CAR_Public/021029.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, October 29, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 214

                            Headlines
                           
CHRYSLER GROUP: Philadelphia Appeals Court Throws Out Airbag Suit  
E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions For Failure To Provide Documents
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in IL
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: SC Residents To Get Payments From Settlement
ICT GROUP: Trial in Employee Wage Lawsuit To Commence March 2003 in WV

ICT GROUP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
IDAHO: Insurance Firm Claims Non-Liability For Suit Over Grass Burning
INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court
KRAFT FOODS: EEOC Lawsuit Alleges Sexual Harassment of Male Employees
LEAD PAINT: Rhode Island Suit Proceeds To Jury Trial in State Court

MICHIGAN: Justice Dept Ends Probe, Gives Detroit PD Recommendations
MICROSOFT CORP.: Early Findings May Be Used In Antitrust Litigation
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Owners To Review New Diversity Plan For Team Staff
NEW YORK: Ex-Housing And Transit Police File Suit Over Lost Benefits
NIKE INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit in Oregon Court

OPTICAL CABLE: VA Court Approves Accord, Dismisses Suit With Prejudice
SOUTH CAROLINA: Mother Of Autistic Child Files Suit V. School District
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Individual Defendants From Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Legal Fees In Tobacco Lawsuit Face Court Scrutiny
WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs To Appeal Individual Defendants' Dismissal

WARNACO GROUP: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ATLAS AIR: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ATLAS AIR: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CIGNA CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA

ATLAS AIR: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
COMERICA INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
COMERICA INC.: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
CREDIT SUISSE: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
EL PASO: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

ESS TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
FLEMING COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX
GOLDMAN SACHS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
GOLDMAN SACHS: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL

SALOMON SMITH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SEARS ROEBUCK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

SEARS ROEBUCK: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
TXU CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Texas

                            *********

CHRYSLER GROUP: Philadelphia Appeals Court Throws Out Airbag Suit  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve years and six million dollars later, a Pennsylvania appeals
court has finally determined that Chrysler Group should not be punished
for providing an air bag that saved the lives of a Philadelphia mother
and her unborn child.

Today, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania threw out the February 1999
$58.5 million verdict in Crawley v. Chrysler, which was the largest air
bag litigation award at the time.  The court also ruled that the
lawsuit never should have been granted class action status in the first
place.

The case involves a woman who credits the air bag in her 1989 Chrysler
LeBaron with saving her and her unborn child from serious injury, and
possibly even death, but who experienced a minor hand burn that healed
within two weeks following a 1992 accident.

"Justice was finally served today," Ken Gluckman, Vice President and
Associate General Counsel for DaimlerChrysler Corporation, said in a
statement.  "But it's outrageous that we had to spend six million
dollars in defense costs and many years in court to defend a device
that has saved over 6,800 lives.  This suit is like holding the
manufacturer of a bullet-proof vest responsible because its product
saved someone's life, but left a few bruised ribs."

Crawley v. Chrysler is a class action brought on behalf of
approximately 75,000 Pennsylvania residents who own Chrysler vehicles
(model years 1988 - 1990) with driver air bags that have vents at the 9
and 3 o'clock positions and point away from the driver, similar to
other vehicles of that era.  These vents allow for the rapid deflation
of the air bag following deployment, a critical feature in any air bag
system.

"This lawsuit is a prime example of trial lawyer greed and class action
abuse," Mr. Gluckman said.  "Individuals should not be denied the right
to sue if they believe they have cause, but in this example even the
plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that 99 percent of the class members
would never be in an accident causing hand burns.  Most class members
have no idea they were ever part of this lawsuit."

In its ruling in favor of Chrysler Group, the Superior Court determined
that "the trial court abused its discretion" and concluded that "the
case should not have proceeded to trial as a class action."  The
Superior Court's order to "decertify the class" means the case is
finished as a class action.

"The reality of our legal system is that when products are developed or
improved trial attorneys line-up and file suit against corporations in
hopes of hitting a jackpot," Mr. Gluckman said.  "Like other
manufacturers, Chrysler Group is sued by plaintiffs alleging the
company did not install air bags quickly enough, while others file suit
because the company installed air bags before the government
requirements."

For more details, contact Ann Smith by Phone: 1-248-512-6502, or Elaine
P Lutz by Phone: 1-407-616-6589, both of Chrysler Group, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.media.daimlerchrysler.com


E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions For Failure To Provide Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Wood County, West Virginia, who are suing E.I. DuPont
Nemours & Co. over discharges of an unregulated chemical from its Wood
County plant, are seeking sanctions against the company for allegedly
failing to provide documents they had requested, according to a report
by the Charleston Gazette & Daily Mail.

Charleston attorney Larry A. Winter, representing the residents, filed
motions recently in Wood County Circuit Court, alleging DuPont had not
turned over copies of certain documents dealing with the toxicity of
ammonium perfluorooctanoate, also known as C8.

Mr. Winter's motions also have alleged that some documents, including
handwritten notes that may have contained information about C8, have
been destroyed.

The filings were the plaintiffs' second request for sanctions against
DuPont.  Their attorneys made the initial request at a hearing in mid-
July, claiming DuPont had not complied with earlier court orders to
produce documents, which the plaintiffs say they need to prepare their
case.

Wood Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill delayed action on the first
sanction request, but ordered DuPont to certify that it has produced
all the documents requested by the plaintiffs.  DuPont said in its
certification filings that it turned over more than 450,000 pages to
the plaintiffs by mid-April, including more than 115,000 pages of
documents, e-mail messages and attachments from 281 separate e-mail
accounts of 159 DuPont employees.  DuPont's attorneys said the
plaintiffs inspected another 60 boxes of documents.

Residents living in the Lubeck and Washington areas of Wood County
filed the class action in August 2001, alleging DuPont's Washington
Works plant knowingly discharged C8 into water supplies in amounts
exceeding guidelines, and that C8 exposure has made them ill.  The
lawsuit seeks funding from DuPont for medical testing.

C8 is a process aid used by DuPont in manufacturing fluoropolymer
resins.  DuPont officials have said that in more than 50 years of use,
no known health effects have been associated with C8.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Household International, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Company
securities between October 23, 1997 and August 14, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter issue, 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.

The Company believes that the legal actions described above are without
merit, and that its officers and directors have not committed any
wrongdoing.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: SC Residents To Get Payments From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Several thousand residents of South Carolina who got real estate loans
from Household International, Inc. will receive a total of $5 million
from a recently settled class action that accused the financial
institution of predatory lending practices, according to a report by
The State (Columbia,SC).

