CAR_Public/021031.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, October 31, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 216

                            Headlines
                            
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Body Rejects Proposal For Opening Bank Archives
AVATEX CORPORATION: Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
CRACKER BARREL: Faces Suit Over Labor Standards Act Violations in GA
CRACKER BARREL: Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violations in N.D. GA
CRACKEL BARREL: Faces Collective Suit For FLSA Violations in N.D. GA

JASON INTERNATIONAL: Voluntarily Recalls 800 Baths For Fire Hazard
MAINE: States Goals Of Consent Decree For The Augusta Mental Institute
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Upholds Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
MONTANA POWER: Asks For Change In Venue In Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: LA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Suit

POWERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers To Receive Refunds From Net Scheme
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS: Will Resolve Suits By Shareholders, Creditors
SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial, Other Matters, Delayed
TORONTO SUN: Court Refuses Class Certifications To Suit V. Photographer

UNITED AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Antitrust Lawsuit Set For April 2003
UNITED AIRLINES: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty Over 9/11 Attacks
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: French Prosecutors Commence Securities Fraud Probe
XTO ENERGY: Enters Court-Ordered Mediation in Gas Royalties Suit in OK

*Juries Give Pain-and-Suffering Awards To Avoid Punitive Damages Limits

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CIGNA CORPORATION: Mark McNair Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
CIGNA CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in PA
CIGNA CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in OH
NUI CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

SALOMON SMITH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ST. PAUL: Abbey Gardy Commences Suit For Securities Violations in MN
TXU CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
TXU CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX

                            *********

APARTHEID LITIGATION: Body Rejects Proposal For Opening Bank Archives
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Switzerland's commission on judicial affairs narrowly rejected a
proposal by Greens deputy Pia Hollenstein forcing banks to open their
archives to see if they had links with the South African apartheid
regime from 1948 to 1993, Agence France Press reports.

The commission voted 11-9 to reject the proposal.  In a statement, the
commission said, "The problem of relations with these regimes that do
not respect human rights concerns all nations: it should be dealt with
by international organizations within an international frame work."  
The commission added that the proposal would jeopardize Switzerland's
position as a world financial center.

The move came about in the wake of a lawsuit filed by prominent rights
lawyer Ed Fagan seeking compensation for the victims of South African
apartheid from Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse, and other American
firms.  The suits allege that the defendants helped the apartheid
regime financially, despite apartheid being declared a crime against
humanity, AFP reports.


AVATEX CORPORATION: Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
preliminarily approved the settlement in the consolidated securities
class action pending against Avatex Corporation and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common and
formerly outstanding preferred stocks during the period July 19, 1995
through August 27, 1996, which alleges that the Company and the
defendant officers and directors made misrepresentations of material
facts in public statements or omitted material facts from public
statements, including the failure to disclose purportedly negative
information concerning the Company's National Distribution Center and
Delta computer systems and the resulting impact on its existing and
future business and financial condition.

In January 2002, the court certified a class of purchasers of common
stock as to federal claims and reserved judgment on all other class
certification issues.  

On September 11, 2002, all the defendants, including the Company,
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with counsel for the
plaintiff class for the settlement of the lawsuit.  Pursuant to the
MOU, the Company deposited $0.5 million into an escrow account that
will be used to fund a portion of a settlement of the lawsuit.  

On October 11, 2002, the court gave its preliminary approval of an
alternative dispute resolution proceeding to determine an appropriate
settlement amount as to the defendants other than the Company.  These
other defendants agreed in the MOU to pay a portion of this additional
settlement amount and to waive their claims against the Company to be
indemnified for such payment.

The Company also agreed in the MOU to assign to the plaintiff class any
claims it may have relating to this lawsuit against the Company's
insurer, UPIC (and the estate and statutory liquidator of its parent,
Reliance), the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty
Association or any other state's Insurance Guaranty Association, and
the Company's excess insurer, Gulf Insurance Company.

The Company will have no further liability for the settlement amount or
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The Company has denied and continues to
deny that it committed any act or omission or breach of duty giving
rise to any liability in the lawsuit, and the Company has agreed to
settle the lawsuit to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation, in particular because of the cessation of business and
liquidation of Reliance.  The settlement is subject to execution of
definitive settlement documentation and final court approval.


CRACKER BARREL: Faces Suit Over Labor Standards Act Violations in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. faces a collective action making
claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome
Division.

The suit alleges that certain tipped hourly employees were required to
perform excessive non-serving duties without being paid the minimum
wage or overtime compensation for that work and that certain hourly
employees were required to wait "off the clock," without pay for the
wait.

In March 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion in the suit to
send notice to a provisional class of plaintiffs, defined as all
persons employed as servers and all second-shift hourly employees at
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurants since January 4, 1996, and
10,838 potential plaintiffs filed "opt-in" forms to the suit.

The court could subsequently amend the definition of the collective
group, and if amended, the scope of the collective action could either
be reduced or increased or, if appropriate, the Court could dismiss the
collective aspects of the case entirely.  In that last situation, each
opt-in plaintiff would have to decide whether or not to pursue an
independent action.

Extensive discovery with respect to the merits of individual claims,
scheduled through December 2002, is being conducted in the suit.  
Motions with respect to class certification and other issues are
expected to be made in early 2003.


CRACKER BARREL: Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violations in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. faces a company-wide class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Rome Division, making claims under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1866.  The suit seeks:

     (1) certification as a company-wide class action,

     (2) a declaratory judgment to redress an alleged systemic pattern
         and practice of racial discrimination in employment
         opportunities,

     (3) an order to effect certain hiring and promotion goals and back
         pay and other related monetary damages.

In May 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
proposing a class of all current and former employees and applicants
for employment who might have suffered discrimination in hiring,
promotion, job assignment and cross-training.

The briefing process on class certification has been completed, and
this matter awaits ruling by the court.  No collective group has been
finally certified in the suit.


