CAR_Public/021106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Wednesday, November 6, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 220

                          Headlines                            

ANNABLE TURNER & CO.: SEC Ruling on Securities Fraud Declared Final
CENTERPULSE: Pours $725M Into Trust to Settle Knee-Implant Suit
COTTON STATES: Settlement Deal Reached in Auto Policyholders' Suit
CYLINK CORP.: $6.2M Insurance Asset Covers Settlement Pact
FRANK THOMAS DEVINE: SEC Backs NASD on Sanctions v. Securities Dealer

GREATER NORTHWEST: SEC Revokes Registration of Common Shares
GREATER NORTHWEST: SEC Sues Over Hushed Company Control by Felon
H&R BLOCK: Litigation Concerns Trigger Eight Percent Share Decline
JAWSH CORP.: Sale of Unregistered Securities Spurs Civil Suit
MEDCOM HEALTH PRODUCTS INC.: SEC Settles Fraud Charges

NEW DIRECTIONS: SEC Seeks Contempt Order Against Fined Stock Trader
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF AMERICA: Court Throws Out Fraud Complaint
ST. JAMES ASSET: SEC Bars Financial Adviser in Fund Misuse
STEVIN HOOVER: Money Manager Gets 18-Month Prison Term for Fraud
TERRORISM: U.S. Families Join German Trial As Co-Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS: Alleged $2.2M Embezzlement Triggers Suit
VISTA 2000: SEC Obtains Injunctive Writ in Securities-Laws Breach
WALL STREET RESEARCH: Settlement Talks Center on 1990s Market Abuses
WILLIAM STEPHENS: Complaint Over Unrealized Greasy Deal Settled

*Michigan Trade Group Urges Asbestos Lawsuit Reform


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in NY
CIGNA CORP.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
COMERICA INC.: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in Michigan
CONCORD EFS: Kahn & Associates Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
CREDIT SUISSE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

ENDOCARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
NUI CORP.: Wolf Popper LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
OM GROUP INC.: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
OM GROUP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
OM GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH

SCHERING PLOUGH CORP.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in NJ
SCHERING PLOUGH CORP.: Wechsler Harwood LLP Files Securities Suit in NJ
TENET HEALTHCARE: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

                           *********


ANNABLE TURNER & CO.: SEC Ruling on Securities Fraud Declared Final
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of an administrative law judge with respect to Annable
Turner & Co. Inc. (ATCO) and Roger E. Turner has become final, the
Securities and Exchange Commission reports.

The judge found that ATCO and Turner willfully violated Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The law judge further found that ATCO
violated section 204 of the Advisers Act and Adviser Act Rules 204-1(c)
and 204-2 and that Turner aided and abetted those violations.

The law judge barred Turner from associating with any investment
adviser and any broker dealer, and revoked ATCO's investment adviser
registration.

ATCO and Turner were found to have made materially false and fraudulent
representations in order to induce investors to invest. Turner
misrepresented to investors that their funds would be placed in
qualified individual retirement accounts, that the investments
recommended were safe and financially sound, that investors would
receive substantial returns on their investments, and that their monies
would be used to purchase specific investments.

ATCO and Turner also omitted to disclose to investors that the issuers
whose securities they recommended were about to file bankruptcy and
that the investors' funds were not invested but instead used to repay
earlier investors and debts.

ATCO provided its clients with false and misleading monthly reports,
failed to keep and maintain bank statements and account statements for
the required periods, and failed to file the required reports with the
Commission. ATCO 's initial registration failed to disclose that the
NASD had sanctioned Turner.

Turner previously pled guilty to violating Securities Act Sections
17(a) and 24.

CENTERPULSE: Pours $725M Into Trust to Settle Knee-Implant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpulse (NYSE: CEP) has concluded financing for the settlement of
U.S. hip and knee implant litigation. On November 4, 2002, the Swiss-
based medical technology company transfers the agreed-to USD 725
million to the Settlement Trust, in Cleveland, Ohio, fulfilling its
financing obligations toward class action participants in the
Settlement Agreement.
"This is a particularly significant day for Centerpulse," stated
company Chairman and CEO, Dr. Max Link. "We can now focus our
collective strengths on our current business affairs and on the further
development of our company. I am pleased that the affected patients
will shortly be able to receive compensation."
The total amount of USD 725 million will be transferred from
Centerpulse to the Settlement Trust, on November 4, within the period
foreseen by the Agreement. The Settlement Trust will pay out
compensation to affected patients over the coming months. The payments
will be made by a claims administrator, appointed by the responsible
court for this purpose. The Settlement Agreement calls for patients who
underwent revision surgery to receive an average of USD 200,000.
Centerpulse raised the funds through a capital increase via a tradable
preemptive rights offering as well as via bank credit. This solution
meant that the company could avoid issuance of the Convertible Callable
Instrument previously contemplated. It also allowed Centerpulse to pay
the required amount into the Settlement Trust in a single instalment.
This payment will have no influence on Centerpulse's results for the
current year. Corresponding provisions were charged to the company's
2001 accounts.
Centerpulse's subsidiary companies develop, produce, and distribute
medical implants and biological materials for cardiovascular and
orthopedic markets worldwide. As par t of the company's efforts to
refocus strategic emphasis on the core sectors of orthopedic, spine and
dental implants, current efforts to divest the cardiovascular business
continue to be pursued.
Centerpulse's financial results for the third quarter of 2002 will be
released on November 8.


COTTON STATES: Settlement Deal Reached in Auto Policyholders' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company
and Shield Insurance Company (collectively "Cotton States") has been
filed in the Superior Court of Muscogee County in Columbus, Georgia,
and the parties have reached a proposed settlement, according to the
court papers.

The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and a class of Georgia
policyholders of Cotton States, that they are entitled to payment for
the diminished value of their vehicles, even after their vehicles have
been properly repaired, when they make physical damage claims under
their collision, comprehensive or uninsured motorists coverage. The
Supreme Court of Georgia entered a ruling, upon appeal, that the
Georgia insurance contracts at issue provide first party coverage for
any diminished value which may occur as a result of an insured loss.

Following this decision, upon remand of the case to the Superior Court,
the plaintiffs and Cotton States entered into a settlement agreement.
The court certified a Settlement Class for injunctive, equitable and
monetary relief.