The Company has agreed to pay $484 million to homeowners across the
nation to settle allegations that it used unfair and deceptive lending
practices, and residents of South Carolina will receive their share.  
The residents really have something to celebrate in this nationwide
restitution, since South Carolina is one of those states where consumer
laws do little to protect borrowers from unscrupulous lenders.  
Meanwhile, neighboring North Carolina has one of the nation's toughest
laws against deceptive lending practices.

The multi-state investigation alleged that the Company, which
specializes in loans to people with poor credit histories, broke state
laws by misrepresenting loan terms that duped borrowers into home loans
with more expensive terms than had been promised.  The Illinois-based
Company is the parent company of the Household and Beneficial finance
companies.

According to the settlement, the Company must limit prepayment
penalties and upfront costs and improve disclosures to consumers.  The
lender must also eliminate "piggyback" second mortgages, which are
sometimes used to get cash to pay closing costs on the first mortgage.

While the Company's settlement bring the issue of predatory lending
into the spotlight once again, analysts in the field of predatory
lending say that there is no reason to look for a massive 'change of
heart' by those who use bad lending practices.  Citizens will continue
to be ripped off, say the analysts, until Congress and all the states'
lawmakers pass laws outlawing predatory lending.

While some South Carolinians will get restitution as a result of the
Company's settlement, the $5 million they will receive is but a small
fraction of the amount of money predatory lenders are squeezing out of
the state's residents.  The state's consumer lose about $107 million
dollars a year to predatory lenders according to a study released last
year by the Coalition for Responsible Lending in Durham, North
Carolina.


ICT GROUP: Trial in Employee Wage Lawsuit To Commence March 2003 in WV
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action pending against ICT Group, Inc. is set to
take place on March 2003 in the Circuit Court of Berkley County, West
Virginia.  

The suit was filed in 1998, alleging that the Company violated the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act for failure to pay promised
signing and incentive bonuses and wage increases and failure to
compensate employees for short breaks or "transition" periods and
improper deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone headsets.

The complaint also included a count for fraud, alleging that the
failure to pay for short break and transition time violated specific
representations made by the Company to its employees.  

In 2001, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to expand the class
to include all current and former hourly employees at all four of the
Company's West Virginia facilities and to add twelve current and former
executives of the Company as defendants.  The plaintiffs also asserted
a new allegation that, in addition to not paying employees for break
and "transition time", the Company failed to pay employees for
production hours worked.

The court has entered two separate orders granting partial summary
judgment against the Company and, in the case of one of the orders,
against three of the individual defendants, finding that employees were
not paid for all hours attributable to short breaks and idle time of
less than 30 minutes in duration.

In addition to compensatory claims for unpaid wages, the plaintiffs are
seeking liquidated damages under the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act and punitive damages for allegedly fraudulent conduct on
the part of the Company and the individual defendants.

The method of calculating liquidated damages under the West Virginia
Wage Payment and Collection Act is one of the matters in dispute
between the parties and there is a significant difference in the amount
of potential liquidated damages using the methods plaintiffs and the
Company contend apply.

On October 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions
requesting the court to find certain evidentiary presumptions and to
order the defendants to obtain a surety bond in the initial amount of
approximately $11.3 million, reflecting plaintiffs' contention of the
amount of compensatory and liquidated damages due.

The Company is vigorously defending the undecided issues in the suit,
including the manner in which any liquidated damages are to be
calculated and the allegations of fraud.  The Company believes it has
meritorious arguments that, if successful, would significantly reduce
the amount of any liquidated damages and that it has meritorious
defenses to the fraud allegations.

If, however, the plaintiffs' method of calculating liquidated damages
is followed by the court, or if there is a finding that the Company is
liable for punitive damages as a result of engaging in fraudulent
conduct, it could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
operating results for the period in which such actual loss becomes
known and on its financial condition.


ICT GROUP: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the securities class
action filed against it and certain of its directors in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of its shareholders.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks compensatory and other damages, including rescission of
stock purchases made by the plaintiff and other class members in
connection with the Company's initial public offering effective June
14, 1996.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted by the court with leave to plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on narrow accounting allegations.  The plaintiffs then filed
a first amended suit, purporting to bring negligence claims in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.

In February 1999, the court dismissed the case without prejudice,
directing that the case remain in status quo, that the statute of
limitations be tolled and that the parties continue with discovery and
advise the court if assistance by the court is needed.

Since that time the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking to have the case dismissed on the grounds that there is no
material issue of fact. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to
defendant's motion and also filed a motion to have the matter certified
as a class action.

In September 2000, the court entered orders dismissing the defendant's
motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice, with leave to re-file such motions
upon the completion of discovery.

The Company and the plaintiffs have reached an agreement to settle this
litigation.  A definitive Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement has
been signed by both the plaintiffs and the Company and submitted to the
court.  The court has set a hearing date for December 3, 2002 for the
purpose of determining whether to approve the proposed settlement.


IDAHO: Insurance Firm Claims Non-Liability For Suit Over Grass Burning
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Five farmers are not covered for liability in a lawsuit claiming
burning their bluegrass fields causes health problems, their insurance
company claims, according to an Associated Press Newswires report.

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho is asking 1st District Judge
Charles Hosack to exempt it from damages under insurance policies
issued to five of the 78 farmers named in the lawsuit, which questions
the bluegrass farmers' field burning practices, which they do after
harvest to shock the bluegrass into generating more seed.

Wade McLean is one of the growers with policies written by Farm Bureau.  
He said an insurance company lawyer has handled his defense since the
lawsuit was lodged on behalf of people claiming the smoke causes heart
and respiratory problems.  The company successfully defended farmers in
a suit that was dismissed in July in US District Court.

Seattle attorney Steve Berman filed the current class action in state
court less than a week later.  A temporary ban on burning was
overturned by Idaho Supreme Court, but the case is proceeding with a
hearing set for next month.

Last month, Western Insurance Co. of Des Moines filed a motion asking
Judge Hosack to declare North Idaho Farmers Association, another
defendant in the civil lawsuit, not covered for smoke-related claims
due to the policy's "pollution exclusion."


INTERSTATE NATIONAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISTN) and its
directors faces a class action filed in Delaware state court.

The complaint generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with a going private transaction approved by the Board of Directors in
September 2002.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed transaction and seeks payment of plaintiff's attorney's and
expert's fees.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend the suit.  The Company has filed preliminary proxy
materials with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the
going private transaction and expects to mail definitive proxy
materials to its stockholders promptly after the SEC completes its
review.

For more details, contact Chester J. Luby/Cindy H. Luby of Interstate
National Dealer Services, Inc. by Phone: 516-228-8600


KRAFT FOODS: EEOC Lawsuit Alleges Sexual Harassment of Male Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued
Kraft Foods Inc. and a subsidiary recently, alleging a male supervisor
at a distribution center sexually harassed and retaliated against other
male workers, the Chicago Tribune.

