CAR_Public/021024.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, October 24, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 211

                         Headlines
                             
AUTOMOBILE INSURERS: Motorists File "Diminished Value" Suit in Indiana
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 100,000 Printers For Fire, Injury Hazard
IDAHO: Lawsuit Spawns Federal Funding, Reform for Mentally Ill Children
ILLINOIS: Rockford, Chicago To Settle Lawsuit Over Cellular Phone Tax
INDIANA: Court Permits Food-Stamp Recipients To Proceed With Lawsuit
INDONESIA: West Sumatran Parliament Files Suit For Shares in Local Unit

MARTHA STEWART: SEC To File Securities Fraud Charges over Imclone Sale
SEARS ROEBUCK: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Fraud Suit in IL
TEXAS: Lubbock County To Join Suit Over "Unconstitutional" Court Fees
UNITED PARCEL: Agrees To Settle Part-time Employees Wage Lawsuit in CA

                    New Securities Fraud Cases                        

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CONCORD EFS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in W.D. TN
CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
ELECTRONIC DATA: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

FIRST HORIZON: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
FLEMING COMPANIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in IL
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in KY
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. KY

MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SALOMON SMITH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

SALOMON SMITH: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TXU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
TXU CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
TXU CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
VODAFONE GROUP: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

                              *********

AUTOMOBILE INSURERS: Motorists File "Diminished Value" Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four motorists from Hoosier, Indiana commenced a class action against
four automobile insurers in Marion County Superior Court, over their
policies about a car's "diminished value."  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Allstate Insurance,

     (2) State Farm Insurance, and

     (3) Meridian Security Insurance

Advocacy groups have asserted that the insurance industry is
shortchanging motorists by paying only for repairs when it should also
compensate for a car's loss in value, which some say can be up to 18
percent after a crash, the Indianapolis Star Reports.

One of the plaintiffs, Robert J. Corvette, couldn't get the price he
wanted for his 1996 Corvette after it was wrecked, although his
insurance company paid to have it fixed.  Thus he joined the suit,
which is seeking class action status.

Insurance companies have stated that such litigation could harm
consumers.  "Requiring insurance companies to pay for so-called
'diminished value' would only lead to an increase in the cost of
insurance paid by all consumers," Cherrill Threte, spokeswoman for
State Farm, told the Indianapolis Star.

Dennis Howard, executive director of the Insurance Consumer Advocate
Network, disagreed, saying, "Bottom line is, it's good for consumers."
In a survey conducted by the organization, it was discovered that used-
car buyers would pay about 18 percent less for a $20,000 car if it had
sustained $5,000 worth of damage even though it had been repaired.

One form of diminished value stems from the theory that any car loses
value after an accident, even if it is repaired properly.  However, a
vehicle can also depreciate because of poor quality repairs, the
Indianapolis Star reports.  In many cases, this loss in value is
difficult to prove, although a consumer can pay a professional to
inspect the repaired car.  That report can then be used to request
compensation from the insurer.

If the suit gets class action status, a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor
would open the door to requiring insurers to pay for a vehicle's
depreciation.  Similar lawsuits in other states have had varying
degrees of success.

A ruling last year by the Georgia Supreme Court requires all auto
insurers in that state to pay policyholders for their cars' loss in
value.  However, a similar case in Marion Superior Court was dismissed
two years ago.


BROTHER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 100,000 Printers For Fire, Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brother International Corporation is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 100,000 multi-function printers and laser printers.  The printers
can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

The Company has received two reports of overheating and fire, with one
of the incidents involving minor property damage.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves Brother laser printers with model numbers HL-1040,
HL-1050, HL-1060, and multi-function printers with model number MFC
P2000.   The model number can be found on the top of each unit and
adjacent to the Brother(r) logo.  The printers are beige or putty in
color, and all were manufactured in China, with the exception of model
HL-1060, which was manufactured in Japan.

Retailers, dealers and office super stores nationwide sold these
printers from June 1997 through December 2000 for between $300 and
$700.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866-236-6835
between 9 am and 7:30 pm ET Monday through Friday or log on to the
Company's Website: http://www.brother.com/usa.


IDAHO: Lawsuit Spawns Federal Funding, Reform for Mentally Ill Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Dirk Kempthorne established an administrative structure for
providing Idaho's mentally ill children with comprehensive mental
health services, and found the federal monies to fund the services, the
Associate Press Newswires reports, when US District Judge B. Lynn
Winmill informed the state of Idaho, during the class action called
"Jeff D.," which had been filed against the state, that she considered
finding the administration in contempt of court over helping the
state's mentally ill children.

The state will receive up to $6.4 million in federal funds over six
years to help Idaho communities develop a program of comprehensive
mental health services for children and their families.  Nearly $1.4
million is set aside for the first year in the program funded by the US
Department of Health and Human Services.  The money goes to the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.