The class is defined as:  All persons insured under a Georgia personal
lines automobile insurance policy issued by Cotton States, who reported
valid physical damage claims for vehicle damage under that policy's
collision or comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage.  The class
period during which the damage must have occured is November 12, 1995,
and November 28, 2001.

A fairness hearing for the hearing of objections to the proposed
settlement will be heard before Judge Frank J. Jordan, on December 9.


CYLINK CORP.: $6.2M Insurance Asset Covers Settlement Pact
----------------------------------------------------------
E-business security provider Cylink Corporation (Nasdaq:CYLK)  
announced that it has entered into an agreement to settle a class
action suit, stemming from a 1998 restatement of revenues, for $6.2
million to be paid entirely from insurance proceeds.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Cylink develops, markets and supports a comprehensive portfolio of
hardware and software security products for mission-critical private
networks and business communications over the Internet.


FRANK THOMAS DEVINE: SEC Backs NASD on Sanctions v. Securities Dealer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has sustained disciplinary
action imposed by NASD, which regulates the securities industry and
virtually all U.S. stockbrokers and brokerage firms, against Frank
Thomas Devine, formerly a general securities representative.

The NASD found that Devine engaged in private securities transactions
in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3040 and 2110 by selling loan
instruments tied to viatical settlements without prior written notice.

The NASD fined Devine $34,825.42, and suspended him for 90 days from
association with any NASD member in any capacity, and required him to
requalify by examination as an investment company and variable
contracts products representative.

The Commission found that the loan instruments sold by Devine were
notes and securities. The Commission further found that Devine had
violated the NASD Conduct Rules by failing to provide his employer with
prior notice of these securities sales or obtaining the employer's
approval.

The Commission upheld the sanctions imposed by the NASD, finding that
they were neither excessive nor oppressive.


GREATER NORTHWEST: SEC Revokes Registration of Common Shares
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has revoked the registration of
the common stock of Greater Northwest Research & Development Group
Inc., now a defunct Florida corporation.

In an Order, the Commission found that Greater Northwest:

1. failed to file mandatory annual or quarterly reports for any fiscal
period subsequent to its fiscal quarter ended March 31, 1996;

2. failed to file certain mandatory current reports; and

3. made false and misleading public statements in press releases, on
the Internet and in a television infomercial concerning, among other
things, its corporate status, control by a convicted felon, certain
acquisitions, receipt of financing, financial condition, and
eligibility for quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board.

The Commission deemed it necessary and appropriate for the protection
of investors to revoke the registration of Greater Northwest's common
stock pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Greater Northwest consented to the order, admitting its reporting
violations and its defunct status but neither admitting nor denying the
remaining findings in the Order.

GREATER NORTHWEST: SEC Sues Over Hushed Company Control by Felon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it filed a civil
injunctive action on Oct. 31 against current or former Nevada residents
Homer T. Langrill and Thomas W. Becker.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Langrill and Becker issued
false and misleading public statements about a publicly traded but
legally defunct microcap company, Greater Northwest Research &
Development Group, Inc.

The complaint further alleges that these statements concerned the
undisclosed control of Greater Northwest by Langrill, a recidivist with
multiple felony convictions, the identity of the members of its board
of directors, and its legal status, financial condition, acquisition of
other companies, future financial performance, and eligibility for
quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board.

Moreover, the complaint alleges that Langrill and Becker sold
restricted Greater Northwest stock in unregistered transactions for
profits of at least $24,537 and $46,400, respectively, while the false
statements were disseminated through press releases, an Internet
website, and a cable television infomercial.

According to the complaint, Langrill and Becker failed to file
mandatory periodic and current reports with the Commission on behalf of
Greater Northwest since 1996, and further failed to report their
beneficial ownership and disposition of Greater Northwest stock.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Langrill and Becker:

(1) violated Sections 5(a), and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b), 13(d) and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2, and 16a-3 thereunder; and

(2) aided and abetted the violations of Greater Northwest of Sections
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13
thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement,
prejudgment interest, penny stock bars, officer and director bars, and
third-tier civil penalties against Langrill and Becker.


H&R BLOCK: Litigation Concerns Trigger Eight Percent Share Decline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of tax preparer H&R Block Inc. tumbled eight percent recently
amid concerns over litigation involving its popular refund-anticipation
loan, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The selloff apparently was prompted by a report from Avalon Research
Group Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida.  The firm, which has a "sell" rating
on Block's stock, said an important settlement agreement of a Chicago
class-action lawsuit had been reversed and that two related class-
action suits in Texas were seeking damages that could reach $2 billion.

Block issued a statement Friday addressing these cases during a
four-hour halt in trading of the company's shares.  Block blamed the
halt on "market rumors regarding litigation." After the resumption of
trading that afternoon, the Kansas City, Missouri's company's shares
finished down $3.43 at $40.95.

Block spokeswoman Linda McDougall said the $2 billion amount referred
to as possible damages in the class actions in Texas "has never been
supported by any evidence, testimony or analysis."

The program at issue in the lawsuits is known as a refund-anticipation
loan.  It provides loans to tax-return filers, in advance of their
actual income-tax refund.  It is used by about 30 percent of Block's
U.S. tax customers, even though it is expensive. Annual interest rates
on such loans often will exceed 100 percent. During the quarter ended
April 30, Block's busy season, the company had $129.5 million in
refund-anticipation loan participation fees.

The loans in the Chicago case were provided by Beneficial National
Bank.  The bank was acquired in 1998 by Household International Inc.,
of Prospect Heights, Illinois.  Beneficial paid a referral fee for each
refund-anticipation loan to Block, which also owned part of the loan.

The Chicago lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Block failed to
disclose fees paid by Beneficial to Block.  Block and Beneficial agreed
to a settlement of that case in 1999, and each subsequently paid half
of a $25 million settlement.

The Chicago settlement placed a limit on the amount some members of the
class could recover at just $30 apiece.  Some plaintiffs in the case
appealed the settlement, saying it was unfair.  In April, a federal
appellate court seemed to agree.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
Chicago, said the trial judge "did not give the issue of the
settlement's adequacy the care that it deserved."  Citing Block's
"substantial exposure" in the Texas cases, the appeals court noted
that, in those cases, "the total amount sought could have reached $2
billion."

The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment approving the
settlement and sent the case back to U.S. District Court for further
consideration.  A fairness hearing regarding the settlement is expected
to continue November 15.

Ms. McDougall said Block had not disclosed the reversal of the Chicago
settlement in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
because it did not consider the size of the settlement to be "material"
to the company's results.

