CAR_Public/021101.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, November 1, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 217

                            Headlines
                          
API OUTDOORS: Voluntarily Recalls 9,000 Treestands For Injury Hazard
AUCTION HOUSES: EU Fines Sotheby's $20.1M, No Penalty For Christie's
AUSTRALIA: Unions Mull Multimillion-dollar Suit V. Erring Employers
BAUSCH & LOMB: Court Allows Suit Over Defective Eye Implants To Proceed
CIGNA CORPORATION: Negotiates With Doctors To Settle Suits In FL, IL

CINTAS CORPORATION: Settling Consumer Fraud Lawsuit For US$14 Million
ENRON CORPORATION: TX Jury Expected To Indict Former CFO Andrew Fastow
MAINE: AMHI Official Testifies To Inadequate Mental Care, Facilities
MASCO CORPORATION: Preliminary Settlement Reached In Behr Mildew Suit
ST. PAUL: Accused of Artificially Inflating Stock in Securities Suits

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Causation Can Be Viewed As Proof in Simon II Suit
UNITED STATES: Navy Men Sue For Personal Injury Due To Cold War Tests
VIRGINIA: Felons Commences Suit Over "Unconstitutional" Voting Ban

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS ALERT: ABB Wants to Sell Oil, Gas Business After Loss Widens
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims' Lawyers Carry Costs in Suit V. Cape PLC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Sets Jan 2003 as Bar Date in Kaiser Lawsuit
ASBESTOS ALERT: Union Carbide Liable for Asbestos Claims, Jury Finds
AQUA-CHEM INC.: To Defend Against 13,500 Asbestos Related Lawsuits

ARVINMERITOR: Estimates Asbestos Related Liabilities at US$71 Million
ASARCO INC.: Facing Various Asbestos Related Lawsuits
BAIRNCO:  Retains Asbestos Related Liabilities of Former Subsidiary
BALTIMORE GAST: Continues to Face Several Asbestos Related Lawsuits
BETHLEHEM STEEL: Finds Protection in Bankruptcy from Asbestos Suits

CBS CORPORATION: Continues to Face Numerous Asbestos Related Lawsuits
DRESSER INC.: Breaks Away from Parent Co., Asbestos Related Liabilities
EAGLE-PICHER: Expounds on Asbestos Settlements Trusts, Bankruptcy
G-I HOLDINGS:  Examines Source of Asbestos Woes and Related Litigation
OWENS-ILLINOIS INC.:  Battles 25,000 Asbestos Claimants From Lawsuits

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in VA
CIGNA CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in PA
DPL INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
METRIS COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN
NUI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NJ Court

ST. PAUL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
TXU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in TX
UBS GROUP: Akin Gump Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Texas

                            *********


API OUTDOORS: Voluntarily Recalls 9,000 Treestands For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
API Outdoors is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 9,000
treestands used by hunters.  A cable that secures the treestand to the
tree can break, posing the risk of falls and serious injuries to
hunters.  The Company has received two reports of the treestand's cable
breaking, including one person who fell from a tree and suffered leg
abrasions.
        
The recalled treestands have the following brand names and model
numbers: API Hi-Point Cable Cat Climbing Treestand, Model #CC501 and
API  Buckmaster Grand Slam Climbing Treestand, Model #GS3800BM.  The
treestands have an olive green frame, camo seats and seatbacks with
black nylon cinch straps, and a yellow "WARNING" or "DANGER" label that
reads in part, "Safety Restraint Must Be Used At All Times."   The
treestands are manufactured in Tallulah, La.
        
Retailers and distributors nationwide, including Wal-Mart, sold
the Cable Cat treestands through mid-October 2002 for about $180 and
Cabelas stores nationwide sold the Buckmaster treestands through mid-
October 2002 for about $230.
        
For more information, contact 866-215-2419 anytime to receive a free,
replacement chain, or visit the firm's Websites:
http://www.apioutdoors.comor http://www.outlandsports.com.


AUCTION HOUSES: EU Fines Sotheby's $20.1M, No Penalty For Christie's
--------------------------------------------------------------------
European Union (EU) antitrust regulators fined prominent auction house
Sotheby's GBP20.4 million (US$20.1 million) for conducting a seven year
price-fixing conspiracy, but let its London-based rival Christie's free
without penalties, FT.com reports.  The EU regulators earlier stated
that they found that that between 1993 and 2000, Christie's and
Sotheby's had conspired to raise the fees charged to sellers at
auctions and other trading fees.

The two auction houses faced a class action in the United States,
alleging that they rigged auction prices.  Sotheby's former chairman,
Alfred Taubman was also convicted of starting the conspiracy with
Christie's chairman Sir Anthony Tennant and is now serving a one-year
prison sentence.  The two auction houses also agreed jointly to pay
more than $512 million to former customers to settle the suit.

Mr Monti, Europe's competition commissioner commented on the decision,
telling FT.com that, "This case again shows that illegal cartels can
appear in any sector, from basic industries to high profile service
markets such as the one at hand."

The fine for Sotheby's was equal to 6 per cent of its annual turnover.  
Both companies had appealed to the commission for leniency and agreed
to cooperate with the probe.  Christie's escaped fines because it was
the first to provide crucial evidence, which enabled the Commission to
prove the existence of the cartel.

According to the Brussels authorities, the scheme had been agreed at
the highest level, with private meetings in London and New York between
Mr. Taubman and Mr. Tennant, FT.com reports.  The auction houses have a
right to respond and to appeal against any Commission decision to the
European Court of Justice.  Sotheby's has three months to pay the fine
and two months to appeal.


AUSTRALIA: Unions Mull Multimillion-dollar Suit V. Erring Employers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Several labor unions in Victoria, Australia are considering a
multimillion-dollar class action on behalf of thousands of workers paid
below federal awards for the past six years, following revelations in
the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that some employers
affiliated with the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI)
were avoiding paying award wages, afr.com reports.

In an unfair dismissal case, a company claimed that because it was a
VECCI subscriber, not a member, it did not have to abide by the terms
and conditions of federal awards, afr.com reports. Under the Workplace
Relations Act of 1996, all members of employer organizations are bound
by awards that bind the organization.

Commissioner Dominica Whelan yesterday ruled there was no difference
between VECCI subscribers and members, so all the organization's
affiliates should have been paying award rates.

Victorian Trades Trades Hall Council secretary Leigh Hubbard said the
decision meant thousands of workers employed by up to 3,100 VECCI
subscribers since 1991 could take legal action to recover unpaid wages.

"The only reason employers would take advantage of VECCI's subscriber
membership would be to avoid the terms and conditions of federal
awards," Mr. Hubbard told afr.com.  "These sham arrangements are akin
to the bottom-of-the-harbour tax avoidance schemes exposed in the early
1980s."

Mr. Hubbard said the decision may have implications for members of
other employer groups, such as the Australian Industry Group and the
Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce.

Employers not bound by a federal award hire staff under the conditions
of schedule 1A of the Workplace Relations Act, which makes no provision
for overtime, weekend penalty rates, carers' leave or redundancy pay,
afr.com reports.  Victoria's Liberal-dominated upper house has twice
rejected government moves to improve the conditions of such employees.

"Trades Hall are investigating the potential for class actions by
workers who have missed out on entitlements," Mr. Hubbard said.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Court Allows Suit Over Defective Eye Implants To Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Court allowed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by a
group of cataract patients against Bausch & Lomb Canada, over defective
eye implants to proceed as a class action, CBC Montreal reports.

The plaintiffs, 125 cataract patients from Quebec, alleged that the eye
implants made by the Company were defective and forced them to undergo
a second operation.  Lawyer Jean Fortier expects even more to come
forward.  "We figure that throughout the province of Quebec there would
be more than 500 people who received such a lens," Mr. Fortier told CBC
Montreal.

He added that the case goes back to 1999 and that many seniors with
cataracts had artificial lenses placed in their eyes to improve their
vision, but that those implants soon became cloudy.  "These lenses had
to be removed from the eyes of these people even though they were
supposed to be in place for the rest of their lives," he says.

The group is seeking damages of up to $30 million from Bausch & Lomb
Canada.


CIGNA CORPORATION: Negotiates With Doctors To Settle Suits In FL, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna HealthCare, the health insurance company, has entered
negotiations to settle class action brought by doctors in Miami federal
court and Illinois state court, according to a report by The Miami
Herald.

"Our hope is for a fair and reasonable settlement that would resolve
most, if not all, of the class-action complaints made by health
providers against Cigna HealthCare," corporate spokesman Wendell Potter
told the Herald.

Both the Illinois and Miami lawsuits involve accusations that the
insurance companies deliberately delayed or reduced doctors' requests
for payments.  The Miami lawsuit represents 600,000 doctors nationwide,
plus the medical associations in California, Texas, Connecticut and
several other states.  

The Connecticut association was opposed to the settlement.  An earlier
Class Action Reporter story stated that Timothy Norbeck, head of the
Connecticut State Medical Society, said, "We are unalterably opposed to
the settlement because it does not provide for meaningful change in the
present egregious system."  It appears that other major state
associations are of the same mind.

The proposed settlement agreement also requires physicians seeking
settlement funds to go through an onerous process of re-submitting
thousands of individual medical bills along with medical records going
back to 1996, the Class Action Reporter wrote earlier.  The Miami group
of plaintiffs' attorneys point out that such a process could discourage
thousands of physicians from participating in the settlement, thereby
resulting in Cigna repaying very little of the $200 million estimated
in the proposed settlement document.

The Illinois case was started in Madison County, a small downstate
county.  The current agreement was negotiated between Cigna and the
attorneys who won class certification in the Illinois state court in
2001.  As indicated, above, the objections to the agreement - its
failure to provide for change in the way the insurers treat the
doctors' bills, as well as providing an onerous system of resubmission
of bills and medical reports that will discourage thousands of
physicians from seeking payment from the $200 million settlement - come
from the Miami group who won class certification in a Miami federal
court.

Last week, lawyers in the Illinois state court case filed a petition
asking the judge to order Cigna to finalize its settlement discussions.  
Plaintiffs' lawyers argued, as the CAR reported, that Cigna had been so
far along in the process as to merit a requirement that the company
follow through.

While the Illinois plaintiffs' attorneys have expressed enthusiasm
about a quick settlement, the Miami group has made no such statement.  
Legal experts say it would be foolish for Cigna to settle one case
without settling the other.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Settling Consumer Fraud Lawsuit For US$14 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation agreed to pay US$14 million to settle a class action
filed against it by a number of clients, alleging that the Company
improperly charged them with an "environ/delivery" charge, the Kansas
City Business Journal reports.  