CRACKEL BARREL: Faces Collective Suit For FLSA Violations in N.D. GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. faces a collective action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division, making claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit is a purported collective action filed by current and former
employees asserting three claims based upon alleged violations of the
FLSA:

     (1) that Personal Achievement Responsibility (PAR) IV level
         employees are routinely required to perform quasi-managerial
         duties or duties related to training without receiving minimum
         wage or overtime compensation for that work;

     (2) that employees classified as trainers routinely work off the
         clock to prepare for training sessions at home or on store
         premises and to conduct pre-training activities; and

     (3) that store opener employees were mis-classified as salaried
         exempt and are due overtime compensation.

No express amount of monetary damages is claimed in the suit and no
substantial discovery has taken place.  The Company labeled the suit
without merit and intends to vigorously oppose the suit.


JASON INTERNATIONAL: Voluntarily Recalls 800 Baths For Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason International, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 800 Jason
AirMasseur and Air Whirlpool Baths.  Air baths release heated bubbles
into the water.  A heating element on these baths can fail to shut off,
posing a fire hazard.  The Company has received one report of a fire
involving one of these baths, which resulted in minor damage.  No
injuries have been reported.
        
The baths were sold under the brand name Jason AirMasseur and Air-
Whirlpool Baths, which is written on the bath's control keypad.  They
have a serial number located on the underside of the bath that can be
viewed by removing the equipment access panel.  Consumers must check
with the firm to determine if their bath is included in the recall.
        
Plumbing distributors and kitchen and bath showrooms sold these baths
nationwide from January 2002 through September 2002 for about $3,000.
        
For more information, contact the Company's Technical Service
Department by Phone: 800-255-5766 between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.jasoninternational.com.


MAINE: States Goals Of Consent Decree For The Augusta Mental Institute
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A key goal in the state of Maine's new mental health plan - and a
requirement in the 1990 consent decree, which in turn was the product
of a class action - is to shrink the Augusta Mental Health Institute
(AMHI), while providing patients who leave it with "services which
meet their needs" in the community, the Portland Press Herald reports.

A trial was scheduled for late October to determine whether the state
has complied with the terms of the AMHI consent decree.  The following
events preceded this moment of awaiting the court's decision as to
whether or not Maine, as it claims, has finally complied with the 1990
consent decree:

     (1) In 1988, patient population hit 1,500 at AMHI.  In August of
         1988, five AMHI patients died during a heat wave.  Patient
         advocates charged that the deaths were symptomatic of neglect,
         abuse and overcrowding;

     (2) In 1989, a class action was brought against AMHI and the state
         by about 3,000 past and present patients of the institution;
         and

     (3) in 1990, in a consent decree, the state was ordered to reduce
         the number of beds in AMHI and improve community-based
         services by September 1, 1995.

In 1993, Governor John McKernan's budget slashed funding for mental
health services by $4.8 million over the next two years, in violation
of the consent decree.  Critics complained that the community-based
services were not being developed, but that patients still were being
released from AMHI.  

As a result, the state of Maine was held in contempt, in 1994, by
Superior Court Judge Bruce Chandler for violating the agreement.  The
court ordered that the community services to meet the needs of the
patients leaving AMHI be in place by mid-1997.

In June 1994, Justice Sidney W. Wernick approved a negotiated consent
decree tripling the number of people entitled to community-based mental
health services.  In 1995, plaintiffs and defendants were negotiating
toward a new settlement when it was disclosed that the state was
planning to close AMHI without notifying the court or the plaintiffs.

In March 1996, Justice Nancy D. Mills issued a new contempt order
threatening a court-ordered receivership unless several deadlines to
improve services to the mentally ill were met in 1996.  The state
submitted a $39.3 million plan to create what Governor Angus King
called "a comprehensive mental-health system worth of the name" in
response to Judge Mills' threat to have a receiver appointed to
implement the consent decree.

In January 1997, for the first time in more than two years, the state
mental health officials were free of contempt-of-court charges and no
longer faced the prospect of a judge taking over the state mental
health system.

In April of 1997, Gerald Rodman, the court master who was overseeing
operations at AMHI, approved a plan to reduce the size of the state
psychiatric hospital from 133 to 118 beds.  However, in March 1998,
state mental health officials announced that they did not expect to
meet the terms of the AMHI consent decree soon.  Major parts of the
state's system for the mentally ill were still emerging, officials
said.

In June 1999, the biennial state budget included $6.8 million relating
to the AMHI consent decree.  In December of the same year, Maine's
Department of Health planned to ask the Legislature for money that
would total $8 million for the two-year fiscal period and $12.2 million
for the next fiscal period.

In January 2002, state mental health officials missed a year-end
deadline to comply with the requirements of the 1990 consent decree.  
They said they expect to be in compliance by the end of January.

On January 25, 2002, Judge Mills gives patients' advocates 60 days to
produce evidence disputing the state's claim that its mental health
system complies with the 1990 consent decree.  Helen Bailey, one of the
representatives for the 3,400 current and former AMHI patients covered
by the agreement, says an objection will be filed.  In September 2002,
the court said it would set a date in late October as a trial date to
determine whether the state has complied with the terms of the AMHI
consent decree.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Upholds Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard and Dell Computer in the class
action filed by Gravity Corporation.  The Court ruled that Gravity had
no legitimate claim against the defendants, the Associated Press
reports.

Gravity filed the suit in February 1999, alleging that its own
litigation support software was being undermined by Microsoft's alleged
monopoly and refusal to release details about its programming hooks in
Windows.

The suit further stated that all three companies and NEC Packard Bell
were guilty of "conspiratorial conduct" to lock up the market for
operating system software, word processing software and spreadsheet
software in violation of the Sherman Act, AP reports.

In January 2001, federal judge J. Frederick Motz of Baltimore rejected
the suit.  Gravity asked for permission to file an amended suit, but
the court denied the request, which the appellate court upheld.  In its
ruling the appellate court states, "Although Gravity alleges that
Microsoft's agreements with Compaq and Dell individually produced anti-
competitive effects, it does not provide any factual basis to support
this allegation."