The EEOC filed the class action against the Northfield-based food
company in US District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.  The lawsuit names
Kraft Foods North America Inc. and Nabisco Inc., and seeks monetary
damages for the workers.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of male employees who said their civil
rights were violated when they were subjected to same-sex harassment
and retaliation by their male supervisor at a sales and distribution
facility in Birmingham.

"The EEOC has long held that sexual harassment of men by men at work
violates federal civil rights laws, a position that was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in 1998," said Charles E. Guerrier, an attorney for the
EEOC, in Birmingham.  "No person should be required to run a gauntlet
of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work
and make a living."


LEAD PAINT: Rhode Island Suit Proceeds To Jury Trial in State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island's landmark suit against eight lead paint companies has now
proceeded to jury trial in the Superior Court of Rhode Island, the
Associated Press reports.  Jurors returned to court Friday for their
second day of deliberations.  They were wrestling with the sole
question on their verdict sheet - "Does the presence of lead pigment in
paint and in coats in homes, schools, hospitals and other public and
private buildings throughout the state of Rhode Island constitute a
public nuisance?"

The state is the first to attempt to hold the lead paint industry state
to try to hold the industry accountable for poisoning children,
claiming that paint poisoned 35,000 in the state since 1993.  The suit
names as defendants:

     (1) American Cyanamid Co.,

     (2) Atlantic Richfield,

     (3) ConAgra Grocery Products Co.,

     (4) Cytec Industries Inc.,

     (5) DuPont Co.,

     (6) Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.,

     (7) NL Industries Inc. and

     (8) Sherwin-Williams Co.

The paint companies contend the problem is isolated to deteriorating
paint found in homes managed by delinquent landlords or irresponsible
homeowners, the Associated Press reports.  If the state prevails, a new
jury would decide if paint companies can be held liable.  A 0subsequent
phase could involve damages.

Before giving them the case Thursday, Superior Court Judge Michael
Silverstein told the six-person jury they were not to consider whether
the paint industry is liable for poisoning children, nor to assess
damages. Those issues will be determined in later trials if the state
prevails in this lawsuit, the judge said.

Judge Silverstein defined a public nuisance as something that
interferes with the public's well being to an unreasonable degree, AP
reports.  "The essential claim is that someone has suffered harm or
injuries they ought not have to bear," Judge Silverstein said.

Legal analysts say a verdict for the state in this phase would invite
other states and communities to file lawsuits of their own, AP states.  
More than 40 lawsuits have been filed since 1989 by individuals and
communities against lead paint companies. All have failed. Rhode Island
is the first state to sue the industry under public nuisance law.


MICHIGAN: Justice Dept Ends Probe, Gives Detroit PD Recommendations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit's Police Department received several recommendations from the
United States Department of Justice on the use of force, training and
disciplining officers and handling witnesses, the Associated Press
reports, after it concluded its civil rights probe on allegations of
excessive use of force, illegal dragnet arrests and mistreatment of
prisoners.

In three confidential letters sent to Police Chief Jerry Oliver and
Mayor Kwame Kirkpatrick, the federal agency outlined the 4,300 strong
department's problems and gave more than 50 recommendations on the
police force's improvement.

The department is in the process of applying the federal
recommendations, Chief Jerry A. Oliver told the Detroit News.  "We have
made a lot of progress. Are we there yet? Absolutely not."


Hundreds of officers were interviewed, and federal investigators
reviewed more than 1 million pages of records.  The Justice Department
would not say if it planned to seek a consent decree, which is an
agreement to make changes enforceable by a federal judge, the
Associated Press reports.

"It seems we're headed toward a consent decree unless we can make a lot
of changes," Chief Oliver said.  "The Justice Department realizes that
they are at 30,000 feet in a sense, and we're at ground zero. We're the
ones that have to make these changes. There's been a ton of work done
to respond to all of their concerns."


MICROSOFT CORP.: Early Findings May Be Used In Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust plaintiffs suing Microsoft Corp. may be able to rely on facts
already established in the United States government's earlier case
against the company, a federal judge indicated, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

US District Judge H. Frederick Motz's comments came during a hearing
yesterday on a motion by the private plaintiffs that would allow their
lawsuits to be based on the antitrust violations already found in the
government's 1998 antitrust case against the Company.

A ruling favoring this motion by the private plaintiffs would be a
major setback for Microsoft and probably would apply to suits brought
by the Netscape division of AOL Time Warner Inc., Sun Microsystems
Inc., Be Inc. and Burst.com Inc. and to several other private class
actions.

Judge Motz indicated that he would comb through the earlier findings
and put them in context for any jury.  However, he, in effect, ruled
out starting the private antitrust cases from scratch.  Judge Motz
asked, "Do I have to sit here and listen to all the facts again?"  US
District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Judge Motz said, "found that
Microsoft did some pretty bad things."

Judge Motz did not say how soon he would rule on the motion, which
would free the plaintiffs from having to prove that Microsoft has
monopoly power and abused it.  An April trial has been set for the
class actions and no dates have been scheduled for the suits brought by
the companies.

Microsoft attorney David Tulchin argued that there is "huge risk in
importing the findings" from the government's case "into five cases
with millions or billions of dollars at stake" in potential damages.  
The factual findings in the government's antitrust case were reached by
Judge Jackson in 1999.  

While his findings were unanimously affirmed by the US Court of
Appeals, the court rejected some of his legal conclusions, threw out a
proposed breakup and removed him from the case for his negative
comments about Microsoft in news-media interviews.

Mr. Tulchin argued that facts used to boster conclusions that were
reversed should be excluded.  He further argued that Judge Jackson's
entire findings should be rejected, since the appeals court removed him
for his negative comments about Microsoft to the media.  Judge Motz
rejected this argument, saying that the appeals court reviewed that
matter "with painstaking care" and found there was no actual prejudice
against Microsoft, he said.

Microsoft has argued that market forces and errors have hurt these
competitors, not any anticompetitive acts by defendant Microsoft.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Owners To Review New Diversity Plan For Team Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversity in hiring will be on the agenda next week when National
Football League (NFL) owners convene for their last meeting of the
season, reports Newsday, with contributions from Associated Press.  
Although this suddenly sizzling topic has been discussed in league
meetings for the past five years, this is the first time football's
decision makers are being challenged by outsiders to hire more
minorities for coaching and front-office
positions.

A group of civil rights lawyers headed by Johnnie Cochran and
Washington-based attorney Cyrus Mehri created a stir recently when the
group published "Black Coaches in the National Football League:
Superior Performance, Inferior Opportunities," a report criticizing the
NFL's record of hiring black coaches.  The group wants NFL owners to
adopt what it calls a "Fair Competition Solution" to spur job
opportunities for minorities and women on their teams.