The suit alleges that the "environ/delivery" charge did not bear any
rational relationship to the costs incurred by the Company, and said
the practice was fraudulent and improper.  The Company had asserted
that the fees were incurred to comply with federal environmental
regulations.  The suit includes allegations of breach of contract and
theft by deception.

The Company admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, but said it chose
to settle to save time and money.  Under the settlement, cash and
coupons for 8% of all additional charges will be given to qualified
customers.  The $14 million settlement is in the process of being
administered.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs declined to comment.


ENRON CORPORATION: TX Jury Expected To Indict Former CFO Andrew Fastow
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Houston federal grand jury is likely to indict former Enron
Corporation executive Andrew Fastow on fraud and other criminal charges
relating to the fall of the energy giant, sources familiar with the
case told Reuters.

Mr. Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer, allegedly
masterminded secret partnerships at the Company.  He had previously
been charged in a criminal complaint with money laundering and
conspiring to divert millions of dollars for his own profit.  Mr.
Fastow is the highest ranking official to be charged in the US Justice
Department's continuing investigation of Enron's spectacular collapse
into bankruptcy late last year, Reuters reports.

The sources said the indictment would mirror the initial charges
brought against Mr. Fastow on October 2 that also included securities,
wire and mail fraud.  Reuters' sources initially expected the
indictment to come on Wednesday, but by the end of the day they said it
would be delayed until Thursday.  They were unable to explain why it
had to be delayed by one day.

After bringing the criminal complaint, prosecutors have 30 days to
obtain a grand jury indictment, the next step in the legal process.  
The 30-day deadline ends on Thursday, the sources said.


MAINE: AMHI Official Testifies To Inadequate Mental Care, Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An Augusta Mental Health Institute (AMHI) administrator testified that
several patients wait months to enter the institute, while as many as
one-third of the hospital's patients do not meet its standards to
remain hospitalized, according to testimony in Kennebec County Superior
Court, the KJ & Sentinel Online reports.

Trial is proceeding to determine whether the institute is following a
consent decree negotiated in 1994, in response to a class action filed
after alleging that the state wasn't providing adequate care for the
mentally ill.  

AMHI Superintendent Lisa C. Kavanaugh testified that she does not dare
use the entire 103 beds the 162-year-old state psychiatric hospital is
licensed to provide for patient care, the KJ & Sentinel Online reports.  
She further said the severity of mental illnesses being treated at her
hospital and the types of patients coming to AMHI cause her to limit
the use of some parts of the hospital.

"Although that's our licensed capacity, I would not be comfortable,
given the acuity of our patients and their gender, to put patients in
those rooms," Ms. Kavanaugh said in response to cross-examination by
Peter Darvin, an attorney representing nearly 4,000 past and present
AMHI patients.  They are part of the 1989 class action that resulted in
a consent decree that still is under fire.  The decree settled the
lawsuit while instituting an agreement between the state and those
patients to improve conditions at AMHI that were considered
substandard.

"Some of those beds are in dormitory rooms and not appropriate for our
patients," Ms. Kavanaugh said.  "Our patients are very different from
those 10 years ago. The number I'm comfortable with for a cutoff is 90,
given the age of that building."

Mr. Darvin also presented a recent report that stated 62 patients who
qualified for admission to AMHI in July were turned away because the
hospital said it could not handle them.  At the same time, other
statistics presented in court Tuesday showed 31 patients at the
hospital should have been transferred out long ago, the KJ & Sentinel
Online.

State mental-health officials initiated the trial after claiming on
Jan. 25 that they had improved hospital and community mental health
programs sufficiently to reach "substantial compliance" with the
extensive requirements laid out in the consent decree.  Lawyers for the
patients say the state has missed the mark in dozens of the
requirements.

Lawyers for the patients also presented AMHI documents that seemed to
suggest important aspects of patient care were either not being done or
not being recorded long after state officials told the court they had
met the terms of the decree.

The Superior Court judge presiding over this trial, Chief Justice Nancy
D. Mills, will determine whether the state is meeting its obligation.   


MASCO CORPORATION: Preliminary Settlement Reached In Behr Mildew Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corp. reached preliminary settlements to resolve all class
actions against it and its Behr Process Corp. unit, relating to claims
of "excessive mildew" after customers used the Company's wood-coating
products, the Dow Jones Business News reports.

Based on terms of the settlements, Masco expects the total pretax cost
will equal or be no less than its previous estimate of $200 million.  
The Company will record a related settlement charge in the third
quarter.

The Company's estimate excludes any offsetting amounts that the company
will recover from liability insurers or other third parties, which the
company anticipates will be significant.  Such recoveries will be
recorded as they are agreed to, or otherwise received.

In September, Masco's shares plummeted after the company said it lost
an appeal in a 1998 Washington state class action in which customers
who used four exterior wood coating products complained of excessive
mildew.  However, the Company could not estimate the number of class
members, clams or potential awards in the case.

The Company said recently that it continues to expect third-quarter
earnings to come in at the higher end of its previous guidance of 41
cents to 44 cents a share, excluding the settlement charge.  The
Company plans to release third-quarter earnings on November 12.

The Company also noted that the positive sales and economic trends
experienced in the first nine months of 2002, have continued into the
fourth quarter.


ST. PAUL: Accused of Artificially Inflating Stock in Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Paul Companies faces several securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities (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.

Pat Hirigoyen, a spokesman for The St. Paul told the Minneapolis/St.
Paul Business Journal that the Company views these suits "as without
merit."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Causation Can Be Viewed As Proof in Simon II Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Federal Judge Jack Weinstein ruled that causation in a multi-
million tobacco class action known as Simon II, may be established with
statistical proof, saying that smokers in a nationwide punitive class
action can be viewed as acting as private attorneys general,
mealeys.com reports.

The suit was commenced, seeking a joint trial of common questions of
law and fact relevant to determining defendants' liability for punitive
damages on all claims and theories of relief set forth in the
underlying cases pending before the court.  This case became known as
Simon II.  Eventually, Simon II was narrowed to include only the three
cigarette smoker class actions, mealeys.com reports.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Philip Morris USA,

     (2) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

     (3) Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,

     (4) The American Tobacco Co.,

     (5) BAT Industries,

     (6) Lorillard Tobacco Co. Inc. and

     (7) Liggett Group Inc.

In a Sept. 19 order, Judge Weinstein granted class certification.

In a 201-page opinion, Judge Weinstein said that because this case
involves "serious physical injury," a punitive damage ration in excess
of 6-to-1 or 10-to-1 may be justifiable, mealeys.com reports.


UNITED STATES: Navy Men Sue For Personal Injury Due To Cold War Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------------
21 former Navy service men and veterans advocacy group Vietnam Veterans
of America filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. They claim they were unknowingly exposed to
dangerous chemical and biological toxins during secret Cold War tests
the government covered up, the Kansas City Star reports.  

The suit names as defendants former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara,
who served under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, a
former undersecretary of the Army and several current officials of the
departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

The servicemen were participants in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and
Defense), a series of secret tests to determine how to defend against
chemical and biological warfare agents, including deadly nerve gases,
that occurred on military ships in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The suit alleges that the servicemen were not informed of the true
nature of the tests, "or offered the option of not participating."  The
suit said the government engaged in a cover-up that was "intentional,
willful, wanton and in bad faith," by denying the plaintiffs medical
information in the recent years.  Many of the servicemen have become
ill, and are seeking health benefits from the VA.

The servicemen have asked for a declaratory judgment that their
constitutional rights in seeking their medical records were violated.  
They asked that the court order the release of "all records and
documents" related to their involvement in the tests.  They also have
asked the court for damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,
the Kansas City Star reports.

"They were using us as guinea pigs without informed consent, then they
followed that by stonewalling, sandbagging and denials and lies," James
Druckemiller, a plaintiff from Topeka who served on a destroyer
involved in a test called "Copper Head," told the Star.

A companion suit was also filed last Tuesday on behalf of veterans who
were involved in the US atomic testing program during the 1940s and
'50s and their survivors.  The suit covers anyone who has been denied
compensation or who in the future will file disability claims based on
SHAD.

SHAD was part of a larger chemical and biological testing program
called Project 112, the Kansas City Star reports.  The military
recently released documents showing this program involved land-based
tests in such places as Alaska, Florida, Utah, Hawaii and Maryland.  
The military only recently has begun to acknowledge that not only did
the SHAD and Project 112 tests occur but that servicemen were exposed
to dangerous toxins and other substances.

"If Congress can hold people like Ken Lay accountable for his actions,
American citizens, particularly veterans, should be able to hold
government officials accountable for theirs," Douglas Rosinski, an
attorney for the servicemen, told the Star.  Mr. Lay is the former
chairman of Enron Corp.

Spokesmen for the VA and Defense Department declined to comment about
the lawsuit.  Mr. McNamara could not be reached for comment.  However,
in a brief interview with The Kansas City Star in August about the
secret tests, he said, "I have absolutely zero recollection of them."


VIRGINIA: Felons Commences Suit Over "Unconstitutional" Voting Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Virginia faces a discrimination class action filed by five
five felons, challenging a Virginia law banning convicted felons from
voting, the Associated Press reports.  The suit was filed in the United
States District Court in Virginia and also names as defendants the
United States government, Gov. Mark R. Warner and four other state
officials.

The suit alleges that the law is unconstitutional because it
disproportionately affects blacks and therefore discriminates in who is
allowed to vote.  The suit seeks:

     (1) restoration of voting rights to felons,

     (2) an amendment to voting procedures to alleviate past
         discriminatory effects of the law and

     (3) $100 million in damages from each defendant

Virginia is one of 14 states in which an individual loses voting rights
for life after a felony conviction unless the governor restores the
right.  Gov. Warner last month changed the restoration process for
people convicted of nonviolent felonies.  He reduced the amount of time
those individuals must wait before applying for restoration and cut the
paperwork required for their applications, AP reports.


                             Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS ALERT: ABB Wants to Sell Oil, Gas Business After Loss Widens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd., which this week abandoned a profit goal and said asbestos
claims are mounting, plans to sell units that account for a third of
annual sales after losses widened.

"ABB is a tragic story," said Peter Gachnang, who helps manage a fund
of small and mid-sized Swiss companies at Swissca Holding AG.  He
doesn't own ABB shares. "This is going to be an entirely different
company if it wants to survive."