Further, the court ruled that the lawsuit could not proceed because
Gravity failed to argue--let alone prove--that Compaq and Dell had
unreasonable market power.  "Gravity has provided allegations of
Microsoft's market power in the relevant software markets, in the form
of Microsoft's shares in these markets.  Gravity failed, however, to
allege facts regarding Compaq's or Dell's market share and concedes
that the PC market is 'fiercely competitive' and, therefore, that
neither Compaq nor Dell has power in the PC market," the court stated.

Judge Roger Gregory dissented in part, saying that Gravity's
accusations of wrongdoing were legally substantive enough to deserve an
airing in court, AP reports.  "These allegations are plainly sufficient
to state a claim under the Sherman Act," he said.

"The most unfortunate aspect of this case is that, to the extent
Gravity's claims have merit, consumers will be left uncompensated,"
Judge Gregory wrote.  Even more, raising the procedural bar for
consumers' claims may further stifle technological innovation."


MONTANA POWER: Asks For Change In Venue In Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by people formerly owning stock in Montana Power
Co., should be moved from Butte to Kalispell, says a motion recently
filed by defendant Montana Power, in District Court in Butte, because
public opinion against the company and its chief executive is intensely
negative and would prevent a fair trial in Butte, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The request to move the trial says that surveys of potential jurors in
Butte and surrounding counties found a significant prejudice against
the company, several other companies connected to Montana Power and the
company directors, all named in the class action.

The lawsuit was originally filed against Montana Power, several other
companies connected to Montana Power, on behalf of eight people who
owned shares in Montana Power.  It contends shareholders were not given
the right to vote on the sale of several former Montana Power holdings,
and seeks to nullify those sales.  It also asks for the $3 billion in
lost stock revenue.

There also are separate claims for damage for the approval of millions
of dollars of "change of control" payments or "golden parachutes" for
top Montana Power executives, as well as other damages.  Both Montana
Power and Goldman, Sachs & Co., also named in the lawsuit,
requested the change of venue.

The motion blames media coverage for prejudicing potential jurors and
making it impossible for the companies to receive a fair trial in
Butte.  A lawyer for the stockholders says the plaintiffs would oppose
the move because potential jurors in Butte and the surrounding area
would be able to put personal feelings aside.

"Everybody in Montana has an opinion on this," said Frank Morrison of
Whitefish, a former state Supreme Court justice.  "It doesn't matter if
it's in Great Falls, Billings, Butte or Missoula, a lot of people will
have opinions, but they will be willing to set those aside and decide
based on what they hear in court."

State venue laws allow cases to be filed in the county of most impact,
and that is certainly Butte, Silver Bow County, said former Justice
Morrison.  "The rights and wrongs of this case ought to be decided by
the people who were the most affected," he said.


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: LA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
ordered dismissed the securities class action pending against
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) and:

     (1) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, and

     (3) Dr. Gasper Lazzara, Jr., former Chairman of the Board

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from April 27, 2000 through March 15, 2001, alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by allegedly recognizing revenue in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC
disclosure requirements and by allegedly making false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial results and accounting, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

In its ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to allege
sufficient facts to support their claim that the Company or its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
  
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs will not be permitted to amend
the lawsuit and stated that "the court dismisses plaintiffs' amended
complaint with prejudice because `another pleading attempt would be an
inefficient use of the parties' and the Court's resources, would cause
unnecessary and undue delay, and would be futile."  The ruling is
subject to the possibility of an appeal by plaintiffs.

"We are extremely pleased that the Court has dismissed the lawsuit,
which we have always believed to be without merit," said Bartholomew F.
Palmisano, Sr., OCA's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.
"Our focus has been and will continue to be on building our business
and providing high quality services to our affiliated practices."


POWERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers To Receive Refunds From Net Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jennifer M. Granholm announced today that Michigan
consumers who were cheated through an alleged on-line pyramid scheme
into purchasing their own personal Internet "mall" would immediately
begin to receive full refunds.  The first wave of disbursements
totaling $595,425.45 will be paid to 1,390 Michigan residents who
purchased the Internet Malls from PowerCard International.

PowerCard, which operated under the name KM.NET, aggressively marketed
the web malls in Michigan and other states.  The malls were supposed to
allow the mall website owners to make large profits when Internet
surfers used the malls to make purchases.

Ms. Granholm said, "These Internet `malls' were nothing but a pyramid
scheme meant to bilk money from Michigan consumers.  This trick,
without any treat, was just a ghoulish rip-off exploiting the
popularity of `dot.coms.'"

Ms. Granholm filed suit against KM.NET in July 2001 and reached a
settlement earlier this year.  Michigan, which was the only state to
file suit against the company, filed court pleadings in Michigan and
Alabama while also monitoring a court proceeding in Maryland.

This first wave of payments is for consumers who purchased KM.NET malls
during the period beginning March 3, 2000, and ending March 22, 2000,
which resulted in the consumer's bank account being electronically
debited on or after March 22, 2000.

The refunds represent the purchase price of the mall(s) minus any
commissions actually received from KM.NET for the sale of Internet
shopping malls.  Some Michigan consumers purchased multiple malls.

The second wave of payments will also cover those who purchased between
the same period but will be for those claims requiring further
verification.  This wave of payments should be paid before the end of
the year.

Ms. Granholm said, "While a wonderful educational tool, the Internet
has become a haven for scams on unsuspecting consumers. We will do
everything possible to protect Michigan families from the abuses
technology can bring."

The settlement administrator anticipates that the total amount of
refunds under the Alabama class action settlement will be approximately
$2 million.  If the settlement administrator has a question regarding a
claim, the claimant will be contacted.  

For more information, contact the settlement administrator by Mail: PO
Box 70106, Mobile, Alabama 36670 or by Phone: 251-473-5550.


PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS: Will Resolve Suits By Shareholders, Creditors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed to pay $21.5 million to resolve
lawsuits by Anicom Inc. shareholders and creditors, who accused the
accounting firm of acting recklessly by certifying Anicom's financial
statements during the years leading up to its January 2001 bankruptcy-
court filing, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The payment is among the larger settlements to date over an alleged
audit failure by Pricewaterhouse, which currently is under regulatory
scrutiny related to its prior audits for Tyco International Ltd.  In
May 2001, the firm agreed to pay about $51 million to settle a class
action lawsuit that accused it of botching some previous audits of
MicroStrategy Inc.'s financial statements.  

As in the MicroStrategy case, Pricewaterhouse has settled the Anicom
litigation without admitting wrongdoing.  The firm's spokesman Stephen
Silber said, "We decided to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs and
uncertainties associated with protracted litigation."

The $21.5 million payment will be divided among Anicom's bankruptcy
estate and its secured lenders and shareholders, including the State of
Wisconsin Investment Board, which held Anicom shares and is lead
plaintiff in the securities litigation over Anicom's collapse, in a
federal district court in Chicago.  The plaintiffs' claims against
several former executives remain pending.

An attorney for the Wisconsin board, Ken McNeil of the Houston law firm
Susman Godfrey LLP, said that the recent settlement "will now let us
focus trial preparation on the primary target -- the officer and
director defendants who typically have primary responsibility for
misstated financial statements."

The settlement comes about five months after the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) sued six former Anicom executives in Chicago,
accusing them of accounting fraud.  The SEC complaint alleges that they
inflated the company's revenue by more than $38 million from January
1998 through March 2000.  The executives have denied wrongdoing.


SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied
Sprint Corporation's motion to dismiss the securities class action
filed against it and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The consolidated suit relates to several statements corporate officers
to investors before an April 28, 2000, vote by shareholders of Sprint
and WorldCom to merge the two telecommunications giants.  Shareholders
approved the merger, but the plan was abandoned after the Department of
Justice (DOJ) sued under antitrust regulations and the European
Commission (EC) announced its opposition, LexisNexis.com reports.

Shareholders in the uncertified class action say the merger was doomed
to fail from the start and stock prices were thus fraudulent for a
class period of Oct. 4, 1999, to Sept. 19, 2000.  Shares of Sprint PCS
and FON dropped approximately 40 percent and 60 percent during this
period, respectively, mealeys.com reports.

The court, in its rejection of the motion, stated that failing to tell
investors before a shareholder vote that regulators were unlikely to
approve a merger was a material omission.  Judge Murguia granted in
part the Company's motion, related to several forward-looking
statements made by executives before the April 2000 vote, because the
statements were "mere" predictions and reasonable investors would not
rely on that kind of "corporate puffery" to make buying and selling
decisions.  WorldCom, also a party to the lawsuit, was not part of this
decision because of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

According to the judge, Sprint and WorldCom executives had repeatedly
reassured investors that they expected regulatory approval for a
merger, LexisNexis reports.  If the facts are true as presented by the
plaintiffs, the DOJ informed both Sprint and WorldCom in the weeks
leading up to the vote that the agency was unlikely to approve a
merger, the EC informed both companies that it had serious concerns and
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) suspended its investigation
because it required more documentation.  Nonetheless, Sprint
executives' optimistic statements continued, creating a "material
omission," Judge Murguia said.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial, Other Matters, Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A statewide class action against the nation's biggest tobacco
companies, which had been scheduled for trial on Tuesday, has been put
off once again, this time by order of the Louisiana Supreme Court, The
Times-Picayune reports.

The high court has temporarily delayed the proceeding and scheduled a
hearing for Wednesday on issues raised by the plaintiffs, including
their claim that the tobacco companies should not be allowed to put on
evidence that smokers are at least partly responsible for their health
problems.  The state's 4th Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled that the
companies can present such evidence.

A new beginning date for the trial, to be held before Civil District
Judge Richard Ganucheau, will be set after the high court issues its
decision, officials said.

An earlier Class Action Reporter story mentioned this suit, brought on
behalf of the smokers of Louisiana, in which the smokers are asking the
tobacco industry to pay for quit-smoking programs and for medical
monitoring for still-healthy smokers.  

Unlike most lawsuits filed against the industry, the Louisiana case
does not seek individual damages for the smokers, the Class Action
Reporter states.  The Louisiana lawsuit, however, does align itself
with the long-running legal claim made by smokers in their earlier
suits -- that the industry manipulated the nicotine level of cigarettes
to keep smokers addicted -- an allegation that the cigarette makers
deny.  Once the trial begins, jurors will hear evidence from both sides
on this issue.


TORONTO SUN: Court Refuses Class Certifications To Suit V. Photographer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto judge refused to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed
by a former model against former Toronto Sun photographer Norman Betts,
asserting claims of sexual misconduct, the Toronto Star reports.

Vanessa Fehringer filed the suit against the Sun and Mr. Betts,
allegedly on behalf of at least 60 models who claim the photographer
acted improperly in photo shoots as far back as the 1970s, according to
an earlier Class Action Reporter story.

"It's everything from improper touching, to exposing himself, to
walking in while they are changing, to threats like, `OK, if you want
to make it into the paper, we are going to be taking some nude pictures
now,'" Ms. Fehringer's lawyer, Jeffrey Raphael, said recently.  "Here
are women who relax their normal standards of care - basically in
various stages of undress - on the understanding that they would be
treated in a professional manner, and that is not what happened."

Ms. Fehringer, whose picture was never published, filed a claim in
February 2002, alleging inappropriate conduct and remarks by Mr. Betts.  
Since then, dozens of other former models have come forward with
similar complaints, Mr. Raphael said.

Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer, in his ruling, said there were too many
different circumstances in the cases involving about 50 women in the
suit for it to be done as a group effort, the Toronto Star reports.  
"It is clear that if this action was certified as a class proceeding it
would quickly break down into an individual assessment of each proposed
member's particular circumstances," the Superior Court judge said in
his 12-page ruling.