Block said the Texas cases both involve plaintiffs who are part of the
Chicago case.  These cases seek disgorgement of all fees paid to Block
by the banks that made refund-anticipation loans through it, as well as
all other fees that Block has received in connection with each
refund-anticipation-loan transaction.  Block said both cases are part
of the Chicago settlement class, "and therefore would be covered by
that settlement."

An attorney for the Chicago plaintiffs did not return a call for
comment.


JAWSH CORP.: Sale of Unregistered Securities Spurs Civil Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had filed a
civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri against Jawsh Corporation for offering  
unregistered securities and acting as an unregistered investment
company.

The Commission's complaint alleges that in about 1984 Jawsh was formed
as a Missouri corporation by William L. Bates of St. Louis, Missouri,
who was, at all times, the Company's sole shareholder, officer and
director. The Complaint also alleges that, from about 1987 through
about September 2000, Jawsh, through Bates, publicly offered and sold
$16 million in unregistered securities to 250 investors in at least 11
states through the means and instruments of interstate commerce and the
mails. The Commission's complaint also alleges that Jawsh pooled money
obtained from investors and invested it, reinvested it and traded in
securities without a registration statement being in effect with the
Commission as to Jawsh.  The Commission's complaint also alleges that
Jawsh thereby violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (Investment Company Act).  Simultaneously with the filing of the
Civil action, Jawsh consented to an order, without admitting or denying

The Commission's allegations, except as to jurisdiction, which is
admitted:   

(1) enjoining Jawsh from further violations of the registration
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company   
Act;   

(2) for the Court to immediately take exclusive jurisdiction and
possession of Jawsh and its books, records and assets, and to appoint a
trustee, pursuant to Section 42(d) of the Investment Company Act, to
operate Jawsh and dispose of any or all of Jawsh's assets in the best
interests of investors, in compliance with the federal securities laws
and subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may prescribe;
and  

(3) freezing the Company's assets and preserving its books and records,
until the trustee has been appointed.

The Commission also instituted public administrative and cease-and-
desist proceedings against Bates based on findings that: from about
1987 through about September 2000, Bates publicly offered and sold $16
million in unregistered securities to 250 investors in at least 11
states to invest and trade in securities, solely at Bates' discretion,
and caused and willfully aided and abetted Jawsh to act as an
unregistered investment company in violation of the registration
provisions of the federal securities laws.  

Simultaneously with the institution of administrative and cease-and-
desist proceedings, Bates consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, except as to jurisdiction, which is admitted, to
issuance of a Commission order (Order) ordering Bates to:

(1) cease and desist from committing or causing any violation, and any
future violation, of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and
Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act; and

(2) comply with his undertakings to: (a) pay the costs of the trustee
appointed in the civil action up to $20,000; and (b) cooperate fully,
truthfully and without compensation, with the Commission and the
trustee, by: transferring Jawsh's assets, producing any documents in
his possession, custody or control, providing truthful testimony in any
depositions and hearings in which his testimony may be relevant, and
providing whatever other assistance is requested  of  him.


MEDCOM HEALTH PRODUCTS INC.: SEC Settles Fraud Charges
------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on August 20,
2002, the Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, United States District Judge for
the District of Vermont, entered final judgments against Sidney A.
Johnson of Newfane, Vermont, and Brooklyn, New York, Leslie H.
Fleishman of Long Beach, California, and MedCom Health Products Inc., a
California corporation based in Long Beach.

In its complaint, filed on December 15, 2000, the Commission alleged
that, between August 1997 and February 2000, Johnson and Fleishman
solicited and sold unregistered shares of stock in Kultivar, a
Plainfield, Vermont corporation, by falsely claiming, among other
things, that Kultivar's stock would soon be publicly traded and that
the value of its stock would rise because of its purported valuable
medicinal products.

The Commission's complaint further alleged that, during 2000, Johnson
and Fleishman solicited investments in MedCom, a purported Internet
business portal for the medical industry, by falsely claiming, among
other things, that MedCom had significant business relationships with
several Fortune 500 companies and that its stock would soon begin
trading publicly.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations against them,
Johnson, Fleishman and MedCom consented to the entry of the final
judgments, which permanently enjoin:

(1) Johnson, Fleishman and MedCom from future violations of the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act,

(2) Johnson and Fleishman from future violations of the provisions of
the Securities Act prohibiting offers and sales of unregistered
securities, and

(3) Fleishman from future violations of provisions of the Exchange Act
that prohibit acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer.

Johnson's judgment orders that he is liable for disgorgement of $80,000
plus prejudgment interest, but waives payment of all but $17,000 of
that amount and does not impose a civil monetary penalty based on the
sworn representations in his statement of financial condition and other
documents submitted to the Commission.

Fleishman's judgment orders that he is liable for disgorgement of
$70,000 plus prejudgment interest, but waives payment of that amount
and does not impose a civil monetary penalty based on the sworn
representations in his statement of financial condition and other
documents submitted to the Commission.

MedCom's judgment orders that it is liable for disgorgement of $175,000
plus prejudgment interest, but waives payment of all but $5,300 of that
amount and does not impose a civil monetary penalty based on the sworn
representations in its statement of financial condition and other
documents submitted to the Commission.

The Commission withdrew its charges against the remaining defendant,
Southport S.D.G., Inc., which is defunct, and previously withdrew
charges against Kultivar, Inc., which is also defunct.

On Oct. 30, based on the entry of the court's injunctions, the
Commission also instituted settled administrative proceedings against
Johnson and Fleishman.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Johnson and
Fleishman consented to the entry of the Commission's order, which bars
them from participating in any offering of penny stock and, in
addition, bars Fleishman from association with any broker or dealer.


NEW DIRECTIONS: SEC Seeks Contempt Order Against Fined Stock Trader
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it filed on
October 25, 2002 with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida an application for an order to show cause why
defendant Rajiv Vohra should not be held in civil contempt for his
failure to pay disgorgement and civil penalties, as directed by the
Court's January 15, 2002 default judgment order.

That order enjoined Vohra from violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Court ordered Vohra to pay disgorgement in the amount of
$598,911.55, prejudgment interest of $134,394.01, and a civil penalty
of $110,000.