ABB, which bought more than 200 companies over the past decade in a bid
to rival General Electric Co., will sell its oil, gas and
petrochemicals unit.  The Swiss company has already put its building-
service and financial divisions up for sale.  The Swiss company will
generate $18 billion in annual revenue, less than half the $50 billion
target ABB aimed for three years ago.

The third-quarter loss widened to $183 million from $13 million in the
previous three-month period because of falling sales and cost overruns,
Chief Executive Officer Juergen Dormann said on a conference call.  Mr.
Dormann plans to cut costs by $800 million over the next 18 months from
merging its main businesses into two units to help pay off debt, which
doubled last year.  "There are enough areas where we can still dig in
and where we see room for improvement," he said.  "A key element means
the reduction of people."

He declined to say how jobs would be cut and pledged to give more
details at a Nov. 8 meeting in Zurich.  As many as 40,000 workers may
lose their jobs, the Financial Times reported, without citing anyone.  
The 62-year-old former CEO of French drug company Aventis SA, who
replaced Joergen Centerman as CEO on Sept. 5, said ABB may pay a
similar amount for the cost savings, without giving a timeframe.

The company is already spending $500 million to shed 13,000 jobs,
bringing the number of workers to 146,000.  The shares jumped 30
centimes, or 18 percent, to 1.93 francs as of 2:42 p.m. Swiss time,
reducing the decline this year to 88 percent.

ABB, formed in a 1988 merger between Sweden's Asea AB and Brown Boveri
Co. of Switzerland, became a business model in the 1990s as former CEO
Percy Barnevik boosted sales to more than $33 billion with a workforce
of 214,000.  Mr. Barnevik attracted billionaire Martin Ebner, who
joined the board in 1999 and bought 11 percent of ABB, which at the
time was worth 57 billion francs.

Mr. Barnevik quit last November amid a rift over $140 million in
pension payments ABB said hadn't been properly approved.  Mr. Ebner
resigned this month as the value of his stake fell to less than 180
million francs.  ABB will combine its six divisions, including those
that make control devices for factories and cruise ships as well as
transformers for power stations, into two units, automation and power
technologies.

The oil, gas and petrochemicals unit, which the company wants to sell
in the next 12 months, is the company's second least profitable,
producing $33 million in quarterly earnings.  As recently as Sept. 11,
Mr. Dormann had said the company wouldn't sell entire divisions.

Debt, which rose to $5.5 billion from $5.2 billion in the will fall if
the company gets approval to sell part of a finance unit to General
Electric for $2.3 billion.

ABB has also put up for sale a building-maintenance unit, which has
annual sales of $2.5 billion, and an equity ventures business, which
Dormann said has a book value of $500 million to $600 million.

ABB paid out $54 million for asbestos-related claims against a U.S.
unit, compared with $55 million in the previous three-month period, as
pending lawsuits rose 8 percent to 111,000. The company had $3.9
billion in cash Sept. 30, down from $4.6 billion.

Mr. Dormann said earlier this week that ABB may place U.S.-based
Combustion Engineering Inc. into creditor protection after payouts for
claims exceeded its assets.  ABB has set aside $940 million to cover
lawsuits.

"The big question remains asbestos," said Dieter Buchholz, a fund
manager at BNP Paribas SA who helps manage 4 billion francs. He doesn't
own ABB shares.  "If the company can isolate Combustion Engineering, it
has a good chance for survival."



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victims' Lawyers Carry Costs in Suit V. Cape PLC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UK-based company Cape plc reneged on more than just the settlement
agreement it had with 7500 SA victims suffering from asbestos-related
disease, says London lawyer for the claimants Richard Meeran.  The
Company failed to pay more than GBP50,000, being the costs of a medical
review of the claimants, until forced to do after a judgment was
obtained against the company.  The GBP20,000 in expenses incurred in
setting up a trust fund in SA are still outstanding.

An internal faction has materialized within the company with the result
that former chairman Paul Sellars recently resigned, denying that Cape
plc had agreed to pay such expenses.  In an interview with Business
Day, Mr. Meeran said Mr. Sellars had denied that the board of Cape plc
had agreed to pay for the expenses to set up the trust fund in SA.

Mr. Meeran said the trustees had not charged any fees but that there
were other expenses involved.  These included the traveling costs of
the trustees, a system to set up banks, trust offices and to employ
staff at the offices.  Mr. Meeran, a partner of law firm Leigh Day &
Co, said that his firm had paid the expenses to date.

The new chairman of Cape plc, Peter Gyllenhannar, had since written a
letter to Mr. Meeran, stating that the board of the Company had in
"fact agreed to pay the expenses."  "It is clear that there is an
internal spat going on within Cape plc," he said.

Mr. Meeran said last year Cape plc had insisted on a medical review of
the claimants.  It was agreed that Cape plc would pay half of the
costs. Costs of GBP100000 were incurred in November last year.  "We
asked the company to pay but got no joy," he said.  Cape plc paid the
GBP50,000 on October 14 only after a judgment was obtained.

Cape plc had also failed to make payment of the first GBP11m to the
claimants in terms of a settlement agreement.  Payment was to have been
made by the end of June.  The company had agreed to pay GBP21 million
into a trust fund to be established in SA.

Earlier this month the high court in Britain granted an application to
make Gencor a co-defendant in proceedings against Cape plc.  Litigation
against Cape plc had been revived in light of the Company's failure to
honor the settlement agreement.  Some of the victims had worked for
Gencor, or at one of its separate operations, when the company
purchased Cape plc's former operations in 1981.

Mr. Meeran said Cape plc was due to have a board meeting on November 7.
At this meeting they would make another proposal for a settlement with
the victims.  It is expected that the company would propose to pay the
claimants GBP5 million by December and the balance of the GBP11 million
over 2003.  They would pay interest on the GBP11 million backdated to
June of this year.  Mr. Meeran said such a settlement would be
acceptable subject to the claimants receiving some "security from Cape
plc".


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Sets Jan 2003 as Bar Date in Kaiser Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum said today that the US Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware has approved the company's request to set Jan. 31,
2003 as the general bar date by which most persons or entities holding
claims against either Kaiser Aluminum or any of its reorganizing
companies must file proofs of claim in the companies' Chapter 11 cases.  
The bar date does not apply to asbestos-related personal injury claims,
for which the company reserves the right to later establish a separate
bar date.

Persons or entities required to file a proof of claim that fail to do
so by the general bar date will be barred from asserting a claim
against the companies that is different from that reflected on the
companies' respective schedules of assets and liabilities on file with
the Court.  Such persons or entities will not be permitted to vote on -
or receive distribution from - any plan or plans of reorganization.

"Setting the general bar date is an important step in the
reorganization process and reflects Kaiser's progress in moving toward
its goal of emerging from Chapter 11 as a strong and viable
enterprise," said Jack A. Hockema, president and chief executive
officer of Kaiser Aluminum.  

Kaiser Aluminum has designated as claims agent Logan & Company, of 546
Valley Road, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043.  The company expects to arrange
for the claims agent to send notice of the bar date on or before Nov.
22, 2002 to all known persons or entities that may have pre-petition
claims, including current and many former vendors.  

However, receipt of a claim notice does not necessarily mean that a
claim exists.  For example, the Bankruptcy Code also requires the
notice to be sent to employees, former employees, and retirees - even
though such persons may have no known claims against any of the Kaiser
companies that are in Chapter 11.  In particular, Kaiser retirees who
receive such a notice do not need to file a Proof of Claim merely to
continue receiving routine retiree benefits.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 888-829-3340 or
402-220-0856 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kaiseral.com


ASBESTOS ALERT: Union Carbide Liable for Asbestos Claims, Jury Finds
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical Co.'s Union Carbide unit is legally responsible in
thousands of asbestos-related deaths and illnesses, a state court jury
found.  The verdict means the largest US chemical maker must face
individual trials that may expose the company to millions of dollars in
punitive damages.

The case was brought on behalf of about 2,000 contract workers and
laborers who used Union Carbide building products and were exposed to
asbestos-laden insulation in the 1960s and 1970s.  They blamed asbestos
exposure for their illnesses, which included cancer and respiratory
diseases.

Union Carbide denied that its products were harmful and said the trial
produced no evidence that it violated federal workplace safety
standards.  Other defendants, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Honeywell
International Inc., were dropped from the case when claims against them
were dismissed and settled.


AQUA-CHEM INC.: To Defend Against 13,500 Asbestos Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua-Chem has been named as one of many defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos-containing
materials contained in certain boilers manufactured by the Company many
years ago.  To date, the Company has disposed of around 3,400 lawsuits
of this nature, which included at least 27,000 plaintiffs, including
the settlement during Fiscal 2001 of several lawsuits which included
over 1,000 plaintiffs each.

In the vast majority of the closed cases, neither the Company nor its
insurers have made payments to the plaintiffs. The Company has not
admitted liability or been found liable for the plaintiffs' injuries in
any case.

Currently, there are at least 13,500 lawsuits pending against Aqua-Chem
which include at least 48,500 plaintiffs.  This represents an increase
of more than 2,000 lawsuits.  While Aqua intends to continue to work to
dispose of these lawsuits, the number of cases filed and the number of
plaintiffs per case have continued to increase, and it expects that
additional lawsuits will be filed in the future.

Aqua believes that substantially all of the pending lawsuits are
without merit.  It will continue to vigorously defend itself in the
open cases, which, in some instances, may not be resolved for several
years.

Various factors preclude certainty in the determination of the
Company's total potential cost to resolve the open cases or cases that
may be filed against the Company in the future.  For example, pleadings
generally do not specify the amount of damages sought, and the Company
is typically only one of many defendants initially named.

Additionally, bankruptcy filings of other companies with asbestos-
related litigation could affect the Company's asbestos-related costs
over time.  These matters make it difficult to determine the Company's
proportionate share or amount of liability, if any, in these cases with
certainty.

However, based on its historical experience, the Company continues to
believe that its insurance coverage should be adequate to cover future
costs in these cases.  The Company is continuing to monitor this
situation and is undertaking appropriate actions to assess the
potential impact of future cases on the Company.

Although Aqua-Chem believes the costs associated with these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or
financial condition, there can be no assurance to this effect.


COMPANY PROFILE

Aqua-Chem Inc.
11950 West Lake Park Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53224
Phone: 414-359-0600

Description:  For over 70 years, Aqua-Chem, Inc. and its Divisions,
Cleaver-Brooks, Water Technologies, Lincoln Manufacturing, Gonzales
Manufacturing, Energy Recovery International, Industrial Combustion,
and Nebraska Boiler have provided energy and environmental solutions in
the form of water treatment, commercial heating comfort, and industrial
processes in partnership with customers in more than 100 countries
around the world.