"We're disappointed with the ruling," Mr. Raphael said in an interview.
"We thought this was the ideal case to go forward as a class action."  

He said it was likely the judge's ruling would be appealed, the Toronto
Star reports.  "The allegations in this case are quite serious and many
of the women will continue to pursue the lawsuit on their own,
regardless of this ruling or the outcome of any appeal," Mr. Raphael
said.


UNITED AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Antitrust Lawsuit Set For April 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action pending against United Airlines is
set for April 28,2003 in the United States District Court in North
Carolina.  

A North Carolina travel agent filed the suit in March 2002, against the
Company (and other carriers) initially in state court and then
in federal court in North Carolina following the reduction by United
(and other carriers) in November 1999 of commission rates payable to
travel agents.

Plaintiffs allege that United and the other carrier-defendants
conspired to fix travel agent commissions in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  

Subsequent to this initial filing, the case has been expanded by the
addition of five new travel agencies, ARTA, and eight new carrier
defendants, including two Star Alliance carriers.  In addition, the
court has allowed the addition of claims related to carriers'
commission reduction actions in 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2002.

Earlier this year the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
case as a class action consisting of all US (and its possessions)
travel agencies.  Discovery is currently proceeding and is set to
close on November 13, 2002.

Plaintiffs, in a recent filing, have claimed damages, assuming
liability, in the amount of approximately $13 billion dollars, although
United's alleged share of this amount has not been determined by
plaintiffs.

In addition to the above case, United has been named in several other
cases filed in the US and Canada, involving commission rates payable to
travel agencies.  These cases are in their early stages.

The Company does not expect the outcome of the suits to have any
material effect upon its consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty Over 9/11 Attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------
United Airlines faces twenty-five lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The complaints, filed on behalf of passengers and ground victims, seek
monetary damages and allege that the Company breached its duty of care
to the passengers or the people and businesses on the ground and that
the breach caused the hijacking and subsequent deaths and property
destruction.

The Company anticipates the filing of additional lawsuits related to
the September 11 attacks in the future.  


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: French Prosecutors Commence Securities Fraud Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris prosecutors launched an investigation in Paris about media giant
Vivendi Universal, over charges that the Company lied to investors and
that Company officers under former Chairman Jean-Marie Messier misled
them by issuing false financial information, the Associated Press
reports.

The beleaguered media company already faces several class actions,
filed by both American and French investors, alleging the Company
issued "untruthful and fraudulent information" and "presenting an
incorrect balance sheet and financial situation."

According to Associated Press, the company has incurred billions of
dollars in debt, due to a series of costly acquisitions initiated by
Mr. Messier.  The Company board later ousted Mr. Messier and replaced
him with Jean-Rene Fourtou, then vice chairman of Aventis.


Prosecutors are trying to determine whether the company published false
or misleading information regarding fiscal years 2000 and 2001, court
officials said on condition of anonymity. AP reports.


XTO ENERGY: Enters Court-Ordered Mediation in Gas Royalties Suit in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, formerly known as Cross Timbers Oil Company, entered into
court-ordered mediation with plaintiffs in the class action filed in
the District Court of Dewey County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of
natural gas wells in Oklahoma.

The suit alleges that since 1991, the Company has underpaid royalty
owners as a result of reducing royalties for improper charges for
production, marketing, gathering, processing and transportation costs
and selling natural gas through affiliated companies at prices less
favorable than those paid by third parties.

No class has yet been certified.  The parties have entered into court-
ordered mediation and are continuing to discuss the terms of a possible
settlement.  In the Company's opinion, the suit is not currently
expected to be material to the Company's operations or financial
position or liquidity.


*Juries Give Pain-and-Suffering Awards To Avoid Punitive Damages Limits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda M. Gilbert works as a millwright at the DaimlerChrysler Jefferson
North Assembly Plant in Detroit - a millwright is a sort of trouble-
shooter.  The work is hard, it pays well, and it is unusual to see a
woman doing it, according to a report by The New York Times.

A jury in Detroit, Michigan, found that Ms. Gilbert's male colleagues
had harassed her for years with pornographic messages, vulgar talk and
insults.  The jury awarded her $21 million, the largest affirmed award
for an individual sexual harassment plaintiff in United States history.

None of that money was for punitive damages, which, as the word
suggests, are intended to punish and deter the defendant rather than
compensate the plaintiff.  Punitive damages are often said to be the
main reason for outsized jury awards.  Indeed, Michigan, like a handful
of other states, prohibits punitive damages in most cases.

Instead, the jury awarded Ms. Gilbert $1 million for potential lost
earnings and medical expenses, and $20 million for pain and suffering.
Individuals who study jury awards say that creative lawyers, obstructed
by all sorts of limitations that have been placed on awarding punitive
damages, have shifted their attention to pain and suffering, a little-
scrutinized form of compensation for psychic harm.

This shift is also true in class actions - although the situations in
which pain and suffering will possess sufficient commonality to be
shared by a single class of persons, or multiple classes of persons,
would have to be carefully formulated.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers are repackaging their punitive-damages claims to
put the money load into pain-and-suffering damages," said Victor E.
Schwartz, co-author of the leading law school textbook on torts.  

However, the two sorts of damages are meant to be conceptually
distinct.  "Pain and suffering focuses on the harm done to plaintiff,"
said Catherine M. Sharkey, a fellow at Columbia Law School.  "Punitive
damages looks to the conduct of the defendant.  It is a separate
question whether juries in practice have in mind a certain number and
will get there no matter what."

In its appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, DaimlerChrysler argued
that the verdict was "a disguised punitive-damages award."  Elizabeth
Hardy, a company lawyer, says, "There is absolutely no correlation
between $21 million and the impact that cartoons and verbal comments
have had on this woman."