The governor came up with the plan to address the situation, which
includes the council made up state and local officials, mental health
service providers, families and advocates.  Local councils were created
to work with the state agency.

Lt. Governor Jack Riggs said that the grant from the federal government
allows the state to move forward with the care of the children without
taking money away from services.  "We shall use the grant to support
local councils as they work to develop a truly integrated system of
care for children and families in their community."


ILLINOIS: Rockford, Chicago To Settle Lawsuit Over Cellular Phone Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The cities of Rockford and Chicago in Illinois agreed to settle a class
action commenced by U.S. Cellular and PrimeCo customers, contesting the
telephone infrastructure maintenance tax applied by hundreds of
Illinois cities between 1998 and 2001, the Rockford Register Star
reports.

In 2001, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the tax could not be
applied to cellular phone users.  The court agreed with the two
companies' contention that the tax could only be applied to traditional
telephone companies that put up telephone poles and string cables on
city-owned property.

Under the settlement, Rockford US Cellular and PrimeCo customers will
receive a $5 credit on their cell-phone bills starting early next year.  
The $5 credit will continue until the settlement money runs out.  The
$5 credit is expected to go for at least a couple of months.  All US
Cellular and PrimeCo customers will see a credit no matter how long
they've been customers.  Because it was a class action, attorney fees
in the case are expected to eat about a third of the settlement,
leaving about $258,600 for area customers to split up.

The settlement will cost Rockford US$386,000 and Chicago US$3.9
million, US$1.3 million of which will cover attorney's fees.  

While nowhere near the huge windfall the attorneys will see, local
cell-phone users welcome the small financial break.  "The $5 is pretty
much a blip on the screen," Charlie Ragan, 38, a US Cellular customer
with a cell-phone bill that averages around $35,told the Rockford
Register Star. "But $5 is $5."

The companies are expected to expand the suit to include the other
Illinois cities applying the tax.  

In 2002, the Illinois Legislature did away with the infrastructure
maintenance tax.  In its place, the Legislature raised the state's
telecommunication tax from 5 percent to 6 percent.  That 1 percentage
point raise allowed Illinois cities to collect the fee from both
cellular-phone customers and traditional telephone users.  There has
yet to be a challenge to the increase in the telecommunication tax.


INDIANA: Court Permits Food-Stamp Recipients To Proceed With Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Food-stamp recipients who have had their monthly allocations reduced
since 1996, because of a state error, can proceed with a class action
against the state of Indiana, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

A ruling issued by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals reverses US
District Chief Judge Larry J. McKinney's January decision that the
state did not violate any law by collecting food-stamp money that had
been overpaid.

The appeals court pointed to the calendar when reversing Judge
McKinney's ruling.  "Certainly, after more than a dozen years of state
in-action, the food-stamp recipients were entitled to a reasonable
expectation that they no longer would be accountable for the agency
error," Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond wrote in the ruling.

Since July 2000, Indiana has collected $800,000 in cash and $400,000 in
reduced benefits to food-stamp recipients to make up for overpayments
that occurred before 1996, said Edward Stattman of the state's Family
and Social Services Administration.

The state contends the collections are permissible under the 1996
federal food-stamp law, which allowed agencies to correct overpayments
by reducing monthly food-stamp allowances.  In some cases, benefits
were reduced by as much as 10 percent.

"This is a big deal to food-stamp recipients," said Jack Bowie Suess,
an attorney for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which filed the
lawsuit in April 2001, on behalf of two food-stamp recipients.  The
lawsuit claimed that the Family and Social Services Administration is
violating federal law by collecting overpayments that were the state's
mistakes from 1984 and 1985.  The lawsuit was certified as a class
action on June 29, 2001.

State officials could not say how many people the state is collecting
from or how much it hopes to recover.  In August, 427,860 people in
178,072 families were receiving food stamps.  The average amount of
food stamps going to a family is $199.17 a month.


INDONESIA: West Sumatran Parliament Files Suit For Shares in Local Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The West Sumatran regional parliament launched a class action against
PT Semen Gresik on behalf of the local community, seeking 332 million
shares in the cement maker's local unit, PT Semen Padang.  

These shares were acquired by Semen Gresik in 1995 as part of the
government's merger of Semen Gresik, Semen Padang and Semen Tonasa.  
Semen Padang has long expressed its dissatisfaction at being forced to
merge operations with the other two producers.  

Local press in Padang, West Sumatra, said the action is against Semen
Gresik and its majority shareholder, the central government, through
the finance and state enterprises ministries.  Semen Gresik president
director Satriyo confirmed the news but could not offer any details.  

"I have heard there's a class action from the people of West Sumatra
but I don't know the transaction (concerned)," Satriyo told AFX-Asia.  
He said he will seek an explanation from Semen Padang finance director
Muchlis Karanin at a meeting scheduled for tonight.