ARVINMERITOR: Estimates Asbestos Related Liabilities at US$71 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor had accrued approximately $71 million for contingent
asbestos-related liabilities, and recorded assets of $60 million for
probable recoveries from third parties and insurance as of September
30, 2001.

Various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been or may be
instituted or asserted against ArvinMeritor or its subsidiaries elating
to the conduct of its business, including those pertaining to product
liability, intellectual property, environmental, safety and health, and
employment matters.

Included in these matters are claims for alleged asbestos-related
personal injuries, which arose from products manufactured prior to 1977
by a subsidiary acquired by Arvin in 1986.  During fiscal years 1996
through 2001, ArvinMeritor and its predecessors paid asbestos-related
claims of approximately $40 million, substantially all of which were
reimbursed by insurance.

Prior to February 1, 2001, the Center for Claims Resolution handled the
processing and settlement of asbestos claims on its behalf, and it
shared in the payment of defense costs and settlements of the asbestos
claims with other CCR members.  Several members of the CCR have filed
for bankruptcy protection, and these members have failed, or may fail,
to pay certain financial obligations with respect to settlements that
were reached while they were CCR members.

The Company expects to be subject to claims for payment of a portion of
the defaulted shares and an estimate of this payment has been included
in the recorded reserves.  Arvin and its insurers are engaged in
proceedings to determine whether existing insurance coverage should
reimburse any potential liability related to this issue.

The outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some
lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to
ArvinMeritor and for amounts in excess of the foregoing estimates.
However, based on management's evaluation of matters which are pending
or asserted, after consulting with Vernon G. Baker, II Esq.,
ArvinMeritor's General Counsel, the Company believes the disposition of
such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
statements.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of the company, and many other
companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming
personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953
through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin
acquired Maremont in 1986.  During fiscal years 1996 through 2001,
Maremont paid approximately $40 million to address asbestos-related
claims, substantially all of which were reimbursed by insurance.

The unbilled committed settlements reserve relates to committed
settlements that Maremont agreed to pay when Maremont participated in
the Center for Claims Resolution.   Maremont shared in the payments of
defense and indemnity costs of asbestos-related claims with other CCR
members.  

The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims on
behalf of its members until February 1, 2001, when it was reorganized
and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.  Since that time,
Maremont has hired its own litigation counsel and is committed to
examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim.  In addition,
Maremont now utilizes Peterson Asbestos Claims Enterprise for claims
processing and insurance invoicing.

Maremont had approximately 34,700 and 27,500 pending asbestos-related
claims at June 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001, respectively.  Although
Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual
injury has been alleged, very few claimants have established that a
Maremont product caused their injuries. For purposes of establishing
reserves for pending asbestos-related claims, Maremont estimates its
defense costs and indemnity based on the history and nature of filed
claims to date and Maremont's experience since February 1, 2001.

Several former members of the CCR have filed for bankruptcy protection,
and these members have failed, or may fail, to pay certain financial
obligations with respect to settlements that were reached while they
were CCR members. Maremont is subject to claims for payment of a
portion of these defaulted member shares.

In an effort to resolve the affected settlements, Maremont has entered
into negotiations with plaintiffs' attorneys, and an estimate of
Maremont's obligation for the shortfall is included in the total
asbestos-related reserves.  In addition, Maremont and its insurers are
engaged in legal proceedings to determine whether existing insurance
coverage should reimburse any potential liability related to this
issue.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of the
costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims.  The coverage
also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on those claims.  The
coverage is provided by several insurance carriers based on the
insurance agreements in place.

Based on its assessment of the history and nature of filed claims to
date, and of Maremont's insurance carriers, management believes that
existing insurance coverage is adequate to cover substantially all
costs relating to pending and future asbestos-related claims.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and recoveries
from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and estimates
derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates of liabilities
for asbestos-related claims are subject to considerable uncertainty
because such liabilities are influenced by variables that are difficult
to predict. If the assumptions with respect to the nature of pending
claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of available
insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of Maremont's
liability for asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company,
could differ materially from current estimates.

Maremont has not accrued reserves for unknown claims that may be
asserted against it in the future.  Maremont does not have sufficient
information to make a reasonable estimate of its potential liability
for asbestos-related claims that may be asserted against Maremont in
the future.

Various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been or may be
instituted or asserted against the company, relating to the conduct of
its business, including those pertaining to product liability,
intellectual property, safety and health, and employment matters.

Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty,
and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably
to the company, management believes the disposition of matters that are
pending will not have a material adverse effect on the company's
business, financial condition or results of operations.


COMPANY PROFILE

ArvinMeritor, Inc. (NYSE: ARM)
2135 W. Maple Rd.
Troy, MI 48084-7186    
Phone: 248-435-1000
Fax: 248-435-1393
http://www.arvinmeritor.com

Employees               : 33,000
Revenues                : $6,805,000,000.00
Net Income              : $35,000,000.00
Assets                  : $4,362,000,000.00
Liabilities             : $3,711,000,000.00  
Asbestos Assets         : $60,000,000.00
Asbestos Liabilities    : $71,000,000.00

As of September 30, 2001

Description:  Formerly Meritor Automotive, ArvinMeritor was formed when
Meritor acquired Arvin Industries. The company makes components for
commercial vehicles (axles, brakes, transmissions, and clutches) as
well as for light vehicles (door, roof, exhaust, and suspension
systems). ArvinMeritor also offers light vehicle aftermarket products
such as mufflers, filters (Purolator), and shock absorbers (Gabriel).
The company sells private-label aftermarket parts through retailers
such as Pep Boys. DaimlerChrysler (and its Freightliner heavy truck
subsidiary) accounts for about 15% of sales.


ASARCO INC.: Facing Various Asbestos Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
American Smelting and Refining Co. Inc. and two subsidiaries, as of
September 30, 1999, are defendants in 1,377 lawsuits brought by 5,950
primary and 1,036 secondary plaintiffs seeking substantial actual and
punitive damages for personal injury or death allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos.  

Three of these lawsuits are purported class actions, two of which are
allegedly brought on behalf of persons who are not known to have
asbestos-related injury.  The third is purportedly brought on behalf of
persons suing both tobacco-related and asbestos-related entities
claiming damages for personal injury or death arising from exposure to
asbestos and cigarette smoke.  

In addition, the Company and certain subsidiaries are defendants in
product liability lawsuits involving various other products, including
metals.


COMPANY PROFILE

ASARCO Inc.
2575 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 500
Phoenix, AZ 85016    
Phone: 602-977-6500
Fax: 602-977-6701
http://www.asarco.com

Revenues         : $777,400,000.00

As of December 31, 2001

Description:  ASARCO Inc., a subsidiary of diversified mining firm
Grupo M,xico, is a leading miner, refiner, and smelter. Each year it
produces around 850 million pounds of copper, 330 million pounds of
zinc, and 20 million ounces of silver. ASARCO's mines are primarily in
the Southwestern US. The company also produces semi-finished copper
products such as rod, cake, and billet. Several of ASARCO's assets,
including its 54% stake in Southern Peru Copper Corp. (SPCC), were
shifted to Grupo M,xico after the company's acquisition.


BAIRNCO:  Retains Asbestos Related Liabilities of Former Subsidiary
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bairnco and its subsidiaries are among the defendants in a lawsuit
pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
in which it is alleged that Bairnco and others are derivatively liable
for the asbestos-related claims against its former subsidiary, Keene
Corporation, now Reinhold Industries.

The plaintiffs in the Transactions Lawsuit are the trustees of Keene
Creditors Trust, a successor in interest to Keene.  In the Transactions
Lawsuit complaint, the KCT alleges that certain sales of assets by
Keene to other subsidiaries of Bairnco were fraudulent conveyances and
otherwise in violation of state law, as well as being in violation of
the civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1964.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages of $700 million, interest, punitive damages, and
trebling of the compensatory damages pursuant to civil RICO.

Keene was spun off in 1990, filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in 1993, and emerged from Chapter 11 pursuant to a plan
of reorganization approved in 1996.  The Keene Plan provided for the
creation of the KCT, and transferred the authority to prosecute the
Transactions Lawsuit from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
of Keene (which initiated the lawsuit in the Bankruptcy Court in 1995)
to the KCT.  

The Keene Plan further provided that only the KCT, and no other entity,
can sue Bairnco in connection with the claims in the Transactions
Lawsuit complaint.  Therefore, although a number of other asbestos-
related personal injury and property damage cases against Bairnco
nominally remain pending in courts around the country, it is expected
that the resolution of the Transactions Lawsuit in substance will
resolve all such claims.

Management believes that Bairnco has meritorious defenses to all claims
or liability purportedly derived from Keene and that it is not liable,
as an alter ego, successor, fraudulent transferee or otherwise, for the
asbestos-related claims against Keene or with respect to Keene
products.


COMPANY PROFILE

Bairnco Corporation (NYSE: BZ)
300 Primera Blvd., Ste. 432
Lake Mary, FL 32746    
Phone: 407-875-2222
Fax: 407-875-3398
http://www.bairnco.com

Employees          : 555
Revenues           : $160,400,000.00
Net Income         : $(300,000.00)
Assets             : $118,300,000.00
Liabilities        : $68,300,000.00

As of December 31, 2001

Description:  Bairnco Corp. makes engineered materials and components
through subsidiary Arlon (nearly 80% of sales) and replacement blade
products through KASCO.  Arlon produces materials for printed circuit
boards, substrates for commercial and military electronics, and
materials for microwave applications. The subsidiary also makes cast
and calendered vinyl films, custom-engineered laminates, and silicon
rubber insulation products. KASCO makes replacement band saw blades
(for cutting meat, poultry, fish, metal, and wood). Bairnco has
operations throughout North America and in Europe. US customers account
for more than 85% of sales.


BALTIMORE GAST: Continues to Face Several Asbestos Related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1993, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) has been involved in
several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the
theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard.  The actions relate to two types of
claims.

The first type is direct claims by individuals exposed to asbestos. BGE
is involved in these claims with approximately 70 other defendants.  
Approximately 545 individuals that were never employees of BGE each
claim $6 million in damages ($2 million compensatory and $4 million
punitive).  These claims were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland in the summer of 1993.  