Ms. Gilbert's lawyer, Geoffrey N. Fieger, who had asked the jury for
$140 million, says the award merely compensates his client for the
effect of the abuse.  The award, he said, was justified by years of
crushing abuse.

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have encouraged judges to
scrutinize punitive awards, while damages for pain and suffering, and
other awards that compensate plaintiffs for losses, are treated with
deference.  In addition, punitive damages recently have become subject
to the federal income tax, while pain-and-suffering awards are not.

Many states that do allow punitive damages have enacted fixed caps or
have limited the permissible ratio between compensatory and punitive
damages.  Florida does both. In most cases it limits punitive damages
to $500,000, or three times the compensatory award, whichever is
greater.  Other states have diverted punitive awards to their
treasuries.  Oregon allocates 60 percent of such awards to a state fund
for crime victims.

The imposition of these limits, and others, Mr. Schwartz says, has
driven hundreds of millions of dollars into pain-and-suffering awards.  
He cited recent verdicts for tens of millions in California,
Mississippi and New York, in cases involving injuries in automobile
accidents, medical malpractice, asbestos and a heartburn drug.

David A. Schkade, a business professor at the University of Texas and a
co-author of a recent book on punitive damages, said there had been no
systematic study of the trend.  There is evidence, however, that there
is leakage between different kinds of damages.

David W. Leebron, dean of the Columbia Law School, agreed.  "When you
cut down on one kind of award, you will see a shift in investment to
another kind of award, or a shift to other kinds of cases," said Dean
Leebron.

There are certainly fewer limitations on the rendering of pain-and-
suffering awards, and less judicial scrutiny.  "The law provides no
guidance, in terms of any benchmark, standard figure, or method of
analysis, to the jury in the process of determining an appropriate
award," Dean Leebron wrote in The New York University Law Review in
1989.  "The only judicially articulated standard of review requires
that the award `not shock the judicial conscience.'"

Nonetheless, the concept of pain and suffering has its own critics.  In
a 1990 study, Peter W. Huber, a senior fellow at the conservative
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, wrote that "it is easy for
plaintiffs to feign or exaggerate psychic injury" and that "even if
fear or pain can be proved, they are impossible to price."  Without Mr.
Huber's intending it, the expression "impossible to price,"
particularly when linked with proved fear and/or pain, makes such
claims attractive to lawyers and, apparently, evocative of juries'
understanding and sentiments.

Mr. Fieger, who represents Ms. Gilbert, told the jury that her male
co-workers had brutalized her, that the abuse, while not physical,
caused her to be hospitalized several times and to attempt suicide.  
Ms. Gilbert told of reporting six incidents to her managers that
included a picture of male genitalia taped to her toolbox, a copy of
Penthouse magazine left on top of it and a ribald poem posted nearby.

DaimlerChrysler told the court that "shop talk and similar vulgar
activities are the norm in the plant setting."  It emphasized that Ms.
Gilbert alleged no physical contact, propositioning for sex or
retaliation.  The award, DaimlerChrysler said on appeal to the Michigan
Supreme Court, is 70 times the size of the largest affirmed sexual-
harassment verdict in Michigan history.  The company's attorney pointed
out to the appeals court, the award is 70 times the maximum award for
such claims for compensatory and punitive damages combined, under
federal harassment law.

The court said that the jurors had awarded less than the $140 million
Ms. Gilbert had asked for, proving that "they were exercising their
independent abilities to reason."  The court also said that the jury
was entitled to believe testimony that the harassment made Ms.
Gilbert's life joyless, "changing the fundamental chemistry in her
brain."

Mr. Fieger said, in what might be called a fitting conclusion, had
punitive damages been available, "I would have gotten one of those
billion-dollar verdicts."


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CIGNA CORPORATION: Mark McNair Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action
against CIGNA Corp. (NYSE:CI), on behalf of, and seeks damages for,
shareholders who purchased CIGNA securities between May 2, 2001 and
October 24, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and:

     (1) H. Edward Hanway (its CEO and Chairman of the Board),

     (2) James G. Stewart (its CFO and Executive Vice President) and

     (3) James A. Sears (its Chief Accounting Officer)

The case 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.

Throughout the class period, plaintiffs allege, the defendants issued
press releases announcing impressive earnings growth, while failing to
disclose that the Company had not adequately reserved for its
reinsurance obligations for its guaranteed minimum death benefits
(GMDB).

After the market closed on September 3, 2002, the Company issued a
press release announcing a $720 million after-tax charge as part of a
program to manage its reinsurance exposure for its GMDB obligations.  
Nevertheless, CIGNA still assured the market that it would meet its
third quarter and 2002 financial targets.

On October 18, 2002, CIGNA announced that it was taking an additional
$315 million charge relating to the Unicover arbitration. Thus, the
Complaint alleges, CIGNA's write-downs relating to its discontinued
reinsurance business, which the company had downplayed throughout the
class period as immaterial, exceeded one billion dollars for the third
quarter.

Then, on October 24, 2002, the Company announced that it would not meet
its third quarter and year 2002 guidance, despite its recent
reassurances to the contrary.  This revelation further stunned the
market and resulted in CIGNA stock's price tumbling 42%, falling from
$63.60 per share at the close of October 24 to as low as $36.81 on
October 25, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Mark McNair by Phone: 877-511-4717 or
202-872-4717 by E-mail: mcnair@justice4investors or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.justice4investors.com


CIGNA CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against CIGNA
Corp. (NYSE: CI) and some of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased common stock between May 2, 2001
through October 24, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Philadelphia.

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 May 2, 2001 and October 24, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company issued numerous press releases,
and filed financial reports with the SEC, regarding its performance
during the class period which represented that the Company was
experiencing strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is
expected to be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its
discontinued reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to
its liquidity.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that CIGNA had
been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations, particularly for
its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death benefits, (GMDB), by (at
least) hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were materially
false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing declining demand
for its offerings, particularly in its Employee Health Care, Life and
Disability segment, and its income guidance for 2002 was lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.