On September 5, 2000, the Commission alleged in its Complaint that
Vohra, Sean T. Healey, and three Bahamian companies, Lantern
Investments Ltd., Lipton Holdings Ltd., and Beaufort Holdings Ltd.,
used "wash sales" to create the appearance of active trading in the
stock of New Directions Manufacturing Inc., a small furniture
manufacturing company.

The Complaint alleged that Vohra and Healey also arranged to have a
false and misleading research report published on a stock-picker web
site, on their own web site, and through unsolicited mass e-mails
(spam).

The research report falsely claimed that New Directions had
significantly expanded, that the author of the report was an
independent analyst, and that the purported analyst had issued a buy
recommendation.

Vohra and Healey attempted to conceal their scheme by conducting much
of their activity through Canadian brokerage accounts and the Bahamian
companies.


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF AMERICA: Court Throws Out Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted defendants, Bartholomew F. Palmisano and other's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs, Joanne Bay and others' securities fraud
putative class action complaint.

Louisiana granted defendants, Bartholomew F. Palmisano and others'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs, Joanne Bay and others' securities fraud
putative class action alleging that defendants overstated Orthodontic
Centers of America Inc.'s financial conditions, misrepresented that
OCA's accounting and reporting policies conformed with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and omitted material facts about OCA's
upcoming merger with its competitor, OrthAlliance, Inc., in violation
of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Secs. 10(b), 20(a) and R. 10b-5.

The court found that plaintiffs' complaint failed to satisfy the
heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, as they failed to allege sufficient facts to
support a reasonable belief that OCA's financial statements were false
and misleading.

The court determined that OCA repeatedly and precisely disclosed to
investors its methods for recognizing revenue, including aspects that,
according to plaintiffs, violated GAAP. Additionally, the court
indicated that plaintiffs failed to allege that statements relating to
OCA's merger were false and misleading when made.

The court also found that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts
to support a reasonable inference of scienter.

Plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting a strong inference that
defendants either knew that it was publishing materially false
information or was severely reckless in publishing such information.

The court stated that plaintiffs relied on "motive and opportunity"
allegations. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with
prejudice, as "another pleading attempt would be an inefficient use if
the parties' and the court's resources, would cause unnecessary and
undue delay, and would be futile."


ST. JAMES ASSET: SEC Bars Financial Adviser in Fund Misuse
----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 30, the Commission issued an Order Making Findings and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions barring John Raymond Linney Clain from associating
with an investment adviser. Clain previously owned St. James Asset
Management, Inc. (Saint James), an investment adviser located in
Alpharetta, Georgia and licensed with the State of Georgia.

The Order finds that the Commission filed a civil injunctive action
entitled U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Saint James Asset
Management, Inc. and John Raymond Linney Clain, et al., Civil Action
Number 1:02-CV-0426- RLV (N.D. Ga.), alleging violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The complaint in that matter alleged, among other things, that:

(1) Clain misappropriated approximately $965,400 from 16 clients of
Saint James;

(2) Clain procured the funds by representing that he would use the
funds to purchase securities for the clients;

(3) Clain used $110,000 to buy two cars and a diamond ring and the
remaining funds to pay business and personal expenses, including
monthly mortgage payments on his house; and

(4) Clain concealed his conduct by giving his clients account
statements, stock certificates and other documents which falsely
indicated that Saint James had purchased securities on their behalf.

The Order further finds that Clain was permanently enjoined by consent
from future violations by a court order issued in March 2002.


STEVIN HOOVER: Money Manager Gets 18-Month Prison Term for Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former money manager Stevin R. Hoover was sentenced to 18 months in
prison on charges that he defrauded investment advisory clients out of
nearly $200,000.

Hoover, age 54, was sentenced by Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts to 18 months
imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release during which
Hoover will be barred from providing any financial services or acting
as the custodian for funds belonging to other people.

Hoover is the sole owner of Hoover Capital Management Inc., a
registered investment adviser, and Chestnut Management LLC, an
unregistered investment adviser.

On August 7, 2002, Hoover pleaded guilty to one count of securities
fraud in violation of Section 206 of the Investment Advisors Act of
1940 charging that Hoover engaged in a scheme to defraud his investment
advisory clients by diverting nearly $200,000 from client accounts to
his own account.

Hoover spent the misappropriated money on such things as a luxury
automobile for his wife and paying off personal credit card debt.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's civil enforcement action
against Hoover, HCM and Chestnut Management remains pending.


TERRORISM: U.S. Families Join German Trial As Co-Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Families of Sept. 11 victims plan to join the trial in Germany of a man
charged with planning last year's terrorist attacks in the United
States, The Wall Street Journal reported recently.

A provision of German law allows a victim's next of kin to sit in court
and be represented by counsel as "co-plaintiff" in a murder trial.  In
this case, the relatives would gain the right to file motions, question
witnesses and review evidence in the Hamburg trial of Mounir el
Motassadeq, a 28-year-old student charged with belonging to a terrorist
group and being an accessory to more than 3,000 counts of murder.

It is unclear how many of the more than 3,000 eligible families will
join the trial. The law sets no limit on the number of co-plaintiffs,
but there is strong interest in doing so, family representatives
said.  Stephen Push, spokesman for the support group "Families of
September 11," is interviewing lawyers licensed to practice law in
Hamburg on behalf of his wife, who was killed when hijackers steered
American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.  Because the law does
not permit participation by a group, Mr. Push would serve as a conduit
for the roughly 1,200 members of his organization.  Mr. Push says he
decided to become a co-plaintiff after an article in The Wall Street
Journal last week described the German law.

In a separate effort, a conference call is scheduled for today between
prosecutors in the Hamburg trial and a legal team representing about
3,000 plaintiffs in a U.S. class-action lawsuit against members of
Saudi Arabia's royal family and others who allegedly donated money used
by the al Qaeda network to fund terrorist acts.  The goal of the
conference call is to set up a meeting in Germany and discuss forms of
cooperation, including filing for co-plaintiff status for the
plaintiffs, many of whom belong to Mr. Push's group.

Ronald Motley, lead attorney in the class action, is coordinating the
effort to collect evidence world-wide.

"We have been getting excellent cooperation from authorities in Spain,
where we have received more than 40,000 pages of documents.  Italy,
Bosnia, India, even Russia, have been helpful.  And the German
prosecutors have promised to cooperate with us fully," Mr. Motley said.

He and his co-counsel have not yet decided when they will apply for
co-plaintiff status, which would entitle them to obtain trial
documents, including at least 87 binders of investigative materials
collected by police and intelligence agencies.