According to the reports, the West Sumatran parliament alleges the
central government and Semen Gresik's management have forgotten the
community's interests in their pursuit to control Semen Padang.  The
accused parties have been trying to replace Padang's management to pave
the way for the sale of the government's 51 percent stake in Semen
Gresik.

The sale was supposed to go through in December last year under a
US$520 million put option deal with Cemex SA de CV of Mexico, but
Padang's management had it shelved by demanding the government spin off
the Padang unit before any sale.  The dispute has at times gotten
violent and resulted in disruptions to the Padang cement factory's
production.

So far, the central government has failed to replace Padang's
management because the unit refuses to hold an extraordinary general
meeting.  It has the support of both the local courts and parliament in
its defiance.


MARTHA STEWART: SEC To File Securities Fraud Charges over Imclone Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart herself might face securities fraud charges, as the
enforcement unit of the Securities and Exchange Commission plans to
recommend filing these charges over Ms. Stewart's sale of ImClone
Systems Inc. stock, a source told Reuters.

Ms. Stewart's firm, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. already faces
several securities class actions alleging that the Company's stock fell
because Ms. Stewart dumped ImClone stock after allegedly getting inside
information from Samuel Waksal, Imclone CEO, that one of its cancer
drugs would not get federal approval.  The suits also alleged that Ms.
Stewart subsequently made false statements about the stock sale. Last
week, Mr. Waksal pleaded guilty to some insider trading charges.

The SEC informed Ms. Stewart of its plans with a so-called Wells
Notice, the source told Reuters, which gives Stewart 30 days to respond
to charges.  Any final charges would have to be approved by the entire
SEC in Washington.

The charges would likely press to get back cash from Ms. Stewart equal
to the amount she would have lost had she not sold the ImClone shares,
a penalty of up to three times that amount, and a bar on her acting as
an officer or director of a company.

The Company has attempted to move other staffers into the limelight
since Ms. Stewart's legal problems have come to the fore, prominently
featuring them in the company's magazine, for example.  "Filing charges
doesn't mean she'd necessarily have to step down, but it ratchets up
the pressure another notch," Seth Farber, a partner with law firm Dewey
Ballantine, and a former federal prosecutor, told Reuters.  "In
prosecuting those charges the SEC would seek to bar her from serving as
an officer or director."

The Company has denied that it was looking for a new CEO.  If
convicted, Ms. Stewart would likely pay a huge fine and might be ousted
as chairman and chief executive officer.  However, Ms. Stewart would
still remain the Company's controlling shareholder.

The Company declined comment, referring the matter to her personal
representative, who was not immediately available for comment,
according to a Reuters report.  An SEC spokesman also had no comment.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Fraud Suit in IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court in Chicago, alleging that the Company
and its officers made "false and misleading" statements about its
financial condition, in violation of federal securities laws.

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story, the suit was filed
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the stock between January 17,
2002 and October 17, 2002.  The case charges that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Meanwhile, one financial analyst speculated Monday that federal
regulators may start an "informal inquiry" of Sears because of the
unusual events surrounding the company's increase in credit-card debt
reserves.

"Although management claims no historical financial information was
tampered with--only projections--these events could prompt an informal
Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry, given the unusual
circumstances and an earnings miss this big and this sudden with such
material market implications," Carol Levenson, director of research for
Gimme Credit, an independent credit-rating agency based in New York
told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Though Ms. Levenson said she knows of no SEC inquiry, the situation
"has all the earmarks" of an issue that would raise a red flag,
including "the possibility of shaky accounting practices or even
withheld financial information."  In a research note released Monday,
Ms. Levenson wrote, "We are not confident that all the bad news is out
yet for this credit (situation), and we see additional downside," the
Chicago Sun-Times reports

Company spokeswoman Peggy Palter she could not comment on rumors or
speculation. An SEC spokesman also declined comment.  However, Ms.
Palter said the Company intends to mount "a rigorous defense" against
the lawsuits.  "The issue does not affect our ability to serve
customers or the normal day-to-day store operations," Ms.Palter told
the Chicago Sun-Times.


TEXAS: Lubbock County To Join Suit Over "Unconstitutional" Court Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lubbock County decided to join a statewide class action filed by the
Texas Association of Counties, alleging that court costs collected to
supplement the pay of county court-at-law judges violates the Texas
Constitution, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reports.

The suit, filed in Travis County Court, protests the court fees, which
are collected by the counties, sent to the state and then returned to
the counties to supplement the salary of court-at-law judges.  The
commissioners also voted to hire the Austin firm of Allison & Bass to
represent the county.  The suit lawsuit was filed in 1999 against the
Texas Comptroller's Office.  64 counties were later added to the suit
as defendants.