The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose computer
integration problems and customer service problems within the Company's
Health Care, Life and Disability segments that forced CIGNA to grant
substantial margin concessions in order to retain aggrieved customers
causing the company to revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings
estimates.

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct alleged
therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on October 16, 2002 did
issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the offering would have
been negatively affected if the truth regarding CIGNA's business and
financial condition was known.

On September 3, 2002, after the market closed, CIGNA issued a press
release announcing that it will take a $720 million after-tax ($1.1
billion pre-tax) charge in order to manage its GMDB liabilities, but
reaffirmed its previously issued guidance for 2002.

In response, credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Fitch
reduced CIGNA's credit rating and CIGNA's stock price dropped by 6%.
Then, on October 24, 2002, after the close of trading, CIGNA shocked
the market by announcing that, contrary to its recent reaffirmations,
it would not meet its 2002 earnings guidance due to weakness in its
Employee Health Care, Life and Disability segment.

Following the downward earnings revisions of October 24, 2002, almost
37,000,000 shares of CIGNA common stock were traded on October 25, 2002
with the price of the Company's shares falling as much as 45% from the
October 24, 2002 closing price of $63.60 per share to as low as $34.70.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Arthur Stock, Casey M.
Preston 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


CIGNA CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of 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 (CEO, President and Chairman),

     (2) James G. Stewart (CFO) and

     (3) James A. Sears (Chief Accounting Officer)

The defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market, causing the market price of CIGNA securities to be artificially
inflated.

According to the complaint, CIGNA issued numerous press releases, and
filed financial reports with the SEC, regarding its performance during
the class period.  The releases and filings represented that the
Company was experiencing strong growth, that its operating income for
2002 is expected to be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its
discontinued reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to
its liquidity.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations,
particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death benefits
(GMDB), by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were materially
false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing declining demand
for its offerings, particularly in its Employee Health Care, Life and
Disability segment, and its income guidance for 2002 was lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct alleged
therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on October 16, 2002, did,
issue $250 million of 6 3/8% notes and that the offering would have
been negatively affected if the truth regarding CIGNA's business and
financial condition was known.

On September 3, 2002, after the market closed, CIGNA issued a press
release announcing that it will take a $720 million after-tax ($1.1
billion pre-tax) charge in order to manage its GMDB liabilities, but
reaffirmed its previously issued guidance for 2002.  In response,
credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Fitch reduced CIGNA's
credit rating and CIGNA's stock price dropped by 6%.

Then, on October 24, 2002, after the close of trading, CIGNA shocked
the market by announcing that, contrary to its recent reaffirmations,
it would not meet its 2002 earnings guidance due to weakness in its
Employee Health Care, Life and Disability segment.

In reaction to the 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 extremely
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 by E-
mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Electric
Power Company, Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between April 24, 2001 and October 9,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, against the Company, E. Linn Draper, Jr.,
and Susan Tomasky.

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 between April 24, 2001 and October 9, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its
increasing energy trading revenues and earnings.  As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the Company failed to implement appropriate risk management
         procedures regarding information provided to trade
         publications;

     (2) as a result of this failure to implement appropriate risk
         management procedures, the Company was manipulating price
         indices used throughout the industry;

     (3) as a result of this manipulation, the Company gained revenue
         and profits that it could not maintain absent manipulation;

     (4) without improper manipulation, the Company could not
         successfully maintain its energy trading business; and

     (5) as a result, the energy trading business was not the business
         opportunity that the Company presented throughout the class
         period.

On October 9, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it had fired five of its thirty natural-gas traders, who
the Company stated had given false gas pricing data to index
publishers.  

While AEP acknowledged that its traders had not been engaged in
"ethical business practices," it claimed that it did not know whether
the false data affected the published indices. In fact, no one at AEP
asked any of the fired traders why they engaged in the fraudulent
activities. As

alleged in the complaint, by making this announcement, AEP was
essentially admitting that it had failed to institute appropriate
oversight measures to prevent the wrongful activity, and by doing so,
was able to make substantial profits from its energy selling
activities.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: AEPcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


NUI CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of NUI Corporation (NYSE:NUI), between
November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and John Kean, Jr.

The complaint charges the Company and Mr. Kean, Jr., President, Chief
Executive Director, and a Director and member of the Executive
Committee, 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 concerning the failure to properly record its fixed cost
expenses, accrue necessary pension expenses, and reserve adequate
amounts for its self-insured medical benefits in its quarterly
unaudited financial statements.

As alleged in the suit, throughout the class period, defendants knew
that the Company was confronting material problems in its businesses,
which were causing the Company to incur greatly increased costs
throughout the class period.  

These costs included significant increases in fixed costs for its
telecommunications business, greatly increasing costs of self-insuring
for medical benefits, and the tremendous decline in the value of its
pension plan assets which would cause NUI to accrue substantial pension
expense.

These increased material costs were putting a tremendous strain on
NUI's operating margins and, if properly and fully accounted for in
NUI's financial statements, would cause NUI to suffer greatly reduced
earnings per share.

The problem presented to defendants by these materially increasing
costs and their negative impact on NUI's earnings if properly and fully
accounted for and disclosed was exacerbated by the high level of long-
term and short-term debt on NUI's balance sheet and the declining
earnings NUI began to experience at the outset of the Class Period.

Thus, in order to mislead the market with respect to NUI's spiraling
costs and negative impact on NUI's margins and earnings, defendants
embarked on the scheme and continuing course of conduct during the
class period to enable NUI to complete necessary corporate acquisitions
using its stock as currency and to complete a public offering of common
stock to generate desperately-needed cash to pay down its short-term
debt.