When a problem of discrimination is recognized and people in charge sit
down to talk about it and plan institutional change, a mix of things
can happen.  Some lawsuits charging discrimination may be avoided
because those discriminated against receive encouragement that change
is on the way.  However, there can be a time lag in the course of
change, during which expectations are not quickly met, and
disappointment - even discouragement - can set in.  Because the issue
of discrimination will have been raised to the foreground and
sensitized those awaiting change, lawsuits may actually proliferate.

Mr. Mehri downplayed the possibility of a class action against the NFL.  
He called the recent meeting that he and consultant Richard Lapchick of
the University of Central Florida had with NFL officials, for 2 1/2
hours, at the League's headquarters in Manhattan, encouraging and a
"first step."  

However, Mr. Mehri also said that his group strongly urges that the NFL
implement a plan by the next "hiring cycle," which for coaches is in
January and February after the regular season ends.  Mr. Mehri has won
settlements reportedly worth $368 million against Coca-Cola and Texaco
in race discrimination suits.

"We are pleased to know this issue will be on the owners' agenda next
week," said Mr. Mehri.  "We are also pleased to learn the commissioner
is soliciting input from people he respects from different parts of the
NFL community in the weeks after the (owners') meetings, and we expect
at some point to hopefully come back after that process is completed."

While NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the League had "nothing to add to
Mr. Mehri's comments," Players Association executive director Gene
Upshaw defended the NFL's progress on hiring minorities.  "I don't
think you need a lawsuit to make change," he said.

Mr. Mehri's group will not address the owners next Wednesday and
Thursday when they meet at the Essex House in Manhattan.  However, all
32 of them will have been provided the report published by the group as
well as its proposed solutions, "The Fair Competition Solution."

The Fair Competition Solution proposes NFL teams that "opt out" of
seriously considering a black coaching candidate be required to
surrender a draft pick, first round for a coach, third round for
assistant coach and coordinators.  Teams providing a diverse final
candidate list (all must get face-to-face interviews) give up nothing.
The plan also suggests that the commissioner, at his discretion, reward
teams that hire more minorities by giving them supplemental draft
picks.


NEW YORK: Ex-Housing And Transit Police File Suit Over Lost Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
More than seven years after the housing and transit police were merged
into the New York Police Department (NYPD), legal battles are still
being fought over lost benefits, the New York Daily News reports.  
Lawyers representing three former Housing Authority officers are
scheduled to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court asking that the terminal
leave lost in the merger be restored.

"When we were with the Housing Authority, officers had a cash option
for their terminal leave time upon retirement," said the Patrolman's
Benevolent Association's Richard Diana, a former Housing Authority
Police Department officer.  "After the merger, you could only take the
time."

Upon retirement, police officers with 20 years on the job can accrue as
many as 96 days of terminal leave.  "With the cash option, you can stay
on the books for an additional three months and receive that pay,"
Officer Diana said.  Since the merger, officers who retire may leave
early without loss of pay.

The housing police sued after members of the Transit Police, led by
Sergeants Benevolent Association Vice President Bob Ganley, won a four-
year battle over the payment of city income tax by members living
outside the city.

The Ganley suit argued that paying the tax is a loss of a benefit.  
Because the city promised there would be no loss of benefits, the judge
ordered the city to return the money with interest.

"We filed our suit using the same arguments as Mr. Ganley," said
attorney and former housing officer Harold Newman.  "But our members
lost a benefit."

While, currently, there are only three former Housing Authority Police
Department officers in the current suit, said Mr. Newman, if they can
get a favorable action in the courts, it can become a class action.


NIKE INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit in Oregon Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) reached an agreement to settle the securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon.  The agreement is reflected in a memorandum of
understanding, and must be incorporated into more complete settlement
documentation and approved by the court.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay $8.9 million in cash, which
will be funded by the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance.  In the agreement, the Company and the officers and
directors named in the lawsuits do not admit, and continue to deny, any
and all allegations of wrongdoing, and that they will receive a full
release of all claims asserted in the litigation.

For more details, contact Joan Komlos by Phone: 1-503-671-2013, or 1-
503-704-2731, or contact Pamela Catlett by Phone: 1-503-671-4589, both
of Nike Inc., or visit the firm's Website: http://www.nikebiz.com


OPTICAL CABLE: VA Court Approves Accord, Dismisses Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia
dismissed with prejudice the securities class action pending against
Optical Cable Corporation (Nasdaq: OCCF), its former Chairman, CEO &
President Robert Kopstein, and certain other officers and directors of
the Company, and granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
the Company.

The settlement with members of the shareholder class, initially
announced on June 26, 2002, provides for the Company to pay $700,000 in
cash, a portion of which was funded by insurance, and issue warrants to
purchase 250,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $4.88
per common share (reflecting adjustments for the reverse split effected
July 31, 2002).

"Optical Cable is pleased with the settlement, which we believe was in
the best interests of both the Company and its shareholders," stated
Neil Wilkin, President and Chief Financial Officer.  "The fact that the
settlement was finalized quickly permits Optical Cable's management to
return its focus to the fundamentals of the business.  We also believe
the plaintiffs' desire to accept warrants to purchase additional shares
in the Company indicates an optimism for Optical Cable's future."

On September 23, 2002, US District Judge James C. Turk entered an order
and final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the suit
with prejudice.  The order and final judgment was subject to appeal for
30 days after being entered.  Since no appeal was filed with the court
within 30 days, the settlement has become final and binding.

No member of the approved class opted out of participation in the
settlement.  Therefore, the Order and Final Judgment should preclude
any other lawsuits by shareholders with respect to the allegations set
forth in the settled consolidated class action securities lawsuit. The
allegations in the class action lawsuit substantially arose from the
actions of Mr. Kopstein, the Company's former Chairman, CEO and
President.

The Company expensed approximately $1.1 million during the nine months
ended July 31, 2002 related to the settlement of the class action
lawsuit, net of insurance proceeds.  The expense included $700,000 for
the cash portion of the settlement, approximately $465,000 for the fair
market value of the warrants, and approximately $471,000 for
professional and legal fees, partially offset by insurance proceeds.  


The warrants issued in the settlement will be exercisable for five
years, and Optical Cable anticipates filing a registration statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission before the end of 2002
to register the common shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants.

Counsel for the plaintiff class will receive 30% of the settlement
fund, consisting of cash and warrants, plus approximately $38,500 in
reimbursement for expenses that will also be funded by the settlement
fund.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Mother Of Autistic Child Files Suit V. School District
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The mother of an autistic child has brought a class action against the
Horry County School District in South Carolina, claiming her son's
civil rights were violated when his special class for autistic children
was canceled, Associated Press Newswires reports.