BGE does not know the specific facts necessary to estimate its
potential liability for these claims.  The specific facts BGE does not
know include:

     (1) the identity of BGE's facilities at which the plaintiffs
         allegedly worked as contractors,

     (2) the names of the plaintiff's employers, and

     (3) the date on which the exposure allegedly occurred.

To date, 36 of these cases were settled for amounts that were not
significant.

The second type is claims by one manufacturer-Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
(PCC)-against BGE and approximately eight others, as third-party
defendants.  On April 17, 2000, PCC declared bankruptcy, and BGE does
not expect PCC to prosecute these claims.

These claims relate to approximately 1,500 individual plaintiffs and
were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in the
fall of 1993.  To date, about 375 cases have been resolved, all without
any payment by BGE.  BGE does not know the specific facts necessary to
estimate its potential liability for these claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
39 West Lexington Street
Baltimore Md 21201
Phone: 4107833624
http://www.bge.com


BETHLEHEM STEEL: Finds Protection in Bankruptcy from Asbestos Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethlehem Steel Corporation has been and is a party to numerous legal
proceedings incurred in the ordinary course of its business.  These
proceedings include a large number of cases in which plaintiffs allege
injury due to exposure to asbestos, allegedly resulting from past
operations of Bethlehem and others.  

All of the asbestos cases resolved to date have either been dismissed
as to Bethlehem or settled for immaterial amounts.  Bethlehem cannot
predict with certainty the outcome of any legal proceedings to which it
is a party.  

In Bethlehem's opinion, however, adequate reserves have been recorded
for losses that are likely to result from all legal proceedings.  To
the extent that such reserves prove to be inadequate, Bethlehem would
incur a charge to earnings which could be material to its future
results of operations in particular quarterly or annual periods.  The
outcome of these proceedings, however, is not currently expected to
have a material adverse effect on Bethlehem's consolidated financial
position.

On October 15, 2001, Bethlehem and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of title 11,
United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (Case Nos.  01-15288 (BRL) through 01-
15302 (BRL) and 01-15308 (BRL) through 01-15315 (BRL)).  

Bethlehem and its subsidiaries remain in possession of their assets and
properties, and continue to operate their businesses and manage their
properties as debtors-in-possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and
1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the ordinary course of its business, Bethlehem is involved in
various pending or threatened legal proceedings.  These proceedings
include a large number of cases in which plaintiffs allege injury due
to exposure to asbestos, allegedly resulting from past operations of
Bethlehem and others.  All of the asbestos cases resolved to date have
either been dismissed or settled for immaterial amounts.

The company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any legal
proceedings to which Bethlehem is a party.  In their opinion, however:

     (1) adequate reserves have been recorded for losses that are
         probable to result from all legal proceedings relating to
         events occurring prior to September 30, 2002, and

     (2) the amount of additional losses beyond the reserves recorded
         that are reasonably possible is not material to the financial
         statements.  

The prosecution of any claims and any payments related to litigation
existing on October 15, 2001, the date of filing for protection under
chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, are automatically stayed pending
resolution of all unsecured claims as part of a chapter 11 plan.  The
Company does not have any material developments in legal proceedings to
report for the third quarter of 2002.


COMPANY PROFILE

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (OTC: BHMS)
1170 8th Ave.
Bethlehem, PA 18016-7699    
Phone: 610-694-2424
Fax: 610-694-6920
http://www.bethsteel.com

Employees         : 13,100
Revenues          : $3,334,300,000.00
Net Income        : $(1,949,600,000.00)
Assets            : $4,244,000,000.00
Liabilities       : $5,924,500,000.00

As of December 31, 2001

Description: Bethlehem Steel (the #3 US steel producer behind United
States Steel and Nucor) is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Its
three divisions -- Burns Harbor, Sparrows Point, and Pennsylvania Steel
Technologies -- produce sheet steel (hot-rolled, cold-rolled, coated,
and automotive), plate steel, and specialty steels such as tool steel.
Bethlehem's customers include the appliance, automotive, construction,
and machinery markets. Its Pennsylvania Steel Technologies division
makes railroad rails, flat bars, and pipe. Bethlehem Steel owns eight
short-line railroads, and it has a stake in an iron mine in Minnesota.


Bankruptcy Basics:

Chapter 11 Petition Date          : Oct. 15, 2001
Case Number                       : 01-15288  
Court                             : United States Bankruptcy Court    
                                    Southern District of New York
Judge                             : The Honorable Burton R. Lifland
Counsel                           : Harvey R. Miller, Esq.
                                    Jeffrey L. Tanenbaum, Esq.
                                    George A. Davis, Esq.
                                    WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP


CBS CORPORATION: Continues to Face Numerous Asbestos Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp is a defendant in numerous lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, which allegedly occurred from use or
inclusion of asbestos in certain of its products supplied by its
industrial businesses, generally in the pre-1970 time period.  
Typically, these lawsuits are brought against multiple defendants.

It is neither a manufacturer nor a producer of asbestos and is
oftentimes dismissed from these lawsuits on the basis that it has no
relationship to the products in question or the claimant was not
exposed to its products.

At December 31, 1999, CBS had approximately 121,000 unresolved claims
pending.  In court actions that have been resolved, CBS has prevailed
in many of the asbestos claims and has resolved others through
settlement.

Furthermore, it has brought suit against certain of its insurance
carriers with respect to these asbestos claims.  Under the terms of a
settlement agreement resulting from this suit, carriers that have
agreed to the settlement are now reimbursing it for a substantial
portion of its current costs and settlements associated with asbestos
claims.

A number of the asbestos-related cases pending against it, including
those in Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, are
consolidated or purported class action cases.  In consolidated cases,
the claims of a group of plaintiffs are tried together, and often times
limited findings with respect to common issues of fact and punitive
damages are decided with respect to a representative grouping of
plaintiffs and then applied to other individuals in the group.

However, for it to be liable for damages to any particular claimant,
that individual claimant must prove that he or she developed an
asbestos-related disease, that he or she was exposed to a product
manufactured or supplied by CBS, and that this exposure was a
substantial factor in the development of the disease.

Litigation is inherently uncertain and always difficult to predict.  
Substantial damages are sought in certain of the foregoing matters and
although the Company believes a significant adverse judgment is
unlikely, any such judgment could have a material adverse effect on the
results of operations for a quarter or a year

However, based on its understanding and evaluation of the relevant
facts and circumstances, CBS believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the litigation and that it has adequately provided for resolution of
these matters.  It believes that the litigation should not have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition of CBS.


COMPANY PROFILE

CBS Corporation
51 West 52nd Street
New York
NY 10019
Phone: 2129754321

Description:  CBS Corporation is one of the largest radio and
television broadcasters in the United States and operates the largest
outdoor advertising business in North America. We operate our
businesses primarily in the United States through our Infinity,
Television, Cable and Internet Group business segments. The Infinity
segment consists of radio stations and outdoor advertising businesses.
The Television segment consists of 16 owned and operated television
stations which are integrated with our television network and
television syndication operations. Our television and radio stations
are operated under licenses from the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The Cable segment consists of cable networks, including The
Nashville Network (TNN), Country Music Television (CMT) and two
regional sports networks. The Internet Group segment, formerly referred
to as the New Media segment, consists of our interests in Internet
based companies, certain of which are consolidated and others accounted
for under the cost or equity method of accounting.


DRESSER INC.: Breaks Away from Parent Co., Asbestos Related Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2001, Dresser Inc. completed its re-capitalization
transaction.  Halliburton originally acquired the businesses as part of
its acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. in 1998.

As Halliburton has publicly disclosed, it has been subject to numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos claims associated with, among other things,
the operating units of Dresser Industries that were retained by
Halliburton or disposed of by Dresser Industries or Halliburton prior
to the recapitalization transaction.  These lawsuits have resulted in
significant expense for Halliburton.

Dresser has not historically incurred, and in the future it does not
believe that it will incur, any material liability as a result of the
past use of asbestos in products manufactured by these other units of
Dresser Industries, or as a result of the past use of asbestos in
products manufactured by its businesses or any predecessor entities of
its businesses.

Pursuant to the re-capitalization agreement, all liabilities related to
asbestos claims arising out of events occurring prior to the
consummation of the transaction, are defined to be "excluded
liabilities," whether they resulted from activities of Halliburton,
Dresser Industries or any predecessor entities of any of its
businesses.

The re-capitalization agreement further provides, subject to certain
limitations and exceptions, that Halliburton will indemnify Dresser and
hold it harmless against losses and liabilities that it actually incurs
which arise out of or result from "excluded liabilities," as well as
certain other liabilities in existence as of the closing of the
transaction.

The maximum aggregate amount of losses indemnifiable by Halliburton
pursuant to the re-capitalization agreement is $950.0 million. All
indemnification claims are subject to notice and procedural
requirements, which may result in Halliburton denying indemnification
claims for some losses.


COMPANY PROFILE

Dresser Inc.
15455 Dallas Pkwy., Ste. 1100
Addison, TX 75001   
Phone: 972-361-9800
Fax: 972-361-9929
http://www.dresser.com

Employees         : 8, 500
Revenues          : $1,545,800,000.00
Net Income        : $56,800,000.00
Assets            : $1,589,700,000.00
Liabilities       : $1,633,300,000.00           

As of December 31, 2001

Description:  Dresser Inc., formerly Dresser Industries (and formerly a
part of Halliburton), makes flow control products (40% of sales),
measurement systems, and power systems. Dresser's flow control segment
makes injection pumps, diagnostic equipment, and valves. Its
measurement systems division consists of Dresser Wayne (gas pumps and
outdoor payment systems used by gas stations) and Dresser Measurement
(pressure and temperature gauges, natural gas meters, and regulators).
Dresser's power systems include natural gas-powered engines, rotary
blowers, and vacuum pumps bearing the Waukesha and ROOTS brands. DEG
Acquisitions, a US-based investment firm, owns more than 90% of
Dresser.


EAGLE-PICHER: Expounds on Asbestos Settlements Trusts, Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 1991, EPI and seven of its domestic subsidiaries each
filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, in Cincinnati, Ohio.  All
of the chapter 11 cases were consolidated for procedural purposes only
under the caption: "In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., et al.,"
Consolidated Case No. 1-91-00100, before the Honorable Burton Perlman,
United States Bankruptcy Judge.

In August 1996, EPI, together with the Injury Claimants' Committee and
the Representative for Future Claimants who was appointed by the
Bankruptcy Court, proposed a plan of reorganization to the Bankruptcy
Court.  The Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio jointly issued the Order confirming the
Plan on November 18, 1996, and the Plan was consummated on November 29,
1996.