Finally, when NUI's newly appointed outside auditors were conducting
their audit of NUI's financial statements for Fiscal Year 2002, the
twelve months ended September 30, 2002, defendants, on October 18,
2002, disclosed the long-withheld truth: NUI would sustain greatly
reduced earnings for FY 2002 and FY 2003 because of its spiraling
costs, including significantly increased fixed costs to build its back
office infrastructure to support its telecommunications business and
significant increases in medical and pension benefit expenses due to
the increase in the volume of claims and the decline in the equity
market.

As a result of this disclosure, NUI's share price fell more than 50%,
falling $10.17 per share, to close at $10.00 per share on October 18,
2002, on extraordinary volume of 3.2 million shares.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross 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


SALOMON SMITH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & 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
Williams Communications Group, Inc. (OTCBB:WCGOQ) formerly
(Nasdaq:WCGRQ) between October 27, 1997 and November 2, 2001,
inclusive.

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

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

The class period begins on October 27, 1997, at which time Salomon
initiated coverage of WCG common stocks as a "BUY." The Class Period
ends on November 2, 2001, the date Defendants belatedly downgraded WCG
from a "BUY" to a "NEUTRAL."  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading analyst reports, WCG 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: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and its former
telecommunications research analyst Jack B. Grubman on behalf of
investors who purchased securities, including the 6% Convertible
Subordinated Notes due 2009, of Level 3 Communications, Inc.
(Nasdaq:LVLT) during the period from January 4, 1999 through June 18,
2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
analyst reports on Level 3 in a bid to win or maintain lucrative
banking and advisory work from the Company.

The complaint alleges that Salomon and Grubman urged investors to
purchase Level 3 securities by issuing false and misleading analyst
reports rather than providing independent objective analysis.  By April
2001, Salomon had received approximately $136 million in investment
banking fees from Level 3.  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, the market price of the Notes was artificially
inflated, maintained or stabilized during the class period.

On September 30, 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
sued five current and former executives from four different
telecommunication companies for repayment of proceeds realized through
"profiteering in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and phony stock
ratings."

In addition to allegations of "spinning," the complaint charges that
defendants issued favorable but false ratings on existing or potential
banking clients, including Level 3, in order to earn lucrative fees
involved in underwriting and advisory work.

The complaint details how analysts were pressured to issue positive
ratings and avoided the bottom two ratings in Salomon's five category
rating system.  Salomon employees, especially the retail brokers,
allegedly understood the fraud being perpetrated on individual
investors and called Mr. Grubman a "disgrace" and "investment banking
whore."

Similarly, on September 23, 2002, NASD issued a press release
announcing that it had fined Salomon $5 million for issuing materially
misleading research reports on Winstar Communications, Inc. in 2001
that were neither objective nor independent, but instead were the
biased, overly-optimistic and uncritical product of collaboration
between defendants and Winstar management.

In addition to the specific investigations above, Salomon is also the
target of broader investigations by NASD, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the House Financial Services Committee and the New York
State Attorney General concerning research practices and analyst
conflicts; the allocation of hot initial public stock offerings to
banking clients, including WorldCom, Inc. executives; and Grubman's
surprise upgrade on AT&T Corp. in November, 1999 after years of bearish
reports on the company and only months before Salomon was named one of
three top underwriters in the $10 billion spin-off of the company's
wireless-phone unit.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(888-4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


ST. PAUL: Abbey Gardy Commences Suit For Securities Violations in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of The St. Paul Companies (NYSE:SPC)
between November 5, 2001 and July 9, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names
as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer J.S. Fishman and
Chief Financial Officer Thomas A. Bradley.

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 suit alleges that during the class period, defendants failed to
make adequate disclosures or take adequate reserves concerning
litigation filed in 1993 in California state court known as Western
MacArthur Co. et al. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., et al,
Case No. 721595-7 (consolidated with Case No. 828101-2, Superior Court
of California, Alameda County).

Plaintiff claims that although trial of the Western MacArthur
litigation commenced in approximately March 2002, the Company first
disclosed the existence of the litigation on or about May 15, 2002, but
did not disclose or quantify the amount or general magnitude of
potential exposure to liability which St. Paul might suffer as a result
of the litigation, nor did the Company increase its reserves at that
time.

On June 3, 2002, the Company announced that a settlement had been
reached whereby St. Paul would pay almost $1 billion to satisfy the
claims reflected in the litigation, although the Company's SEC filings
stated that as of December 31, 2001, the Company's net reserves for
asbestos claims was only $367 million.

The suit charges that the Company tried to disguise the impact of the
Western MacArthur litigation settlement by focusing on the alleged
after-tax impact of the litigation and falsely claiming that $150
million of the litigation payments could be charged to the Company's
reserves, and that a subsequent SEC filing by the Company reflected St.
Paul's failure to take adequate reserves for its potential liability in
the litigation.

News of the Western MacArthur litigation settlement caused the price of
the Company's stock to decline during the class period from a high of
$49.20 on November 5, 2001 to a low of $34.65 on July 9, 2002, the last
day of the class period.

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


TXU CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman LLP initiated a securities class action against TXU
Corp. (NYSE:TXU), and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, on behalf of purchasers of TXU securities between April 25,
2002 and October 11, 2002.

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

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York, NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com


TXU CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, on behalf of purchasers of TXU Corporation (NYSE:TXU)
publicly traded securities during the period between April 25, 2002 and
October 11, 2002, inclusive.  

The complaint is being amended to include those who purchased TXU
securities pursuant to TXU's May 31, 2002 secondary offering of 11
million shares at $51.15 per share and its offering of 8.8 million
units of FELINE PRIDES.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors and its underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of
defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operating performance and prospects.

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

Due to this inflation, defendants were able to complete a secondary
offering of 11.8 million shares of common stock, priced at $51.15 per
share and 8.8 million units of FELINE PRIDES (equity linked debt
securities), raising nearly a billion dollars in much needed financing.  
Subsequent to the offering, defendants needed to maintain a high stock
price to avoid triggering additional debt and the conversion of
preferred stock into common stock pursuant to a partnership agreement.

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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



                              *********


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  * * *