"Children with autism have been relegated to the position of second-
class citizens within the school district," said Eva Ballentine of
Myrtle Beach, who filed the class action in the United States District
Court on behalf of her son, Shawn D. Ballentine, 14.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Ballentine says the district told her and other
parents this month that it does not have enough money or staff to
provide the services required by the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.  Schools are required, under the Act, to
design an individualized education program for each child with special
needs.

"Schools are legally obligated to fulfill whatever is in the
individualized education program," said Craig Stoxen, president and
chief executive officer of the South Carolina Autism Society.  "They
can't say `We can't afford to do any of that.'"

Eva Ballentine's lawsuit says the district does not provide enough
staff or training for services required for the education program, nor
does it provide the necessary services, materials, transportation and
supervision for children with autism.  It further asserts the state
does not it offer the right environment for therapy sessions and
learning.  Ms. Ballentine says she wants her lawsuit to help all
children with autism.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Individual Defendants From Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed several of Sycamore Networks, Inc.'s officers and directors
as defendants in the securities class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 21,1999 and
December 6,2000.

Several suits were commenced in July 2001 against the Company, several
of its officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering on October 21, 1999.  Some of the complaints
also include the underwriters for the Company's follow-on offering on
March 14, 2000.  The complaints were later consolidated into a single
action and an amended complaint was filed in April 2002.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
primarily based on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters,
the Company and the other named defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the SEC in October 1999 and March 2000 because
of the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with
         the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors
         in the Company's public offerings; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into
         agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to
         allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the
         investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of
the Company's officers and directors and the underwriters under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  It also alleges claims
against the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The
action against the Company is being coordinated with over three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.

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.  The fully briefed issues are now pending before the court and
oral arguments are currently scheduled for October 29, 2002.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants from
the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed
by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.  The
Company is not currently able to estimate the possibility of loss or
range of loss, if any, relating to these claims.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Legal Fees In Tobacco Lawsuit Face Court Scrutiny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos, in Manhattan,
halted further payment of the $625 million in legal fees awarded to a
politically connected Albany, New York, law firm and five other firms
that helped New York state sue the tobacco industry in 1998, the Times
Union (Albany, NY) reports.  Judge Ramos said the firms violated the
law by not asking the court to approve the fees they were awarded as
part of the largest legal settlement in American history.

Despite objections from all the parties involved, Judge Ramos said he
plans to hold a hearing to determine whether the fees - which he said
amount to more than $13,000 an hour - were "excessive and unethical."  
No date for the hearing has been set.

"The sky is never the limit," Judge Ramos wrote in his recently issued
decision.  "A fee of this magnitude probes the limits of propriety and
requires the courts to rule whether the practice of law . will permit
counsel to enjoy such a windfall."

The Albany firm, Thuillez, Ford, Gold & Johnson, was one of six firms
hired by New York state in September 1997, to sue the tobacco industry,
and which helped secure the state's $25 billion settlement in November
1998.

The Albany firm was awarded $84.3 million in fees.  Its senior partner,
Dale Thuillez, represented Governor George Pataki's first inaugural
committee in 1994.  A former partner in the firm, H. Neal Connolly,
left in 1997, to become executive director of the state's Insurance
Fund.

Judge Ramos said he has no intention of overturning the entire
settlement between New York State and the tobacco industry, but he will
consider whether to scale back the fees awarded to the attorneys.  The
legal fees were determined in April 2001, by an independent arbitration
panel set up by part of the 1998 master settlement agreement, in which
46 states settled claims with U.S. tobacco companies for public health
costs related to cigarette smoking.

Some legal experts said most of the costly legal battles leading up to
the settlement had been fought and won by the time the New York firms
were hired.

The agreement calls for the fees to be paid out incrementally during
the next 25 years.  It is unclear precisely how much the firms have
received.  However, it is likely the six firms have received only a
fraction of the $625 million, said Eric Berman, a New York spokesman
for the Tobacco Fee Arbitration Panel.

Judge Ramos ordered that all further payments be directed to the state
attorney general's office and placed in an escrow account pending the
outcome of his inquiry.

Since the fees were paid directly from the tobacco companies to the
attorneys who represented the states, Judge Ramos said the agreement
"might satisfy the elements necessary to establish collusion in the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit."

Judge Ramos said he raised the issue of collusion because he was
concerned that the New York attorneys might have worked out a deal with
tobacco companies that serves the lawyers and the tobacco companies,
but not necessarily the interests of the plaintiff, in this case, the
people of New York.

Cardozo School of Law professor Lester Brickman, who teaches the
country's only seminar on the ethics of legal fees, said the law
supports Judge Ramos's concerns, but most courts around the country
have paid little attention to the massive fees paid out in the tobacco
litigation.

"The rules of legal ethics are proportionally less applicable the
greater the amount of the fee," Professor Brickman said.  "Money talks
and big money talks loudest."

According to state and federal campaign finance disclosure forms, the
six New York firms hired for the tobacco litigation contributed more
than $250,000 to New York politicians and their campaign organizations
in the years preceding their selection.  Since the settlement, the
firms have given a total of more than $200,000 to the campaign war
chests of both parties.

"I think the pay to play aspects of this are technically not the issue
before the court, but obviously the court is informed, as is the
public, of the underlying facts of life -- that these attorneys got
this dream assignment because they had made the right contributions to
the right candidates for public office," Professor Brickman said.  "But
technically the issue before the public court is whether the rules
requiring 'reasonable and not excessive fees' were violated by fees
that are calculated to be $13,000 an hour."


WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs To Appeal Individual Defendants' Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Warnaco
Group, Inc. intend to appeal the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of certain of the Company's
officers and directors from the suit.

Seven shareholder suits were commenced in August 2000 against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders of the Company who purchased Company
stock between September 17, 1997 and July 19, 2000.  The suits alleged,
inter alia, that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended by artificially inflating the price of the Company's
stock and failing to disclose certain information during the first
class period.

The court later consolidated the suits, appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved a lead counsel for the putative class.  A second amended
consolidated complaint was filed in May 2001.  In October 2001, the
defendants other than the Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon,
among other things, the statute of limitations, failure to state a
claim and failure to plead fraud with the requisite particularity.

On April 25, 2002, the court granted the individual defendant's motion
to dismiss this action based on the statute of limitations.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and later filed a
notice of appeal with respect to such dismissal.

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.  In July
2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, their
claims against the Company.  On October 2, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with respect to the court's entry of final judgment in
favor of the individual defendants.


WARNACO GROUP: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Warnaco Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the second amended securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors.

Several complaints were initially commenced on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders of the Company who purchased Company stock
between September 29, 2000 and April 18, 2001, alleging that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act by artificially inflating the
price of the Company's stock and failing to disclose negative
information during the class period.