The major component of the Plan was a settlement of EPI's liability for
present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims arising out
of business operations prior to the petition date under which it was
agreed that these claims had a total value of $2 billion.

Pursuant to the Plan:

     (1) the Eagle-Picher Personal Injury Settlement Trust was
         established and EPI contributed assets to the PI Trust valued
         at approximately $730 million in the aggregate (representing
         the approximately 37% distribution upon the $2 billion allowed
         claim of the asbestos claimants, as unsecured creditors),
         consisting of $51.3 million in cash, $250 million in the 10%
         Debentures, $69.1 million in Tax Refund Notes, $18.1 million
         in Divestiture Notes and 10,000,000 shares of Common Stock
         (representing all outstanding shares of Common Stock), and

     (2) the PD Trust was established in 1999 and was funded by EPI
         with $3 million in cash plus interest that had accrued since
         EPI had funded this obligation and set aside the $3 million
         pending establishment of the PD Trust.

Pursuant to the Plan, the asbestos-related claims are discharged and
EPI has no further liability in connection with such claims.

Pursuant to the Plan, EPI is discharged of the burden of defending more
than 150,000 asbestos-related claims, as well as any lead-related
claims, that had been, as well as any such claims that may in the
future be, filed against EPI.  This relief has been accomplished
through the establishment of the independent trusts under the Plan to
assume, administer, settle and pay such claims.

In addition, the Order includes an injunction, which prohibits
claimants with asbestos-related or lead-related claims from bringing
actions against EPI, and instead requires these claimants to assert
such claims only against the PI Trust or, as to asbestos-related
property damage claims, against the PD Trust, each of which was funded
by EPI pursuant to the Plan.

Under the Plan the PI Trust assumed all liability and responsibility
for asbestos-related and lead-related personal injury claims against
EPI, and the PD Trust will assume all liability and responsibility for
asbestos-related property damage claims.  EPI believes that the Plan,
the Injunction and the Bankruptcy Code together will enjoin any claims
against EPI with respect to any past, present, or future asbestos-
related or lead-related liabilities arising from or based upon business
operations prior to the Petition Date.

Following confirmation of the Plan, notices of appeal of the Order were
filed by one general unsecured creditor and the Unofficial Committee of
Co-Defendants, a group of former manufacturers and distributors of
asbestos-containing products that have been named as co-defendants with
one or more members of EPI in asbestos personal injury lawsuits and
have asserted claims against EPI for contribution, indemnity and
subrogation.

The allowance of contribution claims against EPI is subject to Section
502(e) of the Bankruptcy Code which states that a claim for
contribution asserted by an entity that is liable with a chapter 11
debtor shall be disallowed to the extent such contribution claim is
contingent as of the time of allowance or disallowance of such claim.
Neither the Creditor Appellant nor the Co-Defendants requested that the
Order be stayed pending appeal. The Creditor Appellant withdrew its
notice of appeal by a stipulation dated January 24, 1997.

The Co-Defendants appealed the Order directly to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, raising a variety of
objections to the Plan and to the Trust's procedures for processing,
allowing and paying the Co-Defendants' claims.  The Co-Defendants also
asserted, among other things, that Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code, which authorizes courts to issue injunctions to channel asbestos
claims away from a reorganized Subsidiary to a personal injury trust
established by such Subsidiary is unconstitutional.

The Sixth Circuit in a decision and order issued December 21, 1998,
affirmed the Confirmation Order and dismissed the subject appeal as
moot.  As a result, the Confirmation Order became final and non-
appealable as of March 23, 1999.

The Bankruptcy Court and the Ohio District Court entered the Injunction
pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 524(g) of
the Bankruptcy Code was enacted by Congress in 1994 to provide a
statutory safe-harbor for asbestos manufacturing companies faced with
numerous asbestos-related personal injury claims.

Section 524(g) grants bankruptcy courts express statutory authority to
issue injunctions that prohibit present and future asbestos claimants
from suing a reorganized debtor; provided that a trust is established
and funded to pay asbestos-related claims through procedures that
reasonably assure that claimants with similar injuries will receive
similar payments and other specific statutory requirements are
satisfied.

Under Section 524(g), if the injunction is issued or affirmed by a
district court with jurisdiction over the reorganization, the
injunction will be permanent and not subject to modification by any
court once the injunction becomes final and non-appealable.

In confirming the Plan and issuing the Injunction, the Bankruptcy Court
and the Ohio District Court determined that the PI Trust and the PD
Trust each satisfied the requirements of Section 524(g) and that they
had jurisdiction to issue the Injunction under both Section 524(g) of
the Bankruptcy Code and their more general powers under the Bankruptcy
Code to issue orders that are necessary or appropriate in bankruptcy
cases.

While Section 524(g) specifically addresses trusts created to resolve
asbestos-related litigation and injunctions issued in connection
therewith, it does not specifically address whether an injunction
directing claims to a trust that will pay both asbestos-related and
non-asbestos-related claims, as in this case, is protected under
Section 524(g).

While there is a risk that the Injunction would not apply to future
lead-related claimants because lead-related claims are not addressed in
Section 524(g), EPI believes that the Injunction would be upheld and
enforced against lead-related claimants if challenged. That belief is
based on the fact that the Bankruptcy Court and the Ohio District
Court, in confirming the Plan and entering the Injunction, specifically
ruled that Section 524(g) does not prohibit channeling of non-asbestos
related claims along with asbestos-related claims.

In the event that Section 524(g) does not operate to protect the
Injunction's channeling of lead-related claims, such channeling could
be upheld as a necessary or appropriate order under Section 105(a) of
the Bankruptcy Code.  Although the filing of future lead-related
lawsuits cannot be predicted, EPI believes that this risk is limited
because to date, only approximately 125 lead-related claims have been
asserted against EPI (as compared to the tens of thousands of asbestos-
related claims asserted against EPI).

On and shortly after the Consummation Date, EPI made distributions
under the Plan totaling around $800 million in cash, common stock and
debt securities (including the approximately $730 million contributed
to the PI Trust, $3.0 million set aside for the PD Trust and the
remainder in connection with various other allowed claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
250 E. 5th St., Ste. 500, P.O. 779
Cincinnati, OH 45201
Phone: 513-721-7010
Fax: 513-721-2341
http://www.epcorp.com

Employees          : 4,100
Net Income         : $(67,300,000.00)

As of November 30, 2001

Description:  Eagle-Picher Industries (EPI) provides products for the
automotive, aerospace, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and food and
beverage industries. EPI's automotive group leads in sales (58%) with
products that include precision-machined components, rubber-coated
parts, and fluid systems. The company's Technologies Segment makes
batteries for satellites, launch vehicles, and missiles, as well as
boron for nuclear applications. Eagle-Picher has sold its Machinery
Segment that made elevating wheel tractor scrapers (exclusively for
Caterpillar). Its Materials Segment produces diatomaceous earth and
perlite filter aids. Dutch investment firm Granaria Holdings owns EPI.


G-I HOLDINGS:  Examines Source of Asbestos Woes and Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to its
asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of
asbestos fiber.  Neither the Company nor the assets or operations of
the Company, which was operated as a division of a corporate
predecessor of G-I Holdings prior to July 1986, have been involved in
the manufacture or sale of asbestos products.

The Company believes that it should have no legal responsibility for
damages in connection with Asbestos Claims.

ISP, the parent company of G-I Holdings, has been advised by its
Chairman of the Board, Samuel J. Heyman, that in 2000, three actions
were commenced by creditors or potential creditors of G-I Holdings, two
of which were filed against Mr. Heyman and the third against Mr. Heyman
and certain other stockholders of G-I Holdings.  Two of the actions
commenced in 2000 were effectively stayed and the third was dismissed
as a result of the G-I Holdings Chapter 11 filing.

In September 2001, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of G-I
Holdings filed a substantially similar action against Mr. Heyman. The
actions allege, among other things, that the distribution by G-I
Holdings of the capital stock of ISP to Mr. Heyman and certain G-I
Holdings stockholders in January 1997 was without fair consideration
and a fraudulent conveyance.

These actions seek, among other things, to set aside such distribution
and to require Mr. Heyman and such other stockholders to return to G-I
Holdings the capital stock ISP held by them as well as an unspecified
amount of damages.

The defendants in such actions have advised ISP that they believe these
actions are without merit and that the defendants intend to vigorously
oppose them.  However, if such actions were successful, the plaintiffs
could seek to undo such distribution, which could result in a change of
control of ISP.

G-I Holdings Inc started life as the American I.G. Corporation,
incorporated in Delaware in 1929.  Ten years later the name was changed
General Aniline and Film Corporation.  The United States Government
seized the company during the Second World War under emergency
regulations.  The government did not relinquish control until 1965,
when the shares were sold to the public.  In 1968 the name was changed
to GAF Corporation. But the story actually begins much earlier, for
this reason: in 1967 GAF purchased the Ruberoid Company.

The Ruberoid Company began life as the Standard Paint Company,
incorporated in New York in 1886.  The name was changed the Ruberoid
Company in 1921, and in 1928 it acquired and took over the business of
the H.F. Watson Company, which had been in the business of
manufacturing asbestos containing thermal insulation.  The story really
begins here. Later on, Ruberoid acquired a working asbestos mine in
Vermont.  

G-I manufactured a number of asbestos containing construction products.   
Early on in the asbestos litigation, when most of the claims involved
shipyard workers or industrial insulation workers, the most prominent
products were Calsilite pipecovering and block insulation, and various
insulating cements.

The Calsilite brand name has its origins in the composition of the
material, which, like the Kaylo product line manufactured by Owen-
Illinois and Owens-Corning, was made of calcium silicate. Cal-sil was a
common field abbreviation for calcium silicate, hence the name.

The variations of that product included Calsilite-Hi for temperatures
up to 1800 degrees F (regular Calsilite is rated to 1250 degrees F) and
Calsilite-SS for application to stainless steel pipe.  The Calsilite
product line was discontinued in 1972.

The other products are too numerous to get into here, save one: raw
asbestos fiber from the mine in Vermont.  These bags bore the Vermont
label for many years, and G-I was a prominent supplier of raw asbestos
fiber to product manufacturers until 1975.  The mine was no longer
profitable for G-I, and the plan was to close the mine.