Berlin prosecutor Detlef Mehlis, who has handled a number of major
terrorism trials, says co-plaintiffs have the same rights as the
prosecution and defense teams in a murder trial, but they should not
get their hopes up on influencing the trial. "My experience is that
about two-thirds of the motions filed by co-plaintiffs in a murder
trial are denied by the court," said Mr. Mehlis.

Presiding Judge Albrecht Mentz has refused to comment on any aspect of
the case.


UNITED STATES LIME & MINERALS: Alleged $2.2M Embezzlement Triggers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas
Division) against Larry Ohms, the former treasurer of Dallas-based
United States Lime & Minerals Inc. (Nasdaq: USLM).

According to the complaint, Ohms embezzled nearly $2.2 million from the
company between January 1998 and December 2001 by forging the
signatures of other company officers on checks, and falsifying the
company's check register to create the appearance that these checks
were for the company's legitimate business expenses.

The SEC further alleges that Ohms supervised U.S. Lime's internal
accounting controls and financial reporting, and used his position to
escape detection by falsifying the company's books and records, lying
to its outside auditors, and preparing false financial statements that
he then caused the company to file with the SEC.

The complaint charges Ohms with fraud, circumventing internal controls,
falsifying books and records, and lying to auditors, in violation of,
or aiding and abetting violations of, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules thereunder, and requests that Ohms be enjoined from
future securities violations, barred from serving in the future as an
officer or director of a public company, and ordered to disgorge the
full amount that he stole from U.S. Lime, with prejudgment interest.


VISTA 2000: SEC Obtains Injunctive Writ in Securities-Laws Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on Oct. 31 the
Honorable Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, entered an order of permanent injunction
and other relief against Arnold E. Johns, Jr. of Atlanta, Georgia for
engaging in a wide-range of securities laws violations, including that
misstatements were made by Vista 2000 Inc. in its regulatory filings.

Johns was a director and president of Vista, a now defunct consumer
products company formerly headquartered in Roswell, Georgia.

Judge Cooper's recent order permanently enjoined Johns from further
violating the antifraud provisions, books and records provisions,
internal accounting control and reporting provisions of the Securities
Act of 1933 [Section 17(a)] and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
[Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), 13(b)(5) and Rules
10b-5, 12b-20, 13-11, 13a-13 and 13b2-1 thereunder].

Johns consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying
the allegations of the Commission's amended complaint. Johns was
ordered to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in amounts to be
resolved upon motion of the Commission at a later date.

The Commission previously sued Johns and three other men for various
violations of the federal securities laws.

The other defendants are Richard P. Smyth of Fernandina Beach, Florida,
Alan T. Davis of Gainesville, Georgia and Michael J. Becker of
Marietta, Georgia, all of whom have been previously enjoined by the
Court.

The Commission's amended complaint alleged a wide-range of securities
law violations committed by Johns during 1995 and 1996. The allegations
included Johns':

(1) failure to conform with generally accepted accounting principles
resulting in the overstatement in various filings made with the
Commission of Vista's revenues, income, earnings per share, and assets
during 1995 and 1996 (the misstated amounts ranged up to 83,592% and in
most periods, resulted in Vista reporting income when it was, in fact,
experiencing losses),

(2) failure to disclose the misappropriation of $481,000 in 1996 by
Vista's chairman of the board, and

(3) engaging in illegal insider selling of Vista common stock during
1996.

The Commission alleged in its amended complaint that the misstatements
contained in Vista's financial statements, during Johns' tenure, were
material and caused numerous reports on Forms 10-QSB and 8-K to be
false and misleading.


WALL STREET RESEARCH: Settlement Talks Center on 1990s Market Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street firms may find a silver lining in talks concerning a
planned global settlement with federal and state regulators over
alleged market abuses of the late 1990s.  Most of the focus of the
regulatory settlement, expected to be completed soon, has been on ways
to resolve conflict-of-interest allegations that Wall Street research
was tainted by pressure to boost investment-banking fees, The Wall
Street Journal recently reported.

The pact emerging from these talks about research practices could cost
securities firms as much as $2 billion for overhauling research
practices, and for fines as well. The pact could also create a dilemma
for European banks.

But a less-noticed aspect of the effort is that any settlement also may
include the resolution of class-action cases involving alleged
misconduct in allocating shares of hot initial public offerings,
according to people familiar with the talks. Regulators have been
investigating whether securities firms scratched the backs of favored
clients by directing coveted IPOs to them in return for investment-
banking business or for other improper forms of payback.

The move by the federal and state regulators to reach a pact on these
issues could allow Wall Street firms to resolve some aspects of alleged
misconduct without disclosing significant specifics, critics say.
Ordinarily, regulatory settlements include an accompanying detailed
bill of particulars about the alleged wrongdoing. But in this case,
because of the expedited nature of the settlement, it is possible that
the charges could be described only in broad general form. If that
happens, any broad settlement could make it more difficult for
investors to win private claims alleging IPO abuses, in suits filed
against Wall Street.

The issue is likely to be addressed very soon, at a meeting of Wall
Street lawyers and regulators. Among the topics will be an estimate of
how much securities firms would owe government agencies to resolve the
many different class-action cases against them, according to people
familiar with the matter.  The securities firms have been reluctant to
comment publicly on the talks because they are supposed to be
confidential.

At issue are two types of IPO cases. One involves IPO "spinning," the
practice by which securities firms are alleged to have doled out hot
IPOs to the personal brokerage accounts of corporate executives in
return for their firms' business. The other involves IPO "laddering,"
which involves allegations that securities firms gave out shares in
additional hot IPOs to clients who agreed to buy more shares at higher
prices after the stocks began trading.

Regulators could benefit by settling the IPO cases as part of a broad
pact.  Though many people on Wall Street and elsewhere believe spinning
and laddering are not proper practices, the regulators say such cases
are not easy to bring because they require evidence of a clear quid pro
quo, a high bar in such matters.

Linking hot IPO allocations to such after-market orders is the subject
of a massive class-action lawsuit charging market manipulation.
Lawsuits filed by holders of hundreds of "dot-com" stocks that soared
in price and then crashed were consolidated in federal court, alleging
in part that securities firms stimulated their first-day price run-ups
by awarding IPO shares to investors who indicated they would buy
additional shares in the after-market.