The court later consolidated the suits, appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved a lead counsel for the putative class.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed against certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, which expanded the class period to encompass
August 16, 2000 to June 8, 2001.  The amended complaint also dropped
the Company as a defendant, but added as defendants certain outside
directors.

On April 18, 2002, the court dismissed the amended complaint, but
granted plaintiffs leave to replead.  On June 7, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, which again expanded the class period
to encompass August 15, 2000 to June 8, 2001.  On June 24, 2002, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, which
motions are pending.  On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint adding the Company's current independent auditors as
a defendant.

The Company labels the suit "without merit."
                      
                      New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired AES Corporation
(NYSE:AES) securities between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, against the Company and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

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

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


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA 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 certain of its officers
and directors.

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

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


ATLAS AIR: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Atlas Air
Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CGO) between April 18, 2000 and October
15, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

During the class period, defendants issued many statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's
net income and financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted
and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during
the class period, the Company had significantly overstated its
inventory, maintenance expense, and allowance for bad debt.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient
internal controls resulting in an inability to determine its true
financial condition, which lead to the value of the Company's net
income and financial results being materially overstated at all
pertinent times.

On October 16, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
announced that it would initiate a re-audit of its financial results
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, requiring the Company to restate its
previously-issued financial reports.  

The Company portrayed the overstatement as being in "the areas of
inventory obsolescence, maintenance expense, and allowance for bad
debt."  The Company further declared that "preliminary indications are
that the cumulative impact through 2001 will reduce after-tax income by
roughly $60 million to $65 million."

Following this report, shares of Atlas Air declined $.79 per share, to
close at $1.80 per share, on volume of more than 1.7 million shares
traded, or nearly ten times the average daily volume.

For more details, contact Lawrence Kolker, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael
Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to Atlas Air.


ATLAS AIR: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of those individuals who purchased or acquired the securities of
against Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:CGO) between April 18,
2000 and October 15, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

During the class period, defendants issued many statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's
net income and financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted
and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during
the class period, the Company had significantly overstated its
inventory, maintenance expense, and allowance for bad debt.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient
internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true
financial condition of Atlas, which lead to the value of the Company's
net income and financial results being materially overstated at all
pertinent times.

On October 16, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
announced that it would initiate a re-audit of its financial results
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, requiring the Company to restate its
previously-issued financial reports.  The Company portrayed the
overstatement as being in "the areas of inventory obsolescence,
maintenance expense, and allowance for bad debt."

The Company further declared that "preliminary indications are that the
cumulative impact through 2001 will reduce after-tax income by roughly
$60 million to $65 million." Following this report, shares of Atlas
declined $.79 per share, to close at $1.80 per share, on volume of more
than 1.7 million shares traded, or nearly ten times the average daily
volume.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whesq.com.


CIGNA CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Cigna Corporation (NYSE:CI)
between May 2, 2001 and October 24, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) H. Edward Hanway, Chief Executive Officer, President and
         Chairman of the Board,

     (2) James G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
         President, and

     (3) James A. Sears, Chief Accounting Officer

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the class period.

As alleged in the suit, throughout the class period, defendants issued
press releases announcing the Company's quarterly and annual results of
operations and filed reports with the SEC, which reported its financial
performance and seemingly impressive earnings growth and represented
that operating income in 2002 was expected to be $1.1 billion.

The Company's representations issued during the class period were
materially false and misleading when made because they failed to
disclose that CIGNA had failed to adequately reserve (by at least
hundreds of millions of dollars) for its obligations under the
Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefits (GMDB) reinsurance that it had
provided, thereby artificially inflating its earnings and net worth and
its projected income figure was lacking in any reasonable basis when
made.

On September 3, 2002, after the market closed CIGNA issued a press
release announcing that it has instituted a program "to manage run-off
reinsurance exposure" for its GMDB obligations, requiring it to take a
$720 million after-tax ($1.1 billion pre-tax) charge.

In reaction to the announcement, the price of CIGNA common stock
dropped by 10% during the day, closing at $82.65 on September 3, 2002,
down from an August 30, 2002 (the previous trading day) close of $85.12
per share.

On September 4, 2002, Standard & Poors Rating Services issued a press
release announcing that it had place CIGNA's A+ counterparty credit
rating and CIGNA's financial strength ratings on CreditWatch with
negative implication.  In reaction to this announcement, the price of
CIGNA common stock dropped 6%, closing at $80 per share on September 4,
2002, down from $85.12 on August 30, 2002.

On October 18, 2002, CIGNA issued a press release announcing that it
was taking an additional $315 million charge relating to a decision
handed down in the Unicover arbitration.  Together with the charge for
the GMDB obligations, CIGNA's write downs relating to its discontinued
reinsurance business topped one billion dollars for the third quarter.

Finally, on October 24, 2002, the Company announced that, contrary to
its recent affirmations, it would not meet its third quarter and year
2002 guidance - even excluding the recent $720 million and $315 million
charges. In reaction to this announcement, the price of CIGNA common
stock plummeted by 42%, falling from a $63.60 per share close on
October 24, 2002 to trade as low as $36.81 per share on October 25, on
extreme heavy trading.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 866-
561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


ATLAS AIR: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Atlas Air Worldwide Holding, Inc. (NYSE: CGO)
securities between April 18, 2000 and October 15, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning the Company's financial results
and business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
that, throughout the class period, it materially overstated its
inventory, maintenance expense, and allowance for bad debts.  As a
result, the Company's securities were artificially inflated throughout
the class period.

On October 16, 2002, however, defendants disclosed that the Company
would have to restate its previously issued financial reports for its
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  Following this revelation, the Company's
share price fell to $.79 per share, to close at $1.80 per share,
significantly below the class period high of $45.69.

For more details, contact Eric Crusius or Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320
East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 877-247-4292 or
212-983-9330 by E-mail: Ecrusius@faruqilaw.com or
Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.faruqilaw.com


COMERICA INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Comerica Incorporated
(NYSE:CMA) securities between July 17, 2002 and October 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, against the Company and:

     (1) Ralph W. Babb, Jr.,

     (2) Elizabeth S. Acton and

     (3) Marvin J. Elenbaas

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

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


COMERICA INC.: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Comerica Incorporated
(NYSE:CMA) securities between July 17, 2002 and October 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, against the Company and certain key 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 Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: goise@comcast.net


CREDIT SUISSE: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A) from December 13, 1999 through September
9, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston and one of its
technology analysts violated the federal securities laws by knowingly
issuing false and misleading analyst reports regarding Agilent during
the class period.