The miners, who did not want to wind up out on the street, put together
a cooperative that purchased the mine from G-I. This entity took the
name "Vermont Asbestos Group" or VAG. VAG supplied raw asbestos fiber
to companies like Raymark industries well into the 1980's.

At the end of 1986 G-I joined together with most of the other prominent
asbestos defendants and their insurance companies to form the Asbestos
Claims facility, or ACF, also known as the Wellington Group.  The idea
was to pool transaction and defense costs and to streamline procedures
for resolving and trying claims. Because of differing philosophies, the
ACF began to break up at the end of 1987, as major defendants such
Eagle-Picher and Owens-Corning began to jump ship and go back out on
their own.

A number of companies, including GAF, elected to stay in a reduced form
of the ACF, now called the Center for Claims Resolution, or CCR. The
CCR defendants pool resources, share attorneys, and settle cases as a
single entity.  The CCR was behind the now infamous Georgine mandatory
class action suit that would have denied those injured by CCR products,
including victims of mesothelioma, access to the courts. The United
States Supreme Court threw it out last year.


COMPANY PROFILE

G-I Holdings, Inc.
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470    
Phone: 973-628-3000
Fax: 973-628-3326
Toll Free: 800-766-3411

Description:  G-I Holdings is a subsidiary of ISP International Corp.
Working to keep a roof over your head? G-I Holdings (formerly GAF
Corporation) is one of the US's oldest sources for commercial and
residential roofing materials, with more than 25 plants in the US.
Through its Building Materials Corporation of America subsidiary, it
makes flashing, vents, and complete roofing systems. Other products
include residential shingles (Timberline and Sovereign brands) and GAF
CompositeRoof for commercial asphalt roofing. Customers include
contractors, distributors, and retail outlets such as The Home Depot.
G-I Holdings has filed for bankruptcy protection due to asbestos
liability claims. Chairman Samuel Heyman owns 99% of the company and
81% of affiliate International Specialty Products Inc.


OWENS-ILLINOIS INC.:  Battles 25,000 Asbestos Claimants From Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Inc. has determined that it is a named defendant in
asbestos lawsuits and claims involving around 25,000 plaintiffs and
claimants as of June 30, 2002.  The total amount of relief sought by
plaintiffs and claimants cannot be determined because the amount is
often not required to be stated in an initial claim or lawsuit and
because settlements are often reached before claims and lawsuits
advance to the point where such amounts would be required.

OI Inc. is one of a number of defendants (typically from 20 to 100 or
more) in a substantial number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and
federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a
result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers.  OI Inc. relies
primarily on distributions from its subsidiaries, including the
Company, to fund its indemnity payments and legal fees related to these
lawsuits.

From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units commercially
produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature,
calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing
asbestos.  OI Inc. exited the pipe and block insulation business in
April 1958.  

The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims relating
to such production and sale of asbestos material typically allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence
and strict liability and seek compensatory and punitive damages in
various amounts.

As of June 30, 2002, OI Inc. has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving around 25,000
plaintiffs and claimants.  The total amount of relief sought by
plaintiffs and claimants cannot be determined because the amount is
often not required to be stated in an initial claim or lawsuit and
because settlements are often reached before claims and lawsuits
advance to the point where such amounts would be required.

Additionally, OI Inc. has claims-handling agreements in place with many
plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country.  These agreements require
evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants
qualify under the criteria established by such agreements.  

The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable
illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product
manufactured by OI Inc.'s former business unit during its manufacturing
period ending in 1958.  Some plaintiffs' counsel have historically
withheld claims under these agreements for later presentation while
focusing their attention on active litigation in the tort system.

OI Inc. believes that as of June 30, 2002 there are no more than 20,000
of such preexisting but presently unasserted claims against OI Inc.
that are not included in the total of pending claims.  OI Inc. further
believes that the bankruptcies of additional co-defendants, have
resulted in an acceleration of the presentation and disposition of a
number these previously withheld preexisting claims under such
agreements, which claims would otherwise have been presented and
disposed of over the next several years.

This acceleration is reflected in an increased number of pending
asbestos claims and, to the extent disposed, contributes to an increase
in asbestos-related payments which is expected to continue in the near
term.

OI Inc. is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or
claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-
defendants and property damage claimants.  Based upon its past
experience, OI Inc. believes that these categories of lawsuits and
claims will not involve any material liability and they are not
included in the above description of pending matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, OI Inc., as of June 30, 2002,
has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 276,000 plaintiffs
and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of
approximately $5,400.  OI Inc.'s indemnity payments for these claims
have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary
considerably over time.

A part of OI Inc.'s objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.  Under such
agreements, qualification by meeting certain illness and exposure
criteria has tended to reduce the number of claims presented to OI Inc.
that would ultimately be dismissed or rejected due to the absence of
impairment or product exposure evidence.

OI Inc. expects that as a result, although aggregate spending may be
lower, there may be an increase in the per claim average indemnity
payment involved in such resolution.  In this regard, although the
average of such payments has been somewhat higher following the
implementation of the claims-handling agreements in the mid-1990s, the
annual average amount has not varied materially from year to year.

OI Inc. believes that its ultimate asbestos-related contingent
liability (i.e., its indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus
related legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.  In 1993, OI
Inc. established a liability of $975 million to cover indemnity
payments and legal fees associated with the resolution of outstanding
and expected future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

In 1998, an additional liability of $250 million was established.  
During the third quarter of 2000, OI Inc. established an additional
liability of $550 million to cover OI Inc.'s estimated indemnity
payments and legal fees arising from outstanding asbestos personal
injury lawsuits and claims and asbestos personal injury lawsuits and
claims expected to be filed in the ensuing several years.

OI Inc.'s ability to reasonably estimate its liability has been
significantly affected by the volatility of asbestos-related litigation
in the United States, the expanding list of non-traditional defendants
that have been sued in this litigation and found liable for substantial
damage awards, the continued use of litigation screenings to generate
new lawsuits, the large number of claims asserted or filed by parties
who claim prior exposure to asbestos materials but have no present
physical impairment as a result of such exposure, and the growing
number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy.

Since the beginning of 2000, A. P. Green Industries, Inc., Armstrong
World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, Federal-Mogul Corporation,
Fibreboard Corporation, G-I Holdings (GAF), Harbison-Walker
Refractories Group, Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, North American
Refractories Co., Owens Corning, Pittsburgh-Corning, Plibrico Company,
Porter Hayden Company, USG Corporation, W. R. Grace & Co. and several
other smaller companies have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code.

OI Inc. has continued to monitor trends which may affect its ultimate
liability and has continued to analyze the developments and variables
affecting or likely to affect the resolution of pending and future
asbestos claims against OI Inc.  

OI Inc. expects that the gross amount of total asbestos-related
payments will be moderately lower in 2002 compared to 2001 and will
continue to decline thereafter as the preexisting but presently
unasserted claims withheld under the claims handling agreements are
presented to OI Inc., and as the number of potential future claimants
continues to decrease.

However, the trend toward lower aggregate annual payments has not
occurred as soon as had been anticipated when the additional liability
was established in 2000.  In addition, the number of claims and
lawsuits filed against OI Inc. has exceeded the number anticipated at
that time. In early March 2002, OI Inc. initiated a comprehensive
review to determine whether further adjustment of asbestos-related
liabilities was appropriate.

At the conclusion of this review in April, OI Inc. determined that an
additional charge of $475 million would be appropriate to adjust the
reserve for estimated future asbestos-related costs.  The material
components of OI Inc.'s accrual, including this additional accrued
amount, are the following:

     (1) OI Inc.'s estimate at that date of the reasonably probable
         contingent liability for asbestos claims already asserted
         against OI Inc.;

     (2) OI Inc.'s estimate at that date of the contingent liability
         for preexisting but unasserted asbestos claims for prior
         periods arising under its administrative claims-handling
         agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel;

     (3) OI Inc.'s estimate at that time of the contingent liability
         for asbestos claims not yet asserted against OI Inc., but
         which OI Inc. believes it is reasonably probable will be
         asserted in the future, to the degree that such an estimation
         as to future claims is possible; and

     (4) OI Inc.'s estimate of legal defense costs likely to be
         incurred in connection with the foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of OI
Inc.'s accrual are:

     (i) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who
         were exposed to OI Inc.'s asbestos-containing insulation prior
         to its exit from that business in 1958;

    (ii) the extent to which claims are resolved under OI Inc.'s
         administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to
         those set forth in those agreements;

   (iii) the extent of reduction in the inventory of pending serious
         disease cases;

    (iv) the extent to which OI Inc. is able to successfully defend
         itself at trial;

     (v) the extent of actions by courts to eliminate or reduce the
         diversion of financial resources for unimpaired claimants and
         so-called forum shopping;

    (vi) the extent to which additional defendants with substantial
         resources and assets are required to participate significantly
         in the resolution of future asbestos cases and claims;

   (vii) the number and timing of co-defendant bankruptcies; and

  (viii) the extent to which the resolution of co-defendant
         bankruptcies divert resources to unimpaired claimants.

OI Inc. believes that any possible loss or range of loss in addition to
the foregoing charge cannot be reasonably estimated.  While OI Inc.
cannot reasonably estimate the precise timing of payment, OI Inc.
believes that its liabilities for the next several years will not
exceed the amount accrued based on its expectation of moderate declines
in annual spending for asbestos-related costs.

OI Inc. has previously pursued recovery of its losses from third
parties, particularly its insurance carriers, and has largely resolved
all of its significant coverage claims.  OI Inc. expects some further
recovery from deferred payment provisions of existing settlement
agreements and from pursuing certain additional reimbursement claims.
However, OI Inc. does not expect to recover additional material amounts
in excess of the recorded receivable of $22.5 million at June 30, 2002.

The ultimate amount of distributions which may be required to be made
by the Company and other subsidiaries of OI Inc. to fund OI Inc.'s
asbestos-related payments cannot be estimated with certainty. OI Inc.'s
reported results of operations for 2002 have been materially affected
by the $475 million first quarter charge and asbestos-related payments
continue to be substantial.  Any possible future additional accrual
would likewise materially affect OI Inc.'s results of operations in the
period in which it might be recorded.

Also, the continued use of significant amounts of cash for asbestos-
related costs has affected and will continue to affect the Company's
cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions.

However, the Company believes that its operating cash flows and other
sources of liquidity will be sufficient to make distributions to OI
Inc. for asbestos-related costs and to fund its working capital and
capital expenditure requirements on a short-term and long-term basis.