Beni Hemmeline, chief of the civil division of the Criminal District
Attorney's office, told the Avalanche-Journal that 77 counties have
court-at-law judges, and 64, including Lubbock County, collect the fee.  
Some counties, however, have discontinued collecting the fee, she
added.  She further asserted that the civil division's opinion is the
fee does not violate the constitution.

Two Texas attorney generals have written opinions stating the
legislative provision is unconstitutional, but the Legislature had a
chance to react to the opinions and did not, she told the Avalanche-
Journal.


UNITED PARCEL: Agrees To Settle Part-time Employees Wage Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In an unprecedented victory for part-time employees in California,
almost 6,000 current and former United Parcel Service (UPS) employees
are eligible to participate in a class action for US$18 million in
retroactive pay.   As a result of the lawsuit, UPS has changed
employment compensation practices for part-time managers to comply with
California labor laws.

Nine plaintiffs, representing almost 6,000 current and former employees
classified as part-time managers/supervisors, filed suit in May of 2000
in San Diego Superior Court.  In November 2000, San Diego based Hurst &
Hurst took over the case.  Lead counsel, Debra L. Hurst and Kyle Van
Dyke associated with the law firms of Walters & Caietti and Pope &
Berger.

The named plaintiffs, who worked for UPS for a combined 67 years, took
legal action after repeated attempts to resolve the grievance with
management were unsuccessful.

"I tried using the proper channels to resolve the problem internally
for many years, but after numerous promises and no resolution, I felt I
had to do what was right on behalf of every part-time management
employee," said lead plaintiff George Archie, an 18-year former UPS
employee and San Diego resident.  "The only way we were willing to
settle this case was to have UPS change their future pay practices. Now
every part-time employee will be paid for every hour worked. We're not
asking for anything outrageous, just fair compensation."

The lawsuit contended that UPS part-time employees were incorrectly
classified as exempt managers so that they received the same monthly
salary no matter how many hours they actually worked.  The suit alleged
that, based on California's Wage Orders, the UPS employees should never
have been classified as exempt managers and instead should have
received wages for every hour worked, including overtime pay.

Additionally, the lawsuit contended that UPS violated the California
Labor Code, which requires employees classified as exempt to be paid a
minimum monthly salary.  After years of stagnation in the minimum
salary requirement, the California Legislature amended the Labor Code
effective Jan. 1, 2000.  The minimum monthly salary requirement was
increased to $1,993.33 in 2000 and $2,166.67 in 2001.  This year it
increased to $2,340.00.  During this entire time, UPS' average monthly
salary for its part-time exempt employees averaged approximately $1,500
per month.

"UPS tried to have the best of both worlds, using the exempt status so
they didn't have to pay employees for every hour worked and using the
part-time status so they didn't have to meet the minimum salary
required by law," said Debra L. Hurst.  "This case was particularly
challenging because, as the first of its kind, we had no legal
precedent to guide us.  I am pleased that we were able to get UPS to
recognize that its part-time employees have the same rights under the
law as its full-time employees."

According to the 20-year veteran trial attorney, companies doing
business in California need to make sure their employment practices are
up-to-date with the labor laws enacted over the last few years and
understand that these laws protect full-time as well as part-time
employees.

"Hopefully, our success in this case will set the tone for how other
California employers treat their part-time workers," Ms. Hurst said.

Part-time managers employed by UPS in the State of California from May
1996 through May 2002 are entitled to share in the settlement with
payments ranging from $200 to over $5,000 per employee based upon their
tenure with UPS.  Payment to class members is anticipated in March
2003. Claim Forms must be postmarked by Dec. 3, 2002 in order to be
valid.

UPS has changed its pay for California part-time employees as a result
of the lawsuit.  Employees in this category are now paid for all hours
worked including overtime, are entitled to daily meal and break
periods, and receive paychecks twice a month.  The estimated economic
impact for current UPS' employees in this category is approximately $8
to 10 million more per year in income and benefits.

"This issue was not only an ongoing battle with part-time managers, but
it was also the No. 1 source of grievances by UPS union employees,"
said Mr. Archie.  "The practice has been going on for decades, but
employees would just get discouraged and leave after their complaints
fell on deaf ears.  I'm pleased we have been successful in getting the
pay practices changed for the better for current and future UPS
employees."

                    New Securities Fraud Cases                        

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE:AYE) securities
between April 23, 2001 and October 8, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
the Company and some of its officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Jason L. Brodsky or Evan J. Smith by Mail:
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
by E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com


CONCORD EFS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in W.D. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Concord EFS,
Inc. between October 30, 2001 and September 4, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
against the Company and:

     (1) Dan M. Palmer,

     (2) Edward A. Labry, III,

     (3) Marcia E. Heister,

     (4) William E. Lucado,

     (5) Christopher S. Reckert,

     (6) E. Miles Kilburn,

     (7) Edward T. Haslam,

     (8) Ronald V. Congemi,and

     (9) Richard P. Kiphart

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants repeatedly
misrepresented the strength of the Company's operating performance and
growth in order to inflate the price of its stock to complete
acquisitions using the Company's stock as currency and to sell off
their own stock, pocketing over $160 million in illegal insider-trading
proceeds.  