According to news reports, an investigation conducted by the Secretary
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, uncovered "very troubling"
internal Credit Suisse materials.  Specifically, one internal Credit
Suisse document discussed the "Agilent two-step," in which analysts
issued very favorable reports regarding Agilent to the public, while
simultaneously informing favored customers that positive
recommendations were unwarranted.

The suit alleges that defendants' failed to disclose a significant
conflict of interest between their investment banking and research
departments.  Unbeknownst to the investing public, Credit Suisse's buy
recommendations were influenced by its efforts to attract lucrative
investment banking business from Agilent and other companies.  The
Secretary of the Commonwealth has suggested that criminal charges be
filed against Credit Suisse and on October 21, the Secretary filed
civil fraud charges against Credit Suisse.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net

        
EL PASO: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of 9% Equity Security Units of El
Paso Corporation (NYSE: EP.A) in the public offering of the 9% Units on
or about June 21, 2002, or traceable thereto, against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the Underwriters of the
Offering, Credit Suisse First Boston and J.P. Morgan Securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing Equity Security Units
pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration Statement that were
materially false and misleading in its omission of material facts
concerning:

     (1) the Company's true financial condition,

     (2) nature of its relationship with Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (3) conflict of interest of a senior executive, and

     (4) participation in the California energy crisis that had the
         effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
         Company's securities.

As a result of the Offering, defendants were able to sell the 9% Units
at a price of $50 per Unit to unsuspecting public investors. Since the
Offering, the price of the 9% Units declined to as low as $20.55 per
unit (on September 24, 2002), leaving investors, who were led by the
prospectus to believe the Company was prepared to take advantage of its
exceptional business practices, with substantial losses on their
investments.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the offering was achieved
by means of a registration statement and prospectus which negligently
failed to advise investors that El Paso had booked hundreds of millions
of dollars in profits years before they would be actually realized
while also keeping off of its books billions of dollars of debt.
Moreover, the Company manipulated the California energy market in the
winter of 2000/2001 and, as a consequence of this malfeasance,
artificially inflated the Company's reported results.

For more details, contact Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquith,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to El Paso.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
ESS Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESST) from January 23, 2002 through
September 12, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and business prospects throughout the class
period.  

It is alleged that specifically, defendants failed to disclose the
declining demand, downward price pressure and increasing
commodification of ESS's core product, DVD processor chips, as new
competitors gained market share.

The effect of these problems and the true nature of the Company's
business prospects were revealed on the last day of the class period.
On this news, the stock dropped over 30% from $11.23 per share on
September 12, to $7.68 per share on September 13.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net


FLEMING COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Fleming Companies Inc. (NYSE: FLM) securities between February 27, 2002
and July 30, 2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The price of Fleming common stock dramatically declined on this
announcement, falling from $15.21 on July 30, 2002 to $13.75 on July
31, 2002, on huge trading volume of 3.9 million shares, and continued
to decline over the next two heavy trading days to a 52-week low of
$10.76 on August 2, 2002.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: 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 Allied Riser Communications Corp.
(formerly (Nasdaq: ARCC)) common stock during the period between
November 23, 1999 and July 11, 2001, inclusive.  Allied Riser
Communications Corp. was acquired by Cogent Communications Group, Inc.
(Amex: COI) on or about February 5, 2002.

The complaint charges Goldman Sachs & Co. and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing analyst reports regarding Allied Riser that
recommended the purchase of Allied Riser common stock and which set
price targets for Allied Riser common stock, without any reasonable
factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing its Allied Riser
analyst reports defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest which it had, in light of defendants' Allied
Riser reports, to obtain investment banking business for Goldman.

Furthermore, in issuing Allied Riser reports, in which it recommended
the purchase of Allied Riser common stock, defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information they possessed about
Allied Riser.

Throughout the class period, Defendants maintained a "BUY"
recommendation on Allied Riser in order to obtain and support lucrative
financial deals for Allied Riser.

The class period begins on November 23, 1999 and ends on July 11, 2001.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports, Allied
Riser common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the
class period.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null 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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC 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 otherwise acquired the securities of
Allied Riser Communications (formerly Nasdaq: ARCC) from November 23,
1999 through July 11, 2001, inclusive.   Also included are all those
who acquired Allied's shares through its acquisitions of Direct
Corporate Links, Inc. and Winterlink, Inc. Allied was acquired by
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. (Amex: COI) on or about February 5,
2002.

The suit alleges that Goldman Sachs violated the federal securities
laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading analyst reports
regarding Allied during the class period.  The suit alleges that
defendants' failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest
between their investment banking and research departments.

Specifically, Goldman Sachs analysts issued very favorable analyst
reports regarding Allied to the public when they allegedly knew that
positive recommendations were unwarranted. Unbeknownst to the investing
public, Goldman Sachs' buy recommendations and price targets for Allied
were influenced by its efforts to attract lucrative investment banking
business from Allied and other internet companies.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net

     
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action against HealthSouth
Corp. (NYSE:HRC) has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Company securities during the period from July 24, 2001
and August 26, 2002, inclusive.

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 Company securities.

The complaint alleges, that during the class period, the defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports with the SEC
that described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
had issued directives reclassifying certain categories of
reimbursements, which would have a materially negative impact on the
Company's business.

The suit further alleges that defendants failed to disclose these
adverse facts in order to allow certain defendants to sell million of
dollars of shares of the Company's stock at artificially inflated price
and so that the company could commence a $998 million note offer.

On August 27, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
the Company's 2002 earnings would lower than previously projected. As a
result of this news Company stock dropped more than 43% close at $6.71

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 800-889-3701 by E-
mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


SALOMON SMITH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith Barney Inc. and Jack Grubman, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of
XO Communications, Inc. (OTCBB:XOXOQ) formerly (Nasdaq:XOXOQ) between
October 11, 1997 and November 1, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding XO that
recommended the purchase of XO common stock and which set price targets
for XO common stock, without any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges, among other things, that when issuing
its XO analyst reports, Defendants failed to disclose significant,
material conflicts of interest which it had concerning the XO reports,
because of Salomon's desire to obtain investment banking business from
XO.  Throughout the class period, defendants maintained a "BUY"
recommendation on XO in order to obtain and support lucrative financial
deals for Salomon.

The class period begins on October 11, 1997, at which time Salomon
rated XO common stocks as a "BUY" after initiated coverage of XO on
September 26, 1997.  The class period ends on November 1, 2001, the
date Defendants belatedly downgraded XO form a "BUY" to a "NEUTRAL."  
As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst reports, XO
common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the class
period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Donald R. Hall by Mail: 805
Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800-290-1952 or
212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.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 Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (OTC
Pink Sheets: MFNXQ) publicly traded securities during the period
between November 25, 1997 and July 25, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Salomon Smith Barney Inc. and Jack Grubman and
certain of its officers and directors with issuing analyst reports
regarding Metromedia that recommended the purchase of Metromedia common
stock and which set price targets for Metromedia common stock, without
any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges that, when issuing its Metromedia analyst
reports, defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts
of interest it had, in light of defendants' Metromedia reports, to
obtain investment banking business for Salomon.