COMPANY PROFILE

Owens-Illinois, Inc. (NYSE: OI)
1 SeaGate
Toledo, OH 43666
Phone: 419-247-5000
Fax: 419-247-1132     
http://www.o-i.com

Employees          : 29,700
Revenues           : $5,402,500,000.00
Net income         : $356,600,000.00
Assets             : $10,106,600,000.00
Liabilities        : $7,954,800,000.00

As of December 31, 2001

Description:  Owens-Illinois Inc. is one of the largest manufacturers
of glass containers in the world. Its glass containers (almost 70% of
sales) include bottles in a wide range of shapes and sizes used to hold
beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, and other beverages. Owens-Illinois
also produces plastic containers and closures, including plastic
prescription bottles. The company has operations in Australia, Asia,
Europe, and the Americas; North America accounts for about 60% of
sales. Owens-Illinois' biggest customers include Anheuser-Busch, Philip
Morris, and Procter & Gamble. KKR Associates (an affiliate of takeover
specialist Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.) owns about 25% of the
company.

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of AES Corporation
(NYSE:AES) between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
defendants issued numerous statements highlighting the Company's strong
financial performance, and specifically its business operations in the
United Kingdom.

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

   (1) that the United Kingdom adopted a new framework for the pricing
       of energy that undermined the Company's ability to achieve
       profitability in its United Kingdom activities, and as a result,
       the Company would experience a rapid decline in its U.K.
       financial operations;

     (2) the adoption of NETA (New Energy Arrangements) in the United
         Kingdom caused the Company's Fifoots utility operations to
         operate at a loss, as expected; defendants, however,
         continuously touted AES's United Kingdom operations as
         profitable;

     (3) that in the first quarter of 2001, Fifoots had an after-tax
         loss of $11 million; and

     (4) that the Company's United Kingdom operations were severely
         impaired as a result of new pricing arrangements adopted there
         and that the Company lacked adequate long-term contracts to
         avoid a rapid decline in its United Kingdom operations as a
         result of the new pricing arrangements.

On February 14, 2002, AES shocked the market by announcing that it had
ceased operations at its Fifoots Point power station in the United
Kingdom because of "sliding wholesale electricity prices." The price of
the Company's stock dropped precipitously in inordinate trading volume
when the Company, for the first time, announced that it was
experiencing problems in its Fifoots Point power plant in the United
Kingdom and as a result the plant would be closed.

In response to the news, AES plummeted over 25% on February 15, 2002
after the truth concerning AES's Fifoots Point plant and future
prospects were finally revealed, dropping from $9.50 per share on
February 14, 2002, to $7.00 per share on February 15, 2002 -- on
enormous trading volumes of 29,962,400 (far greater than the Company's
average trading volume of 3.3 million shares).

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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 Pennsylvania.

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, CIGNA 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 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


DPL INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. sought leave of United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division to amend the securities class action that was originally filed
by the firm on July 15, 2002, on behalf of purchasers and owners of
publicly traded common stock of DPL, Inc. (DPL) (NYSE: DPL) from
January 1, 1995 through July 29, 2002.  The class will consist of
purchasers and sellers of DPL publicly traded common stock from March
30, 1999 through August 14, 2002, if leave to file the second amended
suit is granted.

The proposed amendment is based, in part, on new disclosures made by
DPL after the filing of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a first
amended suit and on the results of the firm's continuing research and
investigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

On August 14, 2002, DPL had to amend and restate its previous financial
statements and reports for the 2001 fiscal year and the first quarter
of 2002; otherwise DPL's chief executive officer and chief financial
officer could not certify that DPL's financial statements and reports
for these periods did not contain an untrue statement of material fact
and did not omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements in the report not misleading.

On that date, DPL also began to respond to plaintiffs' allegations
relating to the secrecy and intentional non-disclosure of the true
nature of DPL's financial assets portfolio.  Additional allegations may
result from the firm's continuing investigation of plaintiffs' claims.

The action is pending before Honorable Thomas M. Rose in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division (Dayton) against the Company and:

     (1) Peter H. Forster (Chairman),

     (2) Allen M. Hill (President, CEO and Director),

     (3) Elizabeth M. McCarthy (Group Vice President and CFO),

     (4) Stephen F. Koziar, Jr. (Executive Vice President and COO),

     (5) James F. Dicke, II (Director),

     (6) Jane G. Haley (Director),

     (7) Ernie Green (Director),

     (8) David R. Holmes (Director),

     (9) Burnell R. Roberts (Director),

    (10) George R. Roberts (Director),

    (11) Thomas J. Danis (Director),

    (12) W. August Hillenbrand (Director),

    (13) Scott M. Stuart (Director),

    (14) Caroline E. Muhlenkamp (President of MVE, Inc., a DPL
         subsidiary), and

    (15) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (auditor of DPL)

The plaintiffs allege that during the class period, the defendants
caused DPL's publicly traded common stock to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements
and the failure to disclose material facts about DPL's over $1 billion
investment portfolio.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 1, 2002, DPL revised its 2002 earnings estimate based on the
disclosure that a significant portion of the Financial Assets was
worthless.  During the class period, shares of DPL common stock closed
at as high as $33.68 per share.  After the July 1, 2002 announcement,
the price of DPL common stock had fallen to $17.28 per share as of the
close of the market on July 29, 2002.  The value of DPL common stock
has continued to decline as additional information is revealed, and
closed on October 29, 2002 at $14.62 per share.

Plaintiffs also allege state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
fraud and negligence against the defendants.

For more information contact Stanley M. Chesley by Phone: 513-621-2120
or contact James R. Cummins or Melanie S. Corwin by Mail: 3500 Carew
Tower, 441 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, by Phone: 513-721-2121
by E-mail: jcummins@bcblaw.com or mcorwin@bcblaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.wsbclaw.com.


METRIS COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Metris Companies Inc.
(NYSE: MXT) securities between November 5, 2001 and July 17, 2002,
inclusive.

The Company is in the business of providing financial products and
services, including issuing and managing credit cards through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank, N.A.

The complaint alleges that the Company misled the investing community
concerning the existence of a Report of Examination (ROE) released by
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the primary
federal regulator of Direct Merchants.  Moreover, the suit charges that
defendants misled the investing community regarding the adverse
material effect the ROE would have on the Company's financial
condition.

The suit also alleges that the OCC released the ROE to defendants on
November 5, 2001, but that defendants failed to reveal the existence of
the ROE to the public until April 17, 2002, and thereafter
misrepresented the effect it would have on the Company.

The findings of the ROE were ultimately addressed in a consent
agreement between Direct Merchants and the OCC, and obligated Direct
Merchants to restructure significant parts of its operations including
its credit policies, credit risk assessment, debt forbearance,
allowance for loan, and lease losses and internal controls.  The suit
further alleges that as a result of defendants' actions, plaintiff and
the class were damaged.

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


NUI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NUI Corporation
(NYSE: NUI) between November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey against the
Company and John Kean, Jr.

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 November 8, 2001 and October 17, 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 the
Company's businesses, and current and future financial prospects.  As
alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) NUI was having and would continue to have significant
         increases in fixed costs for the build up of its
         telecommunications business due to the ongoing expansion of
         the business, including the offering of new products during FY
         2002;

     (2) NUI was experiencing a tremendous increase in the costs of
         self-insuring NUI's medical and health benefit programs due to
         the large increase in the number and dollar value of claims
         being filed and NUI failed to add the proper amounts to NUI's
         reserves for these claims in order to increase NUI's reported
         quarterly earnings;

     (3) due to the worsening of the economy throughout the class
         period, NUI was experiencing a sharp increase in bad debts as
         customers could not afford to pay their bills, and defendants
         failed to timely and properly increase the reserve for bad
         debts carried on NUI 's financial statements; and

     (4) NUI was experiencing a steep decline in the value of its
         pension plan assets, which would require NUI to accrue
         significant pension expenses in FY 2003, instead of recording
         a pension credit as it had done in the previous eight years.

On October 18, 2002, defendants shocked the market when they announced
that NUI's earnings for FY 2002 would be far below their prior
guidance, in part because of increased fixed cost expenses for its
telecommunications business, accruals for pension expenses, and
increases to the reserves for medical and health benefit claims.
Following this announcement, NUI's shares fell $9.27 per share, or
approximately 49%, to close at $10.90 per share.

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: NUIcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


ST. PAUL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of The St. Paul Companies (NYSE: SPC) publicly
traded securities during the period between November 5, 2001 and July
9, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants' omissions and misleading statements concerning the
Company's exposure to asbestos claims liability caused its stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

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 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


TXU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of TXU
Corporation (NYSE: TXU) from April 25, 2002 through October 11, 2002,
inclusive.  This class period also includes 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 TXU and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges during the
class period, defendants represented that the Company could succeed in
the competition created by deregulation.

Defendants then represented that TXU'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, TXU's
stock traded at artificially inflated levels, as high as $56 per share.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


UBS GROUP: Akin Gump Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 1999-C1 and received a Prospectus dated October 15,
1999, and a Prospectus Supplement to Prospectus dated October 15, 1999.
The class Period includes the initial offering of the Certificates.  
The suit names as defendants:

     (1) UBS Warburg, Inc.,

     (2) UBS Warburg Real Estate Securities Inc. (f/k/a Paine Webber
         Real Estate Securities, Inc. (Paine Webber)), and

     (3) UBS PaineWebber, Inc. (PaineWebber Inc.)

The suit arises in connection with a November 1, 1999, transaction in
which the former Paine Webber entities transferred loans to a trust.
The suit alleges that the defendants committed securities fraud by
making material misrepresentations and omissions about the quality of
the loans Paine Webber transferred to the trust.

Specifically, the suit notes that compared to all loans in the Loan
Pool, the Paine Webber loans have disproportionately gone into default
or required special attention, and have later been found not to meet
the standards represented in the prospectus and prospectus supplement.

The complaint asserts claims based on:

     (1) violations of the Exchange Act section 10(b) (15 U.S.C.section
         78j) and Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5),

     (2) violation of the Exchange Act section 20(a) (15 U.S.C.section
         78t),

     (3) violation of the Securities Act section 12(a)(2) (15
         U.S.C.section 77l) and

     (4) violation of the Securities Act section 15 (15 U.S.C. section
         77o)

For more details, contact R. Laurence Macon, Mary L. O'Connor or
Talcott J. Franklin by Phone: 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX,
75201 by Phone: (214) 969-2800 by Fax:(214) 969-4343

                              *********


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  * * *