A quick settlement of a pending regulatory probe of laddering by the
Securities and Exchange Commission could greatly reduce the legal
exposure of the firms being probed by limiting the amount of source
material about the cases that gets into the public record.  The four
firms being probed most closely by the SEC in the laddering case are
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and
the former Robert Stephens unit of FleetBoston Financial Corp.  The
firms have denied the laddering allegations in court.

Melvin Weiss, whose firm, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, is
one of the lead law firms representing investors in the civil
class action claims in the laddering case, said he was not aware that
the laddering regulatory probes might be settled in the global research
pact. Mr. Weiss said that rolling up the laddering cases in the
research settlement would not necessarily hurt his clients' case;
although, "on the other hand, the more information that comes out into
the public domain, the more pressure there is on the defendant
securities firms to settle with us."

And quickly rolling up the IPO-allocation class-action cases in the
research settlement  and getting these cases behind them is what the
four securities firms seem to want.  They, therefore, have an incentive
to support the settlement of the research-conflicts cases, despite the
expensive terms proposed by the state regulators, led by New York State
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Mr. Spitzer is amenable to including the IPO cases in the settlement,
according to people familiar with the talks; Mr. Spitzer, however, has
declined to comment.

The original joint announcement by Mr. Spitzer, the SEC and other
regulators said the global settlement effort would include both
"analyst research and IPO allocations."  However, more attention has
been focused on the possible research settlements because of the
regulators' proposals for the top securities firms to pay up to $1
billion over five years to fund independent research.  The SEC has
taken the lead on regulatory probes of laddering; the National
Association of Securities Dealers is probing some of the spinning
allegations.


WILLIAM STEPHENS: Complaint Over Unrealized Greasy Deal Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on November 4,
2002, it settled an administrative proceeding against William M.
Stephens. Stephens, without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings, consented to an Order that:  

(a) requires Stephens to cease and desist from committing or causing  
any violation and any future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule  10b-5 thereunder;

(b) requires Stephens to pay a $25,000 civil penalty; and

(c) bars Stephens from association with an investment adviser, with the
right to reapply for association after two years.

Pursuant to the Order and Offer of Settlement, the Commission found
that in March 2000, Stephens was associated with a registered
investment adviser. At that time, Stephens met with certain persons who
offered to introduce him to the trustees of certain union pension funds
so that he and his firm could become financial advisers to the Union
Funds.  

Stephens agreed that after he and his firm became financial advisers to
the Union Funds, he would arrange to divert a portion of the Union
Funds into investments controlled by the persons who introduced him to
the Union Funds and those persons would pay kickbacks to the pension
fund trustees who hired Stephens and his firm.

Neither Stephens nor his firm became advisers to the Union Funds. As a
result, no payments were ever made to any trustees of the Union Funds.
     
The Commission's action was the result of an investigation with the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


*Michigan Trade Group Urges Asbestos Lawsuit Reform
---------------------------------------------------
The trade group representing more than 90 percent of Michigan's
manufacturing workforce is campaigning to reduce the number of asbestos
lawsuits against companies, reports The Detroit News.

The newspaper reports that experts say asbestos claims could increase
more than 200 percent and cost U.S. business as much as $210 billion in
the years ahead.  Because these figures portend grave difficulties for
businesses and victims alike, the Lansing-based Michigan Manufacturers
Association (MMA) is working with the Washington, D.C.-based National
Association of Manufacturers' coalition called The Asbestos Alliance to
persuade Congress of the need for reform in asbestos litigation.

Chuck Hadden, vice president of government affairs for the
manufacturers, said the Big Three is defending some 15,000 asbestos
cases, an increase of 1,634 percent from two years ago.  There are some
200,000 asbestos claims pending nationwide, Mr. Hadden said.

"Companies have to file for bankruptcy to separate themselves from the
lawsuits," Mr. Hadden said.  "The problem is not the people who have
impairments now, but the prospective impairments, the people in the
future who will be receiving money."

In the newspaper and radio ad campaign, which is costing between
$100,000 and $200,000. MMA contends that legitimate asbestos lawsuits
are being held up in the court system, because of cases filed by people
who have been exposed to asbestos but are not sick.  The lawsuits, the
MMA claims, are hurting companies and even sending some into
bankruptcy, as reported by The Detroit News.

A study released in September by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice
said 65 percent of asbestos compensation in the last 10 years was paid
to people claiming non-cancerous conditions.  The study reports that
asbestos claims cost U.S. businesses $54 billion by the end of 2000.
Asbestos claims are expected to cost as much as $210 billion in years
ahead.

A leading trial lawyer has said that the ad campaign is full of
untruths.  Michael Serling, a Birmingham-based attorney who filed the
state's first asbestos-related, wrongful-death suit in 1981, said that
just because people exposed to don't have cancer does not mean they do
not deserve compensation.  Mr. Serling said they often later develop
mesothelioma, cancer of the chest or abdomen; or asbestosis, a scarring
of the lungs that leads to breathing problems.

"I have never seen a media blitz like this [one], discrediting victims
and what we do -- exercising our rights by bringing cases into the
courts."

Chuck Hadden says the campaign, which urges people to contact their
congressman or senator for asbestos reform, is not intended to be an
election issue.  The group started running the newspaper and radio ads
two weeks ago, but plans to stop them before Tuesday's election.

The group wants Congress, through legislative changes, to:

1.  Establish objective medical criteria for asbestos-related health
issues.

2.  Relax statutes of limitations and other rules in order to reduce
premature filings.

3.  Eliminate the consolidations, or class actions, that "lead to
shotgun settlements with thousands of people who are not sick."

4.  Allow claims only to be made in the state where the plaintiff
resides or was exposed.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy & Binkow LLP commenced a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities
of Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:A) between December 13, 1999 and
September 9, 2002, inclusive.

The Complaint charges defendant Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. with
violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff
claims that defendant's material omissions and the dissemination of
materially misleading analyst reports that recommended the purchase of
Agilent common stock, and which set price targets for Agilent common
stock without any reasonable factual basis, caused Agilent's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
The complaint alleges that defendant, in order to obtain investment
banking business for CSFB, failed to disclose material, non-public,
adverse information which it possessed concerning Agilent and
significant, material conflicts of interest which it had concerning the
Agilent reports. Defendant's positive reports concerning Agilent
significantly and artificially inflated the price of Agilent common
stock throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg by
Mail: Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: 310-201-9161, Toll Free:
888-773-9224, or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com .