Furthermore, in issuing Metromedia reports, in which it recommended the
purchase of Metromedia common stock, defendants failed to disclose
material, non-public, adverse information they possessed about
Metromedia.  Throughout the class period, defendants maintained a "BUY"
recommendation on Metromedia in order to obtain and support lucrative
financial deals for Salomon.

The class period begins on November 25, 1997 and ends on July 25, 2001,
the date defendants belatedly downgraded Metromedia from a "Buy" to a
"Neutral."  As a result of defendants' false and misleading analyst
reports, Metromedia common stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null 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


SEARS ROEBUCK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Sears, Roebuck &
Co. (NYSE: S) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 17, 2002 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false statements concerning its business and
financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants, throughout the class period, represented that Sears was
growing its earnings strongly, driven by its Credit and Financial
Products segment and that it would achieve earnings growth of 22% in
2002 over 2001.

In addition, in each of its press releases and SEC reports filed during
the class period, the Company reported its provisions for uncollectible
accounts and in its 2001 annual report represented that such reserves
were "adequate."  

These, and other statements detailed in the complaint, were allegedly
false and misleading because, according to the complaint, they did not
disclose that the Company's risk for uncollectible accounts had
increased materially throughout the class period and, in addition, that
the Company was under-reserving for its uncollectible accounts which
inflated its earnings and balance sheet.

On October 17, 2002, the Company reported in a press release that it
will grow its 2002 earnings by 15%, rather than the 22% it reaffirmed
as recently as ten days previously, because of a "$222 million increase
in the domestic provision for non-collectible accounts."  In addition,
according to the press release, earnings for the third quarter were 26%
less than the previous year.

In reaction to the press release, the price of Sears common stock
plummeted, falling 32%, from an October 16 close of $33.95 per share to
close at $23.15 per share on October 17, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null 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


SEARS ROEBUCK: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Sears, Roebuck &
Co. (NYSE: S) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 17, 2002 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false statements concerning its business and
financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants, throughout the class period, represented that Sears was
growing its earnings strongly, driven by its Credit and Financial
Products segment and that it would achieve earnings growth of 22% in
2002 over 2001.

In addition, in each of its press releases and SEC reports filed during
the Class Period, Sears reported its provisions for uncollectible
accounts and in its 2001 annual report represented that such reserves
were "adequate."

These, and other statements detailed in the complaint, were allegedly
false and misleading because, according to the complaint, they did not
disclose that the Company's risk for uncollectible accounts had
increased materially throughout the class period and, in addition, that
Sears was under-reserving for its uncollectible accounts which inflated
its earnings and balance sheet.

On October 17, 2002, Sears reported in a press release that it will
grow its 2002 earnings by 15%, rather than the 22% it reaffirmed as
recently as ten days previously, because of a "$222 million increase in
the domestic provision for uncollectible accounts." In addition,
according to the press release, earnings for the third quarter were 26%
less than the previous year.

In reaction to the press release, the price of Sears common stock
plummeted, falling 32%, from an October 16 close of $33.95 per share to
close at $23.15 per share on October 17, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null 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


SEARS ROEBUCK: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action against Sears, Roebuck & Co. (NYSE:S) and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.  The
shareholder lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased Company securities during the period January 17, 2002 through
October 17, 2002, inclusive ("Class Period").  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Alan Lacy (CEO, President and Chairman),

     (2) Glenn Richter (CFO from October 4, 2002, Senior V.P., Finance
         since inception of class period),

     (3) Paul J. Liska (CFO until October 4, 2002) and

     (4) Thomas E. Bergmann (Chief Accounting Officer)

The defendants allegedly 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 materially false and misleading statements to
the market during the class period.  These alleged misstatements had
the effect of artificially inflating the price of Sears securities.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 by E-
mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.muchshelist.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Sears
Roebuck & Co. (NYSE: S) and certain of its officers and/or directors on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased common stock between
January 17, 2002 and October 17, 2002, inclusive in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between January 17, 2002 and October 17, 2002.

According to the complaint, defendants, throughout the class period,
represented that the Company was growing its earnings strongly, driven
by its Credit and Financial Products segment and that it would achieve
earnings growth of 22% in 2002 over 2001.

In addition, in each of its press releases and SEC reports filed during
the class period, the Company reported its provisions for uncollectible
accounts.  In its 2001 annual report the Company represented that such
reserves were "adequate."

These, and other statements detailed in the complaint, were allegedly
false and misleading because the Company did not disclose that its risk
for uncollectible accounts had increased materially throughout the
class period and, in addition, that the Company was under-reserving for
its uncollectible accounts which inflated its earnings and balance
sheet.

On October 17, 2002, the Company reported in a press release that it
will grow its 2002 earnings by 15%, rather than the 22% it reaffirmed
as recently as ten days prior, because of the need for a "$222 million
increase in the domestic provision for uncollectible accounts."

In addition, according to the press release, earnings for the third
quarter were 26% less than the previous year. In reaction to the press
release, the price of the Company common stock plummeted, falling 32%,
from an October 16, 2002 close of $33.95 per share to close at only
$23.15 per share on October 17, 2002, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas M. Risen or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com

                     
TXU CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action against TXU Corporation (NYSE:TXU) and two of its top officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company
securities from January 31, 2002 through October 11, 2002, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants pumped up the company's stock
price by misrepresenting to the investing public the condition of the
Company's European operations throughout the class period.  The
complaint says TXU lacked a reasonable basis for its earning
projections for fiscal 2002 and 2003.  

Specifically, the defendants misled or failed to tell investors that:

     (1) TXU's operations in Europe and, specifically, those in the
         United Kingdom were plagued with deficient, inadequate, and
         faulty internal and financial controls;
    
     (2) TXU's risk management in Europe was virtually non-existent,
         and there was no means of addressing the risk to TXU from the
         UK's unregulated electricity market;

     (3) at least one credit facility worth approximately $500 million
         contained "cross-default" provisions between TXU Europe and
         TXU;
    
     (4) TXU's UK operations used wholesale electricity "structured
         transactions" to meet earnings goals in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles by shifting earnings and
         profits from one quarterly period to another;

     (5) The company's UK operations had entered into and carried long-
         term electricity purchase contracts that were "out of the
         money" by some $700 million; and
    
     (6) The European operations were impaired and overvalued by
         billions of dollars.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or MaryAnn Fink by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 - West Tower, 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


                              *********


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  * * *