Throughout the class period, defendants maintained that:

     (i) the Company's margins were "immune" to average ticket size
         declines due to its fixed fee;

    (ii) the Company's revenue growth was accelerating;

   (iii) rumors about top management departures were unfounded;

    (iv) the Company was successfully integrating acquired companies
         into Concord such that the Company would achieve synergies and
         improved operating margins going forward;

     (v) new contracts with major companies would contribute
         significantly to 2002 revenues and problems with its new
         WalMart contract had been resolved in December 2001; and

    (vi) the Company was on track to report EPS of $0.75 and $0.93 in
         2002 and 2003, respectively

The truth, however was that the Company's business was not growing as
represented, but was suffering from increased costs and declining
margins.  Then, on September 5, 2002, the Company shocked the market
with news that its CEO was stepping down and that its 2002 and 2003
earnings would be much lower than represented.  On this news, Company
stock dropped to $12.60 per share.

For more details, contact Linda Flood, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by
E-mail: CEFT@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, a subsidiary of Credit Suisse
Group (NYSE:CSR), and one of its technology analysts  on behalf of all
persons who purchased common stock of Agilent Technologies Inc.
(NYSE:A) during the period from December 13, 1999 through September 9,
2002.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing favorable research reports on the Company that were materially
false or misleading by failing to disclose conflicts of interest of
Credit Suisse, and in particular the practice of Credit Suisse to gain
lucrative investment banking business in part by providing coverage and
issuing favorable research reports on prospective investment banking
customers.

According to news reports, an investigation conducted by the Secretary
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uncovered "very troubling"
internal Credit Suisse materials that "suggest . a pattern of breach of
fiduciary duty" and which appear to have "treated investors like
suckers."

One internal Credit Suisse document discusses the "Agilent two-step,"
in which Credit Suisse issued favorable reports on Agilent to the
investing public, while simultaneously informing favored customers
verbally that Credit Suisse's true opinion of Agilent was less
favorable.  The Secretary of the Commonwealth has suggested that
criminal charges be filed against Credit Suisse and on October 21st the
Secretary filed civil fraud charges against Credit Suisse.

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


ELECTRONIC DATA: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Electronic Data
Systems Corporation (NYSE: EDS) common stock between September 7, 1999
and September 24, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants made misstatements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts in their public statements and elsewhere,
including:

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

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that after further revelations regarding EDS's
put options and other liabilities emerged, EDS's share price tumbled
even further, reaching an intraday low of $10.09 on September 24, 2002.

For more details, contact Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: EDS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of ESS Technology Inc. (Nasdaq:ESST)
publicly traded securities during the period between January 23, 2002
and September 12, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations and its prospects for
2002.

Taking advantage of the inflation in ESS stock, certain of ESS's
officers sold $1.8 million worth of their own ESS stock at artificially
inflated prices of as much as $25.78 per share, while the Company
itself sold $45.5 million worth of its own stock.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Heather Gann by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


FIRST HORIZON: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of purchasers of First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Corporation (Nasdaq:FHRX) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 24, 2002 and July 2, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market.

On April 24, 2002, First Horizon completed a public offering of
securities, selling 6.5 million shares of common stock at an offering
price of $21.75 per share, pursuant to a Prospectus declared effective
by the SEC on April 18, 2002.  The Company failed to disclose material
information in the Prospectus relating to two products, Tanafed
Suspension (a pediatric liquid and allergy product) and Prenate GT (a
prescription prenatal vitamin).  

The Company touted the market for these products highly in its
Prospectus.  However, the market for these products was severely
declining and defendants had flooded wholesalers with Prenate GT
inventory in the first quarter of 2002 in order to report strong sales
prior to the secondary offering.

Belatedly, defendants disclosed that due to price erosion arising from
generic competition, First Horizon=s products had not been widely
accepted by the market.  In addition, sales growth from the Company's
newly acquired ASular@ drug line had failed to yield strong results,
and a promised redeployment of First Horizon's sales force similarly
failed to boost First Horizon's bottom line.

As a result of the Company's misrepresentations, First Horizon
investors have sustained tremendous losses, and stand to lose much more
as the Company=s financial condition continues to decline.  On July 2,
2002, the Company shocked the market by revealing that for the second
quarter of 2002, the Company expected to report revenues of between $25
and $26 million, and earnings per share between $0.00 and $0.02,
excluding a $2.2 million debt write-off. For the full year, First
Horizon revised its guidance to $0.34 a share, a far cry from its
earlier guidance of $0.56 to $0.57 a share.