CIGNA CORP.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the law firm of
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP on behalf of all purchasers of Cigna Corp.
(NYSE:CI) securities between May 2, 2001 through October 24, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Cigna's financial results and
business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cigna
continuously touted its seemingly impressive earnings growth and
represented that operating income in 2002 was expected to be $1.1
billion. These representation were materially false and misleading
because the Company neglected to disclose that Cigna failed to
adequately reserve for its reinsurance obligations, particularly for
its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death benefits, by hundreds of
millions of dollars, if not more. As a result, the Company's securities
prices were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On
October 24, 2002, however, the Company revealed that it would not meet
its third quarter and year 2002 guidance resulting in a share price
decline of nearly 42% in a single day, falling from $63.60 per share
close on October 24, 2002 to trade as low as $36.81 per share on
October 25, 2002.

For more details, contact Eric Crusius, Esq., and Anthony Vozzolo,
Esq., by Mail: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016, by Phone: 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330, or by E-mail:
Ecrusius@faruqilaw.com or Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com .


COMERICA INC.: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced that a
class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of purchasers of common stock
of Comerica Inc. (NYSE: CMA) between January 30, 2000 and October 1,
2002, inclusive, as well as all persons who received shares of Comerica
Inc. as a result of Comerica's acquisition of Imperial Bancorp and who
sold those shares as a loss or retained their Comerica holdings through
October 1, 2002.

The complaint charges Comerica and certain of its executive officers
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants artificially inflated Comerica's revenue by overstating
the value of its Munder Capital Management subsidiary and under-
accruing Comerica's loan loss reserves. Defendants' material
misrepresentations and omissions were revealed on October 2, 2002, when
the Company disclosed that Comerica would reduce its second- and third-
quarter 2002 earnings, reflecting a $213 million after-tax charge for
additional loan loss reserves and the decline in the Munder
subsidiary's value.

For more details, contact Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP by Mail:
Client Relations Department, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null,
P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: Toll Free:
888-551-994, or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com .


CONCORD EFS: Kahn & Associates Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn & Associates Ltd. announced that it is filing a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Concord EFS, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEFT) during the period October 30, 2001 to
September 4, 2002.

The complaint charges that Concord and the other defendants issued
false and misleading statements about the Company's earnings and
ability to sustain earnings-per-share growth of 30-35% in order to
allow Concord stock to trade at artificially high levels. During the
Class Period, the defendants used Concord stock to acquire other
companies and the individual defendants collectively sold over 5
million shares of their own Concord holdings for over $160 million in
proceeds. The complaint further alleges that the earnings defendants
touted were only achieved by improperly reporting non-operating gains
as operating income and by reporting substantial operating expenses as
"one-time" charges. In fact, the complaint charges that Concord's
business was not growing but suffering from increased costs and
declining margins. On September 5, 2002, Concord revealed the truth
about its financial and business problems and the price of Concord's
stock responded predictably. On that day, the stock price fell to
$12.60 per share, a drop of more than 60% from its Class Period high of
over $35 per share.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, David B. Kahn or Mark E.
King by Phone: 800-536-0499, or by E-mail: dbklaw@flash.net.


CREDIT SUISSE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit on October 28,
2002 against Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of AOL Time Warner,
Inc, formerly America Online, Inc. (NYSE:AOL) between January 16, 2001
and September 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendant CSFB violated the federal
securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding AOL that
recommended the purchase of AOL common stock and which set price
targets for AOL common stock, without any reasonable factual basis. The
complaint further alleges, among other things, that when issuing its
AOL analyst reports, defendant CSFB failed to disclose material, non-
public, adverse information it possessed about AOL. Throughout the
Class Period, CSFB maintained positive recommendation on AOL in order
to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for CSFB.

The Class Period begins on January 16, 2001 at which time CSFB
maintained a "BUY" rating for AOL common stock. The Class Period ends
on September 3, 2002, the date CSFB belatedly downgraded AOL to a
"RESTRICTIVE" rating. As a result of CSFB's false and misleading
analyst reports, AOL common stock traded at artificially inflated
levels during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class.

For more details, contact Joel B. Strauss, Esq., and Donald R. Hall,
Esq., by Mail: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10022, by Phone: 800-290-1952, 212-687-1980, by
Fax: 212-687-7714, or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com , or Laurence D.
King, Esq., by Mail: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 601 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone: (415) 772-4700, by Fax:
(415) 772-4707, or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com .


ENDOCARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced that a securities
class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Endocare, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENDO) between October 23, 2001 and October
30, 2002, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, against defendants Endocare, Paul Mikus and
John V. Cracchiolo.

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

No class has been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven P.A. by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com   or by
Phone: 410-986-0036.


NUI CORP.: Wolf Popper LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities fraud class action complaint
against NUI Corporation (NYSE:NUI) and its President and Chief
Executive Officer John Kean, Jr., on behalf of purchasers of NUI common
stock between July 26, 2001 and October 17, 2002.

The plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that
NUI was incurring significantly greater costs and generating reduced
revenues. These costs included:

(i) increases in fixed costs for NUI's telecommunications business;

(ii) increased costs of self-insuring for employee medical benefits;

(iii) a material decline in the value of its pension plan assets which
would cause NUI to accrue substantial pension expense; and

(iv) a sharp rise in bad debts.

As a result of the adverse economic conditions facing the Company, NUI
was unable to generate the necessary cash flow from operations to
reduce its very high debt levels. Moreover, defendants knew that as a
result of these adverse conditions, the Company's ability to conduct a
secondary offering of common stock would be impaired.

On October 18, 2002, defendants finally disclosed to investors that
NUI's earnings for FY 2002 would be far below their prior guidance.
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 Michael A. Schwartz, Esq., by Mail: Wolf
Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689; by Phone:
212-451-9668, Toll Free: 877-370-7703; By Fax: 212-486-2093, Toll Free:
877-370-7704; by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com ;
mschwartz@wolfpopper.com .


OM GROUP INC.: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced that a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of OM
Group, Inc. (NYSE:OMG) between July 30, 2002 and October 30, 2002,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against defendants OM Group, Inc., James P.
Mooney and Thomas Miklich.

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

No class has been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven P.A. by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com  or by
Phone: 410-986-0036.


