.,

     (5) Roberto P. Novo, M.D.,

     (6) Sandra R. Giblin,

     (7) Martin Leventhal, and

     (8) Gina Bertinelli

The suit alleges that the class, consisting of all investors who
purchased investment units in Rainbow Medical, Inc. in a private
placement offering in June 1997, purchased units which became worthless
when, after the offering closed, certain officers and inside directors
of Rainbow, specifically Mr. Goldstraj, Ms. Goldstraj, and Mr. Novo,
looted Rainbow and stole the proceeds of the offering, approximately
$2.3 million.

The Company was the placement and selling agent in connection with the
private placement.  Mr. Leventhal, C.P.A., a director of the Company,
became an outside director of Rainbow after the offering closed.

The suit asserts claims against the Company and Mr. Leventhal for
breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and negligence.  
Plaintiff alleged that:

     (i) the Company failed to make certain disclosures in the offering
         memorandum concerning legal proceedings involving Rainbow's
         officers;

    (ii) the Company failed to ensure that Rainbow engaged in certain
         corporate actions; and

   (iii) Rainbow used the offering proceeds in the manner stated in the
         offering memorandum.

Plaintiff sought approximately $2.6 million in damages on behalf of the
"class" of investors.

In July 2001, plaintiff Harry Binder, as the putative class
representative, filed a motion to have the lawsuit certified as a class
action.  On December 11, 2001, the court issued an order denying the
motion.  Accordingly, the only claims that now remain in the case are
plaintiff's individual claims, which seek damages of $37,500, together
with interest and attorneys fees.

Plaintiff has appealed the order denying class certification.  The
Company believes that the order was correct under the applicable law
and will oppose the appeal.  Oral argument is scheduled for October 10,
2002.  The Company also intends to vigorously defend against any
litigation by plaintiff of his individual claims.


NIKU CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Niku Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it, as well as certain of its officers and
directors, arising out of the Company's initial public offering (IPO)
in February 2000.  Various underwriters of the IPO also were named as
defendants in the suit.

The consolidated suit alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for allocating to them shares of Company stock in
         connection with the IPO; and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such
         stock to those customers in exchange for the customers
         agreeing to purchase additional Company shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

In August 2001 the court ordered that the suit, along with hundreds of
IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be transferred to Judge
Shira Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  At a status
conference held in September 2001, Judge Scheindlin adjourned all
defendants' time to respond to the complaints until further order of
the court.

In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on common
legal issues were filed on behalf of all issuers (and underwriters).  
The Court has not issued a decision on any of those motions.  These
cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery proceedings have
taken place.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these cases
are without merit and the Company intends to defend vigorously against
them.


NORDSTROM INC.: Participates in Mediation Sessions For Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom, Inc. and the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
pending against it and other department store and specialty retailers
in the Superior Court of California in Marin County participated in
mediation sessions for the suit.

Nine separate but virtually identical class action lawsuits were
initially filed in various Superior Courts of the State of California
in May, June and July 1998 and were later consolidated.  In May 2000,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of manufacturers
of cosmetics and fragrances and two other retailers as additional
defendants.  

The amended complaint alleges that the retail price of the "prestige"
cosmetics sold in department and specialty stores was collusively
controlled by the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of
the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages and restitution of an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class
of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for
personal use from any of the defendants during the period four years
prior to the filing of the amended complaint.  

The Company has denied the allegations.  The retail defendants have
produced documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery
requests, including providing witnesses for depositions.  Two retail
defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, and plaintiffs have
not yet moved for class certification.  


OPSWARE INC.: Faces Consolidated Suit For Securities Violations in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opsware, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
March 8,2001 to May 1,2001.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers, directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering violated federal
securities laws by providing materially false and misleading
information in the Company's prospectus.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will defend itself
vigorously.  However, the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, and there can be no assurance that the Company will not be
materially affected.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: Civil Servants Labor Union Joins Price Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A labor union representing 1.4 million mostly government employees is
throwing its weight behind a movement to fight high prescription drug
costs with class actions, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) is ready to announce that it has joined the Boston-based
Prescription Access Litigation Project, a consortium of public interest
groups that has filed 14 lawsuits against drug makers.  AFSCME has
lobbied on drug price issues, but this is its first foray into
litigation.

"We feel it is time to open up a new front," said Steven Kreisberg, the
union's associate director for research and collective bargaining.  
"Unfortunately, drug companies have been exceedingly greedy, and we
feel maybe the best way to hit them is to hit them in the pocketbook,
which seems to be all they are paying attention to."

AFSCME, about 10 percent of whose members work in the private sector,
has also signed on as a co-plaintiff in two previously filed lawsuits.  
The first suit charges GlaxoSmithKline and SmithKline Beecham with
filing fraudulent patents to extend their rights to Augmentin, the
nation's most widely prescribed antibiotic.  The second suit accuses
two generic drug makers, Elan Corp. PLC and Biovail Corp., of dividing
the market to maximize their profits.


UNIFY INC.: Court Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Unify,
Inc. to settle the consolidated securities class actions, the
individual institutional investor actions and the consolidated
derivative actions pending against it and certain of its present and
former directors and officers.

The consolidated class and one derivative action, and the individual
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California in 2000 and 2001, respectively.  The
consolidated derivative actions were filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California in 2000 and were consolidated in the Superior
Court for the State of California for the County of San Francisco in
2001.  The class, individual and derivative actions all arose from
events which led to the Company's restatement of the financial results
for fiscal year 1999 and for the first three quarters of fiscal year
2000.

The global settlement, which does not constitute any admission of
wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individuals named as
defendants, provided that all defendants pay a total of US$5 million
including attorney fees for class action, derivative and individual
action plaintiffs, of which the amounts to be paid by the Company were
paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

On May 30, 2002, the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco
approved the settlement in the derivative litigation.  On July 12,
2002, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval of the settlement in the class
action.  The United States District court for the Northern District of
California granted the stipulation of settlement and dismissed the
individual investor actions on August 8, 2002.


VERSATA INC.: Reaches Settlement in Securities, Derivative Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Versata, Inc. agreed to settle a consolidated securities class action
pending against it and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The amended suit alleges claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under section 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended complaint sought an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during the class period.  

In July 2002, the Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in
principle to settle the suit to avoid protracted and expensive
litigation and the uncertainty of trial.  The agreement for settlement
does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the
Company or the individual defendants.  The settlement calls for a
payment of US$9.75 million in cash by the Company's insurance carriers
and the issuance of 200,000 shares of its common stock.  

The settlement agreement is subject to execution of definitive
settlement documents and court approval.  Additional class members may
opt out of the settlement and bring their own suits, which could result
in additional costs to the Company and distraction to management.  

Two derivative actions were filed on the Company's behalf against
certain current and former officers and directors in Superior Court of
Alameda County, California.  The complaints also name the Company as a
nominal defendant.  The complaints allege that the defendants:

     (1) breached their fiduciary duties,  

     (2) abused their control of the corporation, and

     (3) engaged in gross mismanagement of the corporation, by  
         allegedly making or permitting the Company to make false
         financial statements.

In November 2001, the state court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to stay proceedings in the consolidated derivative
action until the filing of an answer by the Company in the federal suit
or dismissal of that action.  

In July 2002, in conjunction with the settlement of the federal suit,
the Company reached an agreement to settle the derivative action.  The
agreement for settlement does not constitute any admission of
wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individual defendants.  

The settlement calls for a certain corporate therapeutics to be
implemented or continue to be implemented by the Company.  The
settlement agreement is subject to execution of definitive settlement
documents and court approval.


VIADOR INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Viador, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the securities class action pending
against it, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of its October 25, 1999 Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

The essence of the complaint is that defendants issued and sold the
Company's common stock pursuant to the IPO without disclosing to
investors that certain underwriters of the IPO had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaint also alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Company shares to
customers in exchange for the customers' promises to purchase
additional shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices above
the offering price, thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating
the market price for the shares in the after-market.

The lawsuit is part of the "IPO Allocation Securities Litigation"
pending in NY court.  Approximately 310 companies and over 40
underwriters have been sued in actions alleging claims nearly identical
to those alleged against the Company.  The cases are being coordinated
for pre-trial purposes before Judge Schira Scheindlin.  

The IPO Allocation Securities Litigation is in its early stages.  A
motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on July 15,
2002.  Discovery is stayed pending the outcome of motions to dismiss.  
This proceeding is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to
predict its ultimate outcome.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Store Managers File Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. faces a wage hour class action filed in
California state court by two former store managers.  The case is
based principally upon the allegation that store managers employed by
the Company in California should have been classified as non-exempt for
overtime purposes.  

The plaintiffs seek recovery of allegedly unpaid overtime wages for the
four year period preceding the filing date, along with certain
penalties, interest, and attorneys fees.  The purported class includes
all current and former store managers employed by the Company in
California for the four-year period preceding the filing of the
complaint.  During that four-year period the Company operated 19 to 49
stores in California.

The Company is currently evaluating the complaint.


                          Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS ALERT: Insurers, Business Group Back USG, WR Grace on Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alfred M. Wolin will convene a joint hearing next week on the
case management and asbestos-related personal injury claims estimation
protocols proposed by USG Corp. and W.R. Grace & Co., two industrial
giants forced into bankruptcy under the weight of burgeoning asbestos
claims.  The joint hearing will be held on October 17 and 18.

The Coalition for Asbestos Justice Inc., whose members include the
leading property and casualty insurers, and the Chamber of Commerce of
the United States, the world's largest business federation, participate
in the cases as friends of the court and support USG Corp.'s Motion for
Case Management Order for Substantive Estimation Hearings.

Mark D. Plevin, Esq., at Crowell & Moring LLP, says the Coalition and
the Chamber support the Debtors' view that putative claimants produce
sufficient evidence and demonstrate sufficient legal grounding, to
allow a rational estimation of their claims based on underlying legal
merit.  They urge the Court to embrace the Debtors' proposal and take a
significant step toward restoring fairness and sound public policy to
all asbestos litigation.

The Asbestos Personal Injury Creditors Committee's estimation plan
assumes that the vast majority of claims are valid solely on the basis
of past settlement history, without any inquiry into the actual merit
of current claims.  Mr. Plevin calls the plan a type of procedural
shortcut and one that will only invite the filing of weak or meritless
claims and speed the troubling "domino effect."

Mr. Plevin says the court's adoption of USG's proposal would send a
strong message to other courts that they, too, must take steps to help
solve the ever-growing "elephantine mass of asbestos cases."

"It is time - perhaps past due - to stop the hemorrhaging so as to
protect future claimants . (A)t some point, some jurisdiction must face
up to the realities of the asbestos crisis and take a step that might,
perhaps, lead others to adopt a broader view. Courts should no longer
wait for congressional or legislative action to correct common law
errors made by the courts themselves. It is judicial paralysis, not
activism, that is the problem in this area," he tells the court.

The total cost to the economy is staggering. Ratings agency A.M. Best
estimates that asbestos litigation already has cost American companies
over $21.6 billion, and may cost another $43.4 billion over the next 20
years. At least one consulting firm has put the total future cost of
the litigation at $200 billion. The crushing weight of asbestos filings
has forced about 60 companies into bankruptcy, leading plaintiffs and
their lawyers to expand their search for new "deep pockets."

Mr. Plevin notes that the vast majority of new asbestos claimants are
unimpaired, people who have been exposed to asbestos, and who (usually)
have some marker of exposure such as changes in the pleural membrane
covering the lungs, but who are not impaired by an asbestos-related
disease and likely never will be.

The problem presented by the claims, Mr. Plevin says, is self-evident:
they create judicial backlogs and exhaust scarce resources that should
go to the sick and the dying, their widows and survivors.

Indeed, lawyers who represent the truly sick have expressed concern
that recoveries by the unimpaired may so deplete available resources
that their clients will be left without compensation.

Federal District Judge Charles Weiner, who oversees the federal
asbestos multidistrict proceedings, has explained that "[o]nly a very
small percentage of the cases filed have serious asbestos-related
afflictions," but they "are prone to be lost in the shuffle with
pleural and other non-malignant cases."

USG Corp. and its affiliates face more than 100,000 pending claims,
ranging from mesothelioma and lung cancer claims to claims brought by
plaintiffs who suffer no medical impairment or were never exposed to
their products, Mr. Plevin says.

Unimpaired Claimants

To address the problem of unimpaired claimants, several non-bankruptcy
courts have adopted procedures for separating out claims brought by the
unimpaired while preserving the right of such individuals to sue for a
future illness. Mr. Plevin cites those precedents as offering important
insights that are relevant to the USG's bankruptcy proceeding.

For instance, at the federal level, Senior Judge Charles R. Weiner, who
oversees the federal multidistrict asbestos litigation consolidated in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has recently ordered that all
cases initiated through a mass screening be subject to dismissal
without prejudice until the claimant can produce evidence of an
asbestos-related disease.

At the state trial court level, courts in Boston, Massachusetts, 4 Cook
County (Chicago), Illinois,  and Baltimore, Maryland , have created
inactive dockets, also known as deferral registries or pleural
registries, for claims by unimpaired plaintiffs. Under these plans, the
claims of individuals who cannot meet certain objective medical
criteria are placed on an inactive docket. So long as they remain on
that docket, statutes of limitations are tolled and all discovery is
stayed. If those individuals later become ill and present credible
medical evidence of impairment, their claims are moved to the active
civil docket.

Mr. Plevin says these plans have proven to be fair and effective. By
deferring the claims of the unimpaired, inactive docket plans move sick
claimants "to the front of the line," avoiding delays that present a
special hardship for elderly claimants and those with fatal diseases.
At the same time, through their tolling provisions, inactive dockets
protect against the possibility that statutes of limitations will bar
recovery by individuals who are now unimpaired but might later develop
an asbestos-related illness.

Finally, by staying discovery and eliminating pressure to settle, these
procedures conserve financial resources, resources that are now spent
litigating "claims that are premature (because there is not yet any
impairment) or actually meritless (because there never will be)." And
that, in turn, helps to reduce the specter of more employers being
driven into bankruptcy.

More recently, the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County
(Cleveland), Ohio decided that rather than adopting a formal inactive
docket, it would utilize objective medical criteria to filter out
claims by the medically unimpaired to give priority to the truly sick.
The court's case management order provides that all upcoming discovery
and trial preparation in that court will focus on groups of "plaintiffs
whose claims seek redress for functional impairment" caused by asbestos
exposure.

Mr. Plevin says the court's intent is clear: to resolve the claims of
plaintiffs who are "functionally impaired" before those of the
unimpaired, thus helping to preserve assets needed to compensate the
truly sick.

Expert Evidence

The Coalition and the Chamber urge the Court to not only require that
plaintiffs show causation, but also that their showing be based on
reliable expert evidence. In a recent trilogy of cases, the United
States Supreme Court has stated clearly and unequivocally that federal
judges should act as "gatekeepers" against unreliable expert evidence,
sometimes called "junk science." There is no exception for asbestos
cases.

Mr. Plevin says that there is no doubt that exposure to asbestos can
cause very serious illnesses but that lung cancer and other cancers,
such as laryngeal cancer, colon cancer, or gastrointestinal cancer,
have a wide variety of causes. A claimant seeking to recover from
Debtors should then be required to present reliable expert evidence
showing that his illness is caused by exposure to the Debtors'
products, and not by some other factor.

To fulfill its gatekeeper role, the Court should consider appointing
neutral experts to advise it on matters such as causation. The work of
Federal District Judge Carl Rubin of the Southern District of Ohio
serves as an example. Judge Rubin studied the merits of asbestos claims
by appointing his own medical experts to evaluate claimants in 65
asbestos bodily injury cases. Although all the plaintiffs claimed some
asbestos-related condition, the court-appointed experts found that 65%
of the claimants had no asbestos-related conditions at all. Of the
remaining 35% of claimants, approximately 15% had asbestosis, and the
rest presented pleural plaques. This Court should consider making
similar use of appointed medical experts.


ASBESTOS ALERT:  Supreme Court Denies Firms' Appeal in WV Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Monday a constitutional challenge by
companies arguing that a massive West Virginia asbestos trial violates
fundamental fairness.

Without any comment, the justices declined to hear the appeal by oil
giant Exxon Mobil and industrial conglomerate Honeywell International
claiming the plaintiffs' cases were so dissimilar that consolidating
them violates their due process rights.

The companies challenged the single mass trial in which about 8,000
plaintiffs who claim exposure to asbestos initially sued about 250
defendants, including various groups of employers, building owners,
manufacturers and insurers.  However, by the time the trial got under
way during the week of Sept. 23, all but about four of the defendants
had reached last-minute, out-of-court settlements with the plaintiffs.

Honeywell was among the companies reaching a settlement. The only
remaining defendants were Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical Co.'s Union Carbide
unit, Amchem Inc. and John Crane.

The trial went forward after Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Sept.
16 rejected a request by three defendants for a temporary delay until
the Supreme Court acted on the appeal.

Lawyers for the two companies, supported by numerous other defendants
and business groups, said, "With no prospect of a fair trial,
defendants will face extreme pressure from the financial markets and
other sources to settle thousands of claims, regardless of merit."  
They argued in the appeal that "immediate review" by the Supreme Court
would be "appropriate and necessary," especially in view of the
nationwide asbestos litigation crisis.

At issue in the appeal was a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia that endorsed the consolidation of thousands of
product-liability claims against hundreds of defendants into a single
proceeding.  

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the appeal should be denied.  
"This case presents no unusual circumstances warranting a departure
from this court's long-established practice of respecting Congress'
command that it not intrude into litigation pending in state courts,"
they said.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs said the constitutional challenge to a
"common issues" trial was premature and can be considered by the high
court only after the trial has been held.


ASBESTOS ALERT: ABB Settles West Virginia Claims, Won't Reveal Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd. settled claims against a U.S. unit that were part of a West
Virginia asbestos trial, joining others including Honeywell
International Inc. that have opted for an agreement with plaintiffs
over facing a jury.

Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for Europe's biggest engineering
company, didn't give terms of the settlement or disclose the number of
claims. It will give more details about asbestos claims when it reports
third-quarter results on Oct. 24.

ABB, which faces some 90,000 asbestos-related claims by former
employees of its Combustion Engineering unit, has set aside $940
million for lawsuits related to the insulation material that's been
linked to cancer. Asbestos lawsuits have pushed at least 56 companies
to file for bankruptcy protection.

"We've reached out-of-court settlements with the plaintiffs in West
Virginia," said ABB spokesman Wolfram Eberhardt.

The shares, which have lost more than half their value since August,
fell 41 centimes, or 9.8 percent, to 3.78 Swiss francs, their lowest
closing price ever. ABB's market value has fallen three quarters this
year to about 4.2 billion Swiss francs.

Exxon Mobil Corp., Owens-Illinois Inc. and Dow Chemical Co.'s Union
Carbide unit are among other defendants in the largest-ever asbestos
trial. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected company calls today to halt the
trial, which began Sept. 23 and involves claims by about 8,000 people.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Records $1.3 Million Asbestos Products Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
Babcock and Wilcox Company have recorded an asbestos products liability
of $1,307,725,000 at December 31, 2001. They have recorded asbestos
products liability insurance recoverable of $1,152,489,000 and
$1,153,761,000 at December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

Historically, B&W's estimated liabilities for pending and future non-
employee products liability asbestos claims have been derived from its
prior claims history.  Inherent in the estimate of such liabilities
were expected trend claim severity, frequency, and other factors.  
B&W's estimated liabilities were based on the assumption that B&W would
continue to settle claims rather than litigate them that new claims
would conclude by 2012, that there would be a significant decline in
new claims received after 2003, and that the average cost per claim
would continue to increase only moderately.

As a result of asbestos-containing commercial boilers and other
products B&W and certain of its subsidiaries sold, installed or
serviced in prior decades, B&W is subject to a substantial volume of
non-employee liability claims asserting asbestos-related injuries.  All
the personal injury claims are similar in nature, the primary
difference being the type of alleged injury or illness suffered by the
plaintiff as a result of the exposure to asbestos fibers (e.g.,
mesothelioma, lung cancer, other types of cancer, asbestosis or pleural
changes).

On February 22, 2000, B&W and certain of its subsidiaries executed the
filing in Bankruptcy Court. Included in the filing are B&W and its
subsidiaries Americon, Inc., Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc.
and Diamond Potheyr International, Inc.

As a result of the filing, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary
restraining order prohibiting asbestos liability lawsuits and other
actions for which there is shared insurance from being brought against
non-filing affiliates of B&W, including McDermott, J. Ray and
International.

The temporary restraining order was converted to a preliminary
injunction, which is subject to periodic hearings before the Bankruptcy
Court for extension.  Currently, the preliminary injunction runs
through April 15, 2002.

On February 20, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court appointed a mediator to
facilitate negotiations among the debtors and the committee
representing the asbestos claimants and other participants in the
Chapter 11 proceedings to reach a final determination of the debtors'
ultimate liability for asbestos related claims.  The mediator's
appointment terminated on January 31, 2002 and no court order extending
his appointment has been entered.

On February 22, 2001, B&W and its affiliate debtors filed a plan of
reorganization and a disclosure statement. Under the settlement
process, there would be a consensual agreement of 75% of the asbestos
personal injury claimants.  A trust would be formed and assigned all of
B&W's and its filing subsidiaries' insurance rights with an aggregate
products liability value of approximately $1,150,000,000.

In addition, $50,000,000 cash and a $100,000,000 subordinated 10-year
note payable would be transferred into the trust. The debtors and non-
debtor affiliates would consent to the assignment of the insurance and
would release and void any right that they have to the insurance, with
the non-debtor defendants receiving a full release and protection under
the Bankruptcy Code against all present and future asbestos liability
claims relating to B&W. The trust's rights to the insurance would be
protected and could be dedicated solely to the resolution of the
asbestos claims.

As a result of the creation of the trust, they, along with
International and its other affiliates, would be released and
discharged from all present and future liability for asbestos claims
arising out of exposure to B&W's products.

Under the litigation strategy, if they are not able to reach a
consensual agreement with the plaintiffs, a cram-down option is
available. The claims would still be channeled through a trust with
$50,000,000 cash and a $100,000,000 subordinated 10-year note payable,
but the debtors and their affiliates would not transfer their insurance
rights. The debtors would manage the insurance rights and claims would
be handled through the litigation process by the trust. Funding of the
trust would be from the insurance, the cash, the note payable and
equity of the debtors, if necessary. The period of exclusivity for
filing a plan of reorganization currently extends through April 30,
2002.

Prior to the filing, they engaged in a strategy of negotiating and
settling asbestos personal injury claims brought against them and
billing the settled amounts to insurers for reimbursement. The average
amount per settled claim over the three calendar years prior to the
filing was approximately $7,900. Reimbursed amounts are subject to
varying insurance limits based upon the year of coverage, insurer
solvency and collection delays (due primarily to agreed payment
schedules with specific insurers delaying reimbursement for three
months or more). No claims have been paid since the filing. Claims paid
during the year ended December 31, 2000, prior to the filing, were
$23,640,000 of which $20,121,000 has been recovered or is due from
insurers.

On December 31, 2001, receivables of $28,988,000 were due from insurers
for reimbursement of settled claims. Currently, certain insurers are
refusing to reimburse B&W for settled claims until B&W's assumption, in
bankruptcy, of its pre-filing contractual reimbursement arrangements
with such insurers.

Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order, a March 29, 2001 bar date was
set for the submission of allegedly settled asbestos claims and a July
30, 2001 bar date for all other asbestos personal injury claims,
asbestos property damage claims, derivative asbestos claims and claims
relating to alleged nuclear liabilities arising from the operation of
the Apollo Parks Township facilities against B&W and its filing
subsidiaries.

As of the March 29, 2001 bar date, over 49,000 allegedly settled claims
had been filed. B&W has accepted approximately 8,100 as settled claims
at this time with an approximate value of $49,000,000. The Bankruptcy
Court has disallowed approximately 10,000 claims as settled claims and
B&W is in the process of challenging virtually all of the remaining
claims.

If the Bankruptcy Court determines these claims were not settled prior
to the filing, these claims may be refiled as unsettled personal injury
claims. As of July 30, 2001, approximately 220,000 additional asbestos
personal injury claims, 60,000 related party claims, 168 property
damage claims, 212 derivative asbestos claims and 524 claims relating
to the Apollo Parks Township facilities had been filed. Since the July
30, 2001 bar date, approximately 4,224 additional personal injury
claims were filed.

The estimated total alleged value, as asserted by the claimants in the
Chapter 11 proceeding and in filed proofs of claim, of the asbestos
related claims, including the alleged settled claims, exceeds the
combined value of B&W and certain assets transferred by B&W to its
parent in a corporate reorganization completed in fiscal year 1999 and
the known available products liability and property damage coverages.

While they continue to review the filed claims and their ultimate
asbestos liability remains uncertain, they believe that the
$1,307,725,000 that they have provided for asbestos products liability
claims at December 31, 2001, represents their best estimate of their
minimum liability for asbestos claims under a settlement strategy.
Remaining issues and matters to be resolved include, but are not
limited to:

     (1) their ultimate asbestos liability;

     (2) the outcome of negotiations with the ACC, the FCR and other
         participants in the Chapter 11, concerning, among other
         things, the size and structure of a trust to satisfy the
         asbestos liability and the means for funding that trust;

     (3) the outcome of negotiations with their insurers as to
         additional amounts of their coverage and their participation
         in a plan to fund the settlement trust;

     (4) the Bankruptcy Court's decisions relating to numerous
         substantive and procedural aspects of the Chapter 11
         proceedings, including the Court's periodic determinations as
         to whether to extend the existing preliminary injunction that
         prohibits asbestos liability lawsuits and other actions for
         which there is shared insurance from being brought against
         their non-filing affiliates including McDermott, J. Ray and
         International;

     (5) the anticipated need for an extension of the three-year term
         of the DIP Credit Facility, which is scheduled to expire in
         February 2003, to accommodate the issuance of letters of
         credit expiring after that date in connection with new
         construction and other contracts on which B&W intends to bid;

     (6) the continued ability of their insurers to reimburse them for
         payments made to asbestos claimants; and

     (7) ultimate resolution of the ruling issued on February 8, 2002  
         by the Bankruptcy Court, which found B&W solvent at the time
         of a corporate reorganization, completed in the fiscal year
         ended March 31, 1999.

In early April 2001, a group of insurers who have previously provided
insurance to B&W under their excess liability policies filed:

     (i) a complaint for declaratory judgment and damages against
         International in the B&W Chapter 11 proceeding in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and

    (ii) a declaratory judgment complaint against B&W in the Bankruptcy
         Court, which actions have been consolidated before the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which
         has jurisdiction over portions of the B&W Chapter 11
         proceeding.

The insurance policies at issue in this litigation provide a
significant portion of B&W's excess liability coverage available for
the resolution of the asbestos-related claims that are the subject of
the B&W Chapter 11 proceeding. The consolidated complaints contain
substantially identical factual allegations.

These include allegations that, in the course of settlement discussions
with the representatives of the asbestos claimants in the B&W
bankruptcy proceeding, International and B&W breached the
confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement they entered into
with these Plaintiff Insurers relating to insurance payments by the
Plaintiff Insurers as a result of asbestos claims.

They also allege that International and B&W have wrongfully attempted
to expand the underwriters' obligations under that settlement agreement
and the applicable policies through the filing of a plan of
reorganization in the B&W bankruptcy proceeding that contemplates the
transfer of rights under that agreement and those policies to a trust
that will manage the pending and future asbestos-related claims against
B&W and certain of its affiliates.

The complaints seek declarations that, among other things, the
defendants are in material breach of the settlement agreement with the
Plaintiff Insurers and that the Plaintiff Insurers owe no further
obligations to International and B&W under that agreement.

With respect to the insurance policies, if the Plaintiff Insurers
should succeed in terminating the settlement agreement, they seek to
litigate issues under the policies in order to reduce their coverage
obligations.

In a ruling issued January 4, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted International's and B&W's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed the declaratory judgment action
filed by the Plaintiff Insurers. The ruling concluded that the
Plaintiff Insurers' claims lacked a factual or legal basis.

Their agreement with the underwriters went into effect in April 1990
and has served as the allocation and payment mechanism to resolve many
of the asbestos claims against B&W. They believe this ruling reflects
the extent of the underwriter's contractual obligations and underscores
that this coverage is available to settle B&W's asbestos claims.

As a result of the January 4, 2002 ruling, the only claims that
remained in the litigation were B&W's counterclaims against the
Plaintiff Insurers and against other London Market Insurers. The
parties have recently agreed to dismiss without prejudice those of
B&W's counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the
parties' respective rights and obligations under the settlement
agreement. B&W's counterclaim seeking a money judgment for
approximately $6,500,000 due and owing by London Market Insurers under
the settlement agreement remains pending. A trial of this counterclaim
is scheduled for April 15, 2002.

Following the resolution of this remaining counterclaim, the Plaintiff
Insurers will have an opportunity to appeal the January 4, 2002 ruling.
At this point, the Plaintiff Insurers have not indicated whether they
intend to pursue an appeal.

On or about November 5, 2001, The Travelers Indemnity Company and
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company filed an adversary proceeding
against B&W and related entities in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a declaratory judgment that
Travelers is not obligated to provide any coverage to B&W with respect
to so-called "non-products" asbestos bodily injury liabilities on
account of previous agreements entered into by the parties.

On or about the same date, Travelers filed a similar declaratory
judgment against McDermott and International in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The cases filed against
McDermott and International have been consolidated before the District
Court and the ACC and the FCR have intervened in the action.

On February 4, 2002, B&W and International filed answers to Travelers'
complaints, denying that previous agreements operate to release
Travelers from coverage responsibility for asbestos "non-products"
liabilities and asserting counterclaims requesting a declaratory
judgment specifying Travelers' duties and obligations with respect to
coverage for B&W's asbestos liabilities. Discovery in the action has
not yet commenced, and no trial date has yet been established. This
insurance, if available, would be in addition to the amounts already
included in B&W's financial statements as of December 31, 2001.

On April 30, 2001, B&W filed a declaratory judgment action in its
Chapter 11 proceeding against McDermott, BWICO, BWX Technologies, Inc.,
Hudson Products Corporation and McDermott Technology, Inc. seeking a
judgment, among other things, that:

     (a) B&W was not insolvent at the time of, or rendered insolvent as
         a result of, a corporate reorganization that they completed in
         the fiscal year ended March 31, 1999, which included, among
         other things, B&W's cancellation of a $313,000,000 note
         receivable and B&W's transfer of all the capital stock of HPC,
         Babcock & Wilcox Tracy Potheyr, Inc., BWXT and MTI to BWICO;
         and

     (b) the transfers are not voidable.

As an alternative, and only in the event that the Bankruptcy Court
finds B&W was insolvent at a pertinent time and the transactions are
voidable under applicable law, the action preserved B&W's claims
against the defendants.  The Bankruptcy Court permitted the ACC and the
FCR in the Chapter 11 proceeding to intervene and proceed as plaintiff-
intervenors and realigned B&W as a defendant in this action. The ACC
and the FCR are asserting in this action, among other things, that B&W
was insolvent at the time of the transfers and that the transfers
should be voided.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled that Louisiana law applied to the solvency
issue in this action. Trial commenced on October 22, 2001 to determine
B&W's solvency at the time of the corporate reorganization and
concluded on November 2, 2001. In a ruling filed on February 8, 2002,
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found
B&W solvent at the time of the corporate reorganization. On February
19, 2002, the ACC and FCR filed a motion with the District Court
seeking leave to appeal the February 8, 2002 ruling.

On February 20, 2002, McDermott, BWICO, BWXT, HPC and MTI filed a
motion for summary judgment asking that judgment be entered on a
variety of additional pending counts presented by the ACC and FCR that
they believe are resolved by the February 8, 2002 ruling. In addition,
an injunction preventing asbestos suits from being brought against non-
filing affiliates of B&W, including McDermott, J. Ray and
International, and B&W subsidiaries not involved in the Chapter 11
extends through April 15, 2002.

The timing and ultimate outcome of the Chapter 11 proceedings are
uncertain. Any changes in the estimate of B&W's non-employee asbestos
products liability and insurance recoverables, and differences between
the proportion of such liabilities covered by insurance and that
experienced in the past, could result in material adjustments to their
financial statements.

They have assessed B&W's liquidity position as a result of the filing
and believe that B&W can continue to fund its and its subsidiaries
operating activities and meet its debt and capital requirements for the
foreseeable future. However, the ability of B&W to continue as a going
concern depends on its ability to settle its ultimate asbestos
liability from its net assets, future profits and cash flow and
available insurance proceeds, whether through the confirmation of a
plan of reorganization or otherwise.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared
on a going concern basis, which contemplates continuity of operations,
realization of assets, and liquidation of liabilities in the ordinary
course of business. As a result of the filing and related events, there
is no assurance that the carrying amounts of assets will be realized or
that liabilities will be liquidated or settled for the amounts
recorded. In addition, a rejection of their plan of reorganization
could change the amounts reported in the consolidated financial
statements.


COMPANY PROFILE

Babcock and Wilcox Co.

Revenues          :   $1,431,908,000    
Net Income (Loss) :   $17,499,000
Assets            :   $2,069,139,000   
Liabilities       :   $1,889,161,000  
Asbestos Products Liabilities  :   $1,307,725,000
Asbestos Products Assets       :   $1,152,489,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description:  B&W and its subsidiaries conduct substantially all the
operations of McDermott International Inc.'s Potheyr Generation Systems
segment. The amount of revenues B&W generates from the Potheyr
Generation Systems segment primarily depends on capital spending by
customers in the electric power generation industry. The economy of the
U.S. slowed down in late 2001, easing demand for electricity and for
new generating capacity. This slowdown also resulted in a slowing of
inquiries for new power plants and plant upgrades. Current U.S.
emissions requirements continue to prompt some customers to place
orders for environmental equipment. Domestic demand for electrical
power generation industry services and replacement nuclear steam
generators continues at strong levels. The international markets remain
unsettled. Economic and political instability in Asia has caused
projects there to be delayed, suspended or cancelled.


BOWATER INC.: Faces 570 Asbestos-Related Claims in Five State Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowater Inc. is dealing with around 570 claimants who have sought
monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in Missouri,
Illinois, New York, Mississippi and Texas. About 60 of these actions
have been dismissed already, either voluntarily or by summary judgment.

Bowater, several other paper companies, and 120 other companies have
been named as defendants in asbestos personal injury actions based on
product liability claims. Bowater has denied the allegations and no
specific product of Bowater has been identified by the plaintiffs in
any of the actions as having caused or contributed to any individual
plaintiff's alleged asbestos related injury.

The company believes that all of these asbestos-related claims are
covered by insurance, subject to any applicable deductibles and our
insurers' rights to dispute coverage.


COMPANY PROFILE

Bowater Incorporated (NYSE: BOW)
55 E. Camperdown Way
Greenville, SC 29602-1028    
Phone: 864-271-7733
Fax: 864-282-9482
Website: http://www.bowater.com

Employees                     : 9,400
Revenue                       : $2,449,200,000
Net Income                    : $73,200,000
Assets                        : $5,765,400,000
Liabilities                   : $3,740,700,000
No. of Asbestos Claims        : 570

(As of  December 31, 2001)

Description:  Bowater Inc. is the second-largest newsprint maker in
North America (Abitibi-Consolidated is #1), churning out about 3.3
million tons of newsprint a year. Other products include coated and
uncoated groundwood papers, market pulp, lumber, and timber. Bowater
owns or leases about 1.5 million acres of timberlands in the US and
Canada, and it has cutting rights to another 33 million acres in
Canada. The company, which expanded its product line in 2001 by
acquiring Canada's Alliance Forest Products, now operates 12 pulp and
paper mills in the US, Canada, and South Korea, and 13 sawmills in
North America. North America accounts for 80% of Bowater's sales.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Faces 662 Asbestos-Related Personal Injury Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & Aikman Corp. is party to around 662 pending cases alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials used in
boilers, as of March 18, 2002.  These boilers were manufactured before
1966 by former operations of the Company which were sold in 1966.

Asbestos-containing refractory bricks lined the boilers and, in some
instances, the Company's former operations installed asbestos-
containing insulation around the boilers.  These pending cases do not
include cases that have been dismissed or are subject to agreements to
dismiss due to the inability of the plaintiffs to establish exposure to
a relevant product and cases that have been settled or are subject to
settlement agreements.

Total settlement costs for these cases have been less than $85,000 or
an average of less than $2,500 per settled case.  The defense and
settlement costs have been substantially covered by our primary
insurance carriers under a claims handling agreement that expires in
August 2006.

The Company has primary, excess and umbrella insurance coverage for
various periods available for asbestos-related boiler and other claims.  
Their primary carriers have agreed to cover about 80% of certain
defense and settlement costs up to a limit of approximately $70.5
million for all claims made, subject to reservations of rights.  The
excess insurance coverage, which varies in availability from year to
year, is around $620 million in aggregate for all claims made.

Based on the age of the boilers, the nature of the claims and
settlements made to date, and the insurance coverage, management does
not believe that these cases will have a material impact on their
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

However, it cannot assure that Collins & Aikman will not be subjected
to significant additional claims in the future, that insurance will be
available as expected or that unanticipated damages or settlements in
the future would not exceed insurance coverage.


COMPANY PROFILE

Collins & Aikman Corporation (NYSE: CKC)
250 Stephenson Hwy., Ste. 100
Troy, MI 48083    
Phone: 248-824-2500
Fax: 248-824-1532
Website: http://www.collinsaikman.com

Employees                   : 25,850
Revenues                    : $1,823,300,000
Net Income                  : $ (46,200,000)
Assets                      : $ 2,993,400,000
Liabilities                 : $ 2,618,700,000
No. of Asbestos Cases       : 662 (As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Collins & Aikman makes automotive carpet and a range of
car interior products. The company manufactures molded carpet, plastic
trim, automotive fabric, acoustic systems, floormats, convertible tops,
and luggage compartment trim. Major customers include General Motors
(about 30% of sales), Ford (some 20%), and DaimlerChrysler (nearly
20%). Collins & Aikman operates 88 plants in 13 countries, primarily in
the US (74% of sales) and Europe. Heartland Industrial Partners owns
about 60% of the company. Collins and Aikman has increased it auto
interior offerings with the purchase of Textron's TAC-Trim unit (a
maker of automobile instrument panels, interior trim, and exterior
components).


DOE RUN: Faces Asbestos Injury Suit Over Bixby, Viburnum MO Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation was named in an asbestos injury suit by
an individual against fifty-nine companies, alleging that he was
exposed for over 44 years to asbestos including at St. Joe Minerals
Corporation premises in Viburnum and Bixby, Missouri on June 24, 2002.  
To date, the Company has not been legally served and believes that the
court in which the case was filed does not have jurisdiction over the
Company.

Doe Run is unable at this time to estimate the expected outcome of and
the final costs of any of these actions.  Therefore, there can be no
assurance that these cases would not have a material adverse effect,
both individually and in the aggregate, on the results of operations,
financial condition and liquidity of the Company.  The Company has and
will continue to vigorously defend itself against all these claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Doe Run Resources Corp.
1801 Park 270 Drive, Suite 300
St. Louis, Missouri 63146
(314) 453-7100

Revenues                   : $737,482     
Net Income                 : $(46,779)   
Assets                     : $603,115,000   
Liabilities                : $668,916,000      
No. of Asbestos Case       : 1

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description:  The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a producer of base
and precious metals with operations in the United States and Peru. The
Company is the largest integrated lead producer in North America and
the largest primary lead producer in the western world. In Peru, the
Company operates the La Oroya smelter (La Oroya), one of the largest
polymetallic processing facilities in the world offering an extensive
product mix of non-ferrous and precious metals, including silver,
copper, zinc, lead and gold.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Resolves Over 3,000 Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy companies have resolved over 3 thousand claims for nominal
amounts that in the aggregate total less than $13 million, including
defense costs since 1992.  Some of this loss has been offset by
reimbursement from insurers.   Presently there are over 3 thousand
claims pending and reserves have been established that should be
adequate to cover any exposure.  

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts in Texas  
and Louisiana primarily by contractor employees in the 1950-1980
timeframe against Entergy Gulf States, Entergy Louisiana, and  Entergy
New Orleans, as premises owners of power plants, for damages caused  by
alleged  exposure to asbestos or other hazardous material.  Many other
defendants are named in these lawsuits as well.   

Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover more  
reimbursement,  while new coverage is being secured  to  minimize
anticipated future potential exposures.  Management believes loss
exposure has been and will continue to be handled successfully so the  
ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the
aggregate, to its financial position or results of operation.


COMPANY PROFILE

Entergy Corporation (NYSE: ETR)
639 Loyola Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70113    
Phone: 504-576-4000
Fax: 504-576-4428
http://www.entergy.com


Employees     :    15,054
Revenues      :   $9,620,900,000
Net Income    :   $750,500,000
Assets        :   $25,910,300,000
Liabilities   :    18,093,800,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Entergy distributes electricity to nearly 2.6 million customers in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas and provide natural gas to
nearly 240,000 customers in Louisiana. One of the largest nuclear power
generators in the US, Entergy also operates nukes outside its service
area and holds interests in overseas power projects. It has a
generating capacity of more than 27,000 MW. The company also engages in
power trading and marketing, mostly through a joint venture with Koch
Industries.


TODD SHIPYARDS: Asserts US$9.4 Million Reserved For Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corp. maintained a reserve of $9,400,000 for asbestos
related claims at March 31, 2002.  About 377 cases involving around 570
plaintiffs are pending against it and other ship builders and
repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and
installers and equipment manufacturers, involving injuries or illnesses
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.  

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and developed, analyzing
them in two different categories based on severity of illness.  Based
on current fact patterns, certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung
cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by the Company as
"malignant" claims.  All others of a less medically serious nature are
categorized as "non-malignant".  

The Company is currently defending approximately 35 "malignant" claims
and approximately 535 "non-malignant" claims.   The Company and its
insurers are vigorously defending these actions.

The Company has entered into agreements with several of its insurers to
provide coverage for a significant portion of settlements and awards
related to these bodily injury claims.  These agreements have aggregate
limits on amounts to be paid overall and formulas for amounts of
payment on individual claims.  

The two most significant agreements provide coverage applicable to
claims of exposure to asbestos occurring between 1949 and 1976 and
occurring between 1976 through 1987.  Insurance coverage for exposures
to asbestos was no longer available from the insurance industry after
1987.   

Due to changes in federal regulations in the 1970s which resulted in
the swift decline in commercial and military application of asbestos
and increased regulation over the handling and removal of asbestos,
there exists minimal risk of claims arising from exposure after 1987.  
Contractual formulas are utilized to determine the amount of coverage
from each agreement on each claim settled or litigated.  Once the
initial date of alleged exposure to asbestos is determined, all
contractual years subsequent to that date participate in the
settlement.  

Since all known claims involve alleged exposure prior to 1976, the 1976
through 1987 agreement will participate in the settlement or judgment
of all outstanding claims that are settled or litigated.  As a result,
and as the years remaining calculation set forth below indicates, the
1976 through 1987 agreement will exhaust prior to the 1949 through 1976
agreement.  

Based on historical claims settlement data only, the Company projects
that at March 31, 2002, the 1949 through 1976 agreement will provide
coverage for an additional 20.6 years and the 1976 through 1987
agreement will provide coverage for an additional 5.2 years.  

On April 1, 2001, the Company projected that these agreements would
provide coverage for an additional 23.7 years and 8.0 years,
respectively.  The increased declination of estimated coverage
experienced from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002 was due to
increased settlement activity on malignant cases including six cases
that had been in inventory dating back as far as 1993.  

The Company resolved 20 malignant claims in 2002 compared with 16 in
2001 and 11 in 2000.  If historical settlement patterns or the rate of
filing for new cases change in future periods, these estimated coverage
periods could be shorter or longer than anticipated.  

Moreover, if one or both of these coverages are exhausted at some
future date, the Company's share of responsibility will increase for
any subsequent claims' and legal expense previously covered by these
insurance agreements.  

In addition to providing coverage for assessments or settlements of
claims, the agreements also provide for costs of defending and
processing such claims.


COMPANY SNAPSHOT

Todd Shipyards Corp.
1801 16th Ave. SW
Seattle, WA 98134-1089    
Phone: 206-623-1635Fax: 206-442-8503
http://www.toddpacific.com

Employees     :    1,000
Revenues      :   $121,900,000
Net Income    :   $7,000,000
Assets        :   $133,700,000
Liabilities   :   $67,700,000
Asbestos Assets:  $9,400,000
No. of Asbestos Claims  :  570 (As of end March 2002)

Description:  Todd Shipyards Corporation (NYSE: TOD), through
subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, overhauls, and builds
commercial and military marine vessels. Services range from minor
repairs to major overhauls in dry dock. Todd Shipyards serves container
vessels, tankers, cruise ships, and barges, as well as government
vessels operating in the Pacific Northwest, including those of the US
Navy, US Coast Guard, Alaska Marine Highway System, and the Washington
State Ferry System. Government contracts account for nearly 80% of
revenues. The company is a defendant in civil suits by parties alleging
toxic exposure from asbestos; litigation is pending.


ZURN INDUSTRIES: Faces $107M in Asbestos Liabilities Through 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Industries estimates that its potential liability for asbestos
claims pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed over a
10-year period (i.e., through 2011) is approximately $107 million.  
This estimate is based on its view of the current and anticipated
number of asbestos claims, the timing and amounts of asbestos payments
and the status of ongoing litigation, defense strategies and settlement
initiatives.

However, there are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating both
the number of future asbestos claims as well as future settlement
costs, and the actual liability could exceed Zurn's estimate due to
changes in facts and circumstances after the date of the estimate.

Further, while there is presently no reasonable basis for estimating
Zurn's asbestos liability beyond 2011, such liability may continue
beyond 2011, and such liability could be substantial.  Zurn faces
around 59,000 asbestos claims as of March 31, this year up from the
record of 52,000 in September 30, 2001

In June 1998, US Industries Inc acquired Zurn Industries Inc. Zurn is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Zurn, along with many other
companies, is a codefendant in numerous asbestos related lawsuits
pending in the United States. Plaintiffs' claims against Zurn allege
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos used in
industrial boilers formerly manufactured by Zurn.

As reported by numerous other asbestos defendants, there has been a
significant increase in the number of asbestos suits filed over the
past several years. Zurn has also experienced an increase in the number
of suits filed against it in the last fiscal year.

Since Zurn received its first asbestos claim in the 1980's, Zurn has
settled or otherwise disposed of approximately 35,000 asbestos claims.
Zurn's insurers have paid all settlement costs relating to these claims
in an aggregate amount that has not eroded the available insurance
coverage by a material amount. Zurn's insurers are currently paying
defense costs without eroding the coverage amounts of its insurance
policies.

Zurn's available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability is
between approximately $318 million and $380 million. Zurn believes,
based on its experience in defending the claims and the amount of
insurance coverage available, that it has sufficient insurance to cover
the pending and reasonably estimable future claims.

This conclusion was reached after considering the insurance payments
made to date by Zurn's insurance carriers, existing insurance policies,
and the advice of insurance coverage counsel with respect to applicable
insurance coverage law relating to the terms and conditions of those
policies.

After review of the foregoing with Zurn and its consultants, the
Company believes that the resolution of Zurn's pending and reasonably
estimable asbestos claims will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ELECTRONIC DATA: Levy Levy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action against Electronic
Data Systems Corp. (NYSE: EDS), and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of those shareholders who purchased Company
securities between September 7, 1999 and September 24, 2002, inclusive.

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

For more details, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674
(toll-free), 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.levylawfirm.com  


MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of LookSmart, Ltd.
(Nasdaq:LOOK) during the period from May 25, 2000 through April 27,
2001.

The suit names Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. as a defendant, along with
Merrill's former star internet analyst, Henry Blodget.  LookSmart is
not named as a defendant.  The complaint asserts securities fraud
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' deceptive and
manipulative acts, the market price of LookSmart securities was
artificially inflated during the class period.  The complaint alleges
that defendants accomplished this by issuing Merrill Lynch analyst
reports regarding LookSmart that recommended the purchase of LookSmart
common stock, and set price targets for LookSmart common stock, that
were materially false and misleading, lacked any reasonable factual
basis, and were contrary to the actual beliefs held by the analysts.

In addition, the complaint alleges that when issuing their LookSmart
analyst reports, defendants failed to disclose material conflicts of
interest that arose as a result of their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation, influence and favorable stock coverage in order to curry
favor with Internet companies and obtain their investment banking
business for Merrill Lynch.

According to the complaint, defendants maintained at least a
"NEUTRAL/BUY" recommendation on LookSmart throughout the class period
in order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill
Lynch.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Quokka Sports,
Inc. (OTC:QKKAQ.PK) during the period from August 23, 1999, through
January 9, 2001.

The suit names Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. as a defendant, along with
Merrill's former star internet analyst, Henry Blodget.  Quokka is not
named as a defendant.  The complaint asserts securities fraud claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' deceptive and
manipulative acts, the market price of Company securities was
artificially inflated during the class period.  The complaint alleges
that defendants accomplished this by issuing Merrill Lynch analyst
reports regarding Quokka that recommended the purchase of Quokka common
stock, and set price targets for Quokka common stock, that were
materially false and misleading, lacked any reasonable factual basis,
and were contrary to the actual beliefs held by the analysts.

In addition, the complaint alleges that when issuing their Quokka
analyst reports, defendants failed to disclose material conflicts of
interest that arose as a result of their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation, influence and favorable stock coverage in order to curry
favor with Internet companies and obtain their investment banking
business for Merrill Lynch.  

According to the complaint, defendants maintained at least an
"ACCUMULATE" or a "BUY" recommendation on Quokka throughout the class
period in order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for
Merrill Lynch.

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


VODAFONE PLC: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Vodafone
Group PLC (NYSE:VOD), and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Company securities between March 7, 2001 and
May 28, 2002.

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

For more details, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, a551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
New York NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.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  * * *