A July 2, 2002 press release attributed the massive shortfall mainly to
a greater than expected erosion of sales in the second quarter of
Tanafed and Prenate GT, as well as adistraction arising out of a sales
force realignment.

In response to the Company's devastating news concerning the lack of
acceptance of two of the Company's key products, First Horizon stock
price plummeted by an astonishing 81% or by $14.74 to $3.51, on volumes
of 16.4 million shares, about 30 times the daily average.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


FLEMING COMPANIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division, on behalf of purchasers of Fleming Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:FLM) common stock during the period between May 9, 2001 and
September 4, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of the Federal Securities Laws
relating to the Company's numerous positive statements regarding its
"price-impact" retail supermarket division.  The complaint alleges that
as early as May, 2001, the Company and certain of its officers issued
numerous positive statements regarding Fleming's "price-impact" retail
supermarket division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The price of Fleming common stock dramatically declined on this
announcement, falling from $15.21 on July 30, 2002 to $13.75 on July
31, 2002, on huge trading volume of 3.9 million shares, and continued
to decline over the next two heavy trading days to a 52-week low of
$10.76 on August 2, 2002.  Since then, the price of Fleming common
stock has never recovered, and the stock traded as low as $6.87 on
September 5, 2002, well below the $19.40 price at which Fleming sold 8
million shares to unsuspecting investors on June 13, 2002.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Heather Gann by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Household
International, Inc. (NYSE: HI) securities between October 23, 1997 and
August 14, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   The
Company is principally a non-operating holding company engaged in three
reportable segments: consumer, credit card services and international.  
The consumer segment includes consumer lending, mortgage services,
retail services and auto finance businesses.  The credit card services
include the domestic MasterCard and Visa credit card business.  The
Company's international segment includes foreign operations in the
United Kingdom and Canada.
     

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

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood,Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: HI@bernlieb.com.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in KY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Kindred Healthcare,
Inc. (Nasdaq: KIND) during the period between August 14, 2001 and
October 10, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued a
series of statements to the public indicating that the Company was
successfully emerging from bankruptcy and implementing a growth plan.
As part of the Plan, the Company filed a Prospectus with the SEC in
preparation for a stock offering.

However, though the defendants reported improved financial results and
acquisitions each quarter during the class period, the defendants did
not disclose that because of a large increase in professional liability
claims, especially in Florida, defendants did not have proper reserves
for the increased volumes of claims spawned by this change in the law.

Consequently, the Company was facing a tremendous increase in liability
and had not adequately prepared themselves financially to handle the
increase in claims.  Therefore, any representations contained in public
filings or statements claiming that the reserves were adequate were
false and misleading, according to the complaint.  Moreover, as a
result of the Company's misrepresentations, Kindred investors have
sustained significant losses.

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

                    
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. KY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Kindred Healthcare, Inc.
(Nasdaq:KIND) between August 14, 2001 and October 10, 2002 inclusive in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
alleged violations, according to the complaint, stem from materially
false and misleading statements made by the defendants during the class
period that materially misrepresented the Company's operations and
financial state thereby causing Company securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

When defendants revealed the Company's true and much worse than
previously disclosed operational and financial state on October 10,
2002, Kindred's share price quickly deflated, falling over 40% in one
day.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued a series of statements to the public indicating that
the Company was successfully emerging from bankruptcy and implementing
a growth plan.  To that end, defendants announced an increased credit
facility to facilitate acquisitions, and a public offering of Kindred
common stock priced at $46 per share.

The offering was crucial for Kindred, which had been struggling for
months to regain its market capitalization and renewed analyst
interest.  A successful offering would allow the Company to resume
selling its stock on the Nasdaq National Market System rather than the
Over-the-Counter bulletin board, where the stock had been languishing
since Kindred's emergence from bankruptcy in April 2001.

During the class period, defendants reported quarter after quarter of
improved financial results and acquisitions.  In response, Company
stock traded at over $45 per share during April 2002.

However, defendants failed to reveal that due to a dramatic increase in
professional liability claims, especially in Florida, defendants were
not properly reserving for these incurred claims.  During May 2001,
Florida had enacted reform legislation, which became effective October
5, 2001.  

There was a marked increase in the number of professional liability
lawsuits filed in Florida in anticipation of the new law taking effect.  
Medical liability insurance premiums skyrocketed and certain insurance
companies stopped writing medical liability insurance in Florida.  As a
result, Kindred competitors such as Beverly Enterprises took charges in
order to account for the increase in lawsuits.  

Defendants assured investors and analysts that the Company (which was
largely self-insured) carefully reviewed its reserves for claims on a
monthly basis, and would not have to take a large "catch-up" charge
since it maintained adequate reserves.  

Despite defendants' failure to properly maintain reserves for millions
of dollars in claims, the individual defendants signed sworn statements
on August 13, 2002, affirming the accuracy of the Company's financial
statements and public filings.

On October 10, 2002, after the close of trading, the Company withdrew
its previous earnings projections for 2002 and revised downwards its
third quarter 2002 estimates.  The shortfall was attributed to
increased costs for professional liability claims incurred in fiscal
2001 and 2002 - specifically, approximately $55 million of additional
costs for professional liability claims above its normal provision for
the third quarter ended September 30, 2002.

Approximately two-thirds of the "dramatic increase in professional
liability costs" arose from the Company's operations in Florida.  In
response to this news, Company stock price dropped by an astonishing
43%, falling $11.88 per share to close at $15.84.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Mark Strauss or Ian Washburn by
Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
212-317-2300 or 888-529-4787 by E-Mail: washburn@kmslaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Inktomi Corporation (Nasdaq:INKT)
publicly traded securities during the period between June 10, 1998 and
April 3, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Inc., Henry Blodget and Mary Meeker with issuing
misleading analyst reports about Inktomi.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants urged investors to purchase Inktomi stock when
defendants knew or should have known that such purchases were not a
good investment.

The complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Inktomi without any
         rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interests that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired Exodus Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EXDS) common stock between December 8, 1999 and June 19, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Henry Blodget
urged investors to purchase Exodus stock when defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that such purchases were not a good investment.   
The complaint alleges that defendants:  

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Exodus without any rational
         economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.  

Between March 24, 2000 and September 26, 2001, Exodus stock dropped
from approximately $173.32 per share to less than $1 dollar per share.  
During this time period, Merrill Lynch repeatedly reiterated its Near-
Term Buy/Long-Term Buy recommendation.  After the NASDAQ suspended
trading in Exodus common stock on April 26, 2001, Exodus voluntarily
de-listed from NASDAQ and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly
thereafter.  

For more details, contact Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: EXDS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of QuadraMed Corporation
(Nasdaq:QMDCE) publicly traded securities during the period between May
11, 2000 and August 11, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a healthcare information and technology company that
provides software solutions and consulting services to hospitals and
medical providers to meet their medical records, business and
compliance needs.

On August 12, 2002, QuadraMed issued a press release entitled,
"QuadraMed to File For Extension For Form 10-Q." The press release
stated in part: "QuadraMed Corporation announced today that it will
file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for an
automatic 5-day extension of the deadline for submitting its second
quarter 2002 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. The Company will use the
additional five calendar days to complete a restatement of its
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December
31, 2000, 2001, and for the interim period ended March 31, 2002."

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Heather Gann by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


SALOMON SMITH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of XO Communications, Inc., formerly
Nextlink Communications, Inc. (OTCBB:XOXOQ) between October 11, 1997
and November 1, 2001, inclusive, against defendants Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc., its star telecommunication research analyst, Jack Grubman  
and Salomon's parent company Citigroup, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Salomon and Mr. Grubman urged investors to
purchase XO stock when defendants knew or should have known that such
purchases were not a good investment.  The complaint alleges that
defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about XO without any rational
         economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interests that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983, or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc.
(Nasdaq:LVLT) common stock during the period between January 4, 1999
and June 18, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Jack Grubman and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. urged investors to purchase
Level 3 stock when they knew or should have known that such purchases
were not a good investment.  The complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Level 3 without any
         rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


SALOMON SMITH: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired Level 3 Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LVLT) common stock between January 4, 1999 and June 18, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

The complaint alleges that Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Jack Grubman and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. urged investors to purchase
Level 3 stock when they knew or should have known that such purchases
were not a good investment.  The complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued "Buy" recommendations about Level 3 without any
         rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
         recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: LVLT@bernlieb.com.


TXU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of TXU
Corporation (NYSE: TXU) from April 25, 2002 through October 11, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operating performance and prospects.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company could succeed in the competition created
by deregulation.  Defendants then represented that the Company's
European operations were improving, it would succeed in competition in
the U.K. market and it was on track to report EPS of $4.35+ and $4.60+
in 2002 and 2003, respectively.  As a result of these allegedly false
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated levels,
as high as $56 per share.

Due to this inflation, defendants were able to complete a secondary
offering of 11.8 million shares of common stock, priced at $51.15 per
share and 8.8 million units of FELINE PRIDES (equity linked debt
securities), raising nearly a billion dollars in much needed financing.

Subsequent to the offering, defendants needed to maintain a high stock
price to avoid triggering additional debt and the conversion of
preferred stock into common stock pursuant to a partnership agreement.

On October 4, 2002, the Company issued an earnings warning, indicating
that due to customer attrition and ongoing problems in Europe the
Company would report 2002 EPS of only $3.25.  On this news, the
Company's stock price declined to $27 per share, from more than $40 per
share the prior week.

However, the stock remained inflated as defendants concealed the
extreme liquidity problems from which the Company was suffering.  
Defendants even assured the market that the Company was strong
financially and that the dividend was "sound and secure."

Then, on October 14, 2002, before the market opened, the Company
stunned the market with news that it was cutting its dividend 80%, to
$0.125 per share and would no longer support its European operations.  
The Company's stock price immediately collapsed on this news to as low
as $10.10 per share before closing at $12.94, a one day drop of 31%, on
volume of 39 million shares.

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


TXU CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against TXU Corp.
(NYSE:TXU) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
securities during the period from April 25, 2002 and October 11, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company could succeed in the competition created
by deregulation.  Defendants represented, among other things, that the
Company's European operations were improving and it was on track to
report EPS of $4.35 and $4.60 in 2002 and 2003, respectively.  As a
result of these allegedly false statements, Company stock traded at
artificially inflated levels, as high as $56 per share.

On October 4, 2002, the Company disclosed that it expected materially
lower earnings than had been previously predicted.  Specifically, in
addition to revising and lowering its guidance for the third and fourth
quarters of 2002, the Company also lowered its guidance for the year
2002 to a range of $3.20 to $3.25 and further lowered its guidance for
the year 2003 to a range of $3.45 to $3.55.  These revelations caused
the Company's common stock to decline over 55%.

However, the stock continued to be inflated as defendants concealed the
extreme liquidity problems from which the Company was suffering.
Defendants assured the market that the Company was strong financially
and that the dividend was "sound and secure."  

Then, on October 14, 2002, before the market opened, TXU stunned the
market with news that it was cutting its dividend 80% to $0.125 per
share and was selling all of its European assets.  On this news the
Company's stock price immediately collapsed and at $12.94, on volume of
39 million shares.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 800-889-3701 or by
E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com


TXU CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired TXU Corporation
(NYSE: TXU) publicly traded securities between April 25, 2002 and
October 11, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operating performance and prospects.  

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company could succeed in the competition created
by deregulation.  Defendants then represented that the Company's
European operations were improving, it would succeed competition in the
UK market and it was on track to report EPS of $4.35+ and $4.60+ in
2002 and 2003, respectively.  As a result of these allegedly false
statements, Company stock traded at artificially inflated levels, as
high as $56 per share.

Due to this inflation, defendants were able to complete a secondary
offering of 11.8 million shares of common stock, priced at $51.15 per
share and 8.8 million units of FELINE PRIDES (equity linked debt
securities), raising nearly a billion dollars in much needed financing.  

Subsequent to the offering, defendants needed to maintain a high stock
price to avoid triggering additional debt and the conversion of
preferred stock into common stock pursuant to a partnership agreement.

On October 4, 2002, TXU issued an earnings warning, indicating that due
to customer attrition and ongoing problems in Europe the Company would
report 2002 EPS of only $3.25.  On this news, the Company's stock price
declined to $27 per share, from more than $40 per share the prior week.  

However, the stock remained inflated as defendants concealed the
extreme liquidity problems from which the Company was suffering.   
Defendants even assured the market that the Company was strong
financially and that the dividend was "sound and secure."  

Then, on October 14, 2002, before the market opened, TXU stunned the
market with news that it was cutting its dividend 80%, to $0.125 per
share and would no longer support its European operations.  The
Company's stock price immediately collapsed on this news to as low as
$10.10 per share before closing at $12.94, a one day drop of 31%, on
volume of 39 million shares.
     
For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: TXU@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


VODAFONE GROUP: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Vodafone Group plc (NYSE:VOD) publicly
traded securities during the period between March 7, 2001 and May 28,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the class period, defendants issued numerous statements
highlighting the Company's strong financial performance and growth and
reassured investors that the Company maintained a "solid balance
sheet."

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was improperly delaying the write-down of
         billions of dollars of goodwill and impaired assets, thereby
         artificially inflating the Company's reported financial
         results.  In fact, despite defendants' claims that the Company
         had a "solid balance sheet," when the Company finally did
         write-off the value of its impaired assets and goodwill,
         Vodafone obliterated all profits for 2001 and 2002;

     (2) that the Company had grossly overpaid for the numerous
         acquisitions it had made in prior years; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' representation that the
         Company would continue to maintain its "record of delivering
         outstanding performance" was lacking in a reasonable basis.

On May 28, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced its financial results for the fiscal year 2002, the period
ending March 31, 2002, which included massive write downs for goodwill
of approximately 13.47 billion pounds sterling and exceptional items
and operating costs of 5.4 billion pounds and exceptional non-operating
costs of 865 million pounds.

At the end of the class period, the price of Vodafone ADRs closed at
$15.19 per ADR, as compared to a class period high of $33.26 per ADR.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Heather Gann by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


                              *********


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  * * *