OM GROUP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announced that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of OM Group Inc. (NYSE:OMG)
publicly traded securities during the period between July 30, 2002 and
Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint charges OM Group and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false
statements about the Company's business and prospects. After reporting
somewhat disappointing 2ndQ 02 results, defendants told investors that
its business was strong and all the indicators were for a good second
half. As a result, OM Group stock continued to trade above $50 per
share.

On September 19, 2002, OM Group warned the 3rdQ 02 results would be
slightly lower than prior statements, but that results would still be
significantly higher than in the prior year. Then, on October 29, 2002,
OM Group announced a huge loss, an inventory write-down and a future
restructuring. OM Group stock dropped to as low as $8.60 per share on
volume of $22 million shares. Later, on October 31, 2002, it was
disclosed that OM Group's Chief Executive Officer had sold all his
holdings to cover a margin call on some 710,000 shares on OM Group
stock which he had used as collateral for a huge loan. On this news,
the stock dropped even further to as low as $6.12 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of OM
Group publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The plaintiff
is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren
Robbins of Milberg Weiss by Phone: 800-449-4900, or by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com .


OM GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP announced that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of OM
Group Inc. (NYSE: OMG) from July 30, 2002 through Oct. 30, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges OM Group, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that after reporting somewhat disappointing 2nd quarter 2002 results,
defendants told investors that its business was strong and all the
indicators were for a good second half. As a result, OM Group stock
continued to trade above $50 per share.

On September 19, 2002, OM Group warned the 3rd quarter 2002 results
would be slightly lower than prior statements, but that results would
still be significantly higher than in the prior year. Then, on October
29, 2002, OM Group announced a huge loss, an inventory write-down and a
future restructuring. OM Group stock dropped to as low as $8.60 per
share on volume of $22 million shares. Later, on October 31, 2002, it
was disclosed that OM Group's Chief Executive Officer had sold all his
holdings to cover a margin call on some 710,000 shares on OM Group
stock which he had used as collateral for a huge loan. On this news,
the stock dropped even further to as low as $6.12 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq., or Stuart L. Berman,
Esq., by Phone (toll free): 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com .


SCHERING PLOUGH CORP.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced that a
class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Schering Plough Corp.
(NYSE: SGP) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 1, 2002 and October 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Schering, Richard Jay Kogan, its Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President, and Putnam Investment Management, LLC
violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' wrongdoing
is alleged to be the result of Kogan selectively providing non-public
material information about Schering's adverse projected earnings to
management of Putnam at a luncheon meeting on October 1, 2002. It was
not until approximately 11:00 p.m. on October 3, 2002 that Schering
publicly announced that its 2003 and 2004 earnings would be far below
analysts' expectations. As a result of the selective disclosure by
defendant Kogan of this adverse, material, non-public information to
defendant Putnam and others, defendant Putnam and the other defendants
were able to sell enormous amounts of Schering shares before the
general public received such information, thereby enabling these
tippees to benefit from the receipt of their inside information to the
detriment of plaintiff and the Class. From the time defendant Putnam
first learned of the material inside information through the close of
the market on October 4, 2002, Schering stock plunged from $21.80 per
share to as low as $16.10 per share, a drop of over 25%.

For more details, contact Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP by Mail:
Client Relations Department, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null,
P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: Toll Free:
888-551-994, or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com .


SCHERING PLOUGH CORP.: Wechsler Harwood LLP Files Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP announces that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Schering Plough Corp. (NYSE:SGP)
common stock for the period between October 1, 2002 and October 3,
2002.

The complaint alleges that Schering, Richard Jay Kogan, its Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer, and President, and Putnam Investment
Management, LLC violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Schering
and its subsidiaries are engaged in the discovery, development,
manufacturing, and marketing of pharmaceutical products worldwide.

Defendants violated the Act as a result of Kogan, on behalf of
Schering, selectively provided non-public material, adverse information
about Schering's projected earnings to management of Putnam at a
luncheon meeting on October 1, 2002. Kogan made further selective
disclosures of this non-public information to analysts at mid-day on
October 3, 2002. It was not until approximately 11:00 p.m. on October
3, 2002 that Schering publicly announced that its 2003 and 2004
earnings would be far below analysts expectations. As a result of the
selective disclosure by defendant Kogan of this adverse, material, non-
public information to defendant Putnam and others, defendant Putnam and
the others were able to sell enormous amounts of Schering shares before
the general public received such information, thereby enabling the
tippees to benefit from the receipt of their inside information to the
detriment of plaintiff and the Class. From the time defendant Putnam
first learned of the material inside information through the close of
the market on October 4, 2002, Schering stock plunged from $21.80 per
share to as low as $16.10 per share, a drop of over 25%.

For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor New York, New York 10022, by Phone: Toll Free
Telephone: 877-935-7400, or by E-mail: Ramon Pinon at rpinon@whesq.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announced that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Tenet Healthcare
Corp. (NYSE:THC) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 3, 2001 and October 31, 2002.

The complaint charges Tenet and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants represented that
Tenet's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the Class Period,
defendants repeatedly stated that Tenet's financials were strong, the
Company's stellar bottom line was attributed to its state-of-the-art
facilities and high-quality patient care, and that Tenet was
consistently achieving record results. Defendants actually knew that  
Tenet's profit quality was inflated by, among other things, wrongfully
inducing patients into undergoing unnecessary and invasive surgeries.
Defendants knowingly or in conscious disregard for the truth engaged in
a scheme to cause patients to undergo unnecessary invasive coronary
procedures. The scheme included unnecessary heart catheterizaton,
including angiogram and intravascular ultrasound, stent placement,
angioplasty, coronary artery bypass surgery and heart valve replacement
surgery.

On October 31, 2002, The Associated Press issued a press release
entitled, "Tenet Healthcare Stock Plunges After Report of
Investigation." The press release stated in part: "Shares of Tenet
Healthcare Corp. plunged more than 26 percent Thursday after federal
prosecutors in Sacramento filed an affidavit regarding alleged false
billing by two doctors at the company's hospital in Redding, Calif. The
stock was also hurt by a rumor, denied by the company, that the FBI had
searched its corporate headquarters in Santa Barbara, Calif." These
disclosures shocked the market, causing Tenet's stock to decline to
less than $29 per share before closing at $28.75 per share on October
31, 2002, on volume of more than 50 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Tenet
publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren
Robbins of Milberg Weiss by Phone: 800-449-4900, or by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com.


                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *