CAR_Public/021107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, November 7, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 221

                          Headlines                            

CORNING INC.: Faces Two Suits Over Injuries From Hazardous NY Facility
DVT LITIGATION: Airline Blood Clot Suits Commences in Britain's Court
LANDAIR CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over Securities Buy-Out Proposal in TN
MEMBERWORKS INC.: Group Drops Two Company Defendants From Arbitration
NEXPRISE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

NEXPRISE INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
NORTHWESTERN ENERGY: MO Court Refuses Motion For Dismissal From Suit
ODYSSEY PICTURES: Court Refuses Class Certification to Securities Suit
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Court Ruling in Drivers' Suit
SCIQUEST INC.: Individual Defendants Enter Settlement in NY Lawsuit

SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Ordinance Requires Slave-Trade Ties Disclosures
SUPREME COURT: High Court Lets Mortgage Yield-Spread Ruling Stand

*Survey Reveals Rise in Employee Suits Due To Higher Workplace Demands

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in OH
BROADWING INC.: Strauss & Troy Files Security Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA

CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
NUI CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
SALOMON SMITH: Kaplan Fox Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TENET HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

TENET HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Suit in CA
TXU CORP.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
TXU CORP.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
TXU CORP.: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX

                            *********

CORNING INC.: Faces Two Suits Over Injuries From Hazardous NY Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Corning, Inc. was named as a defendant in two class actions seeking
compensation for past and current injuries allegedly arising from the
release of hazardous and toxic substances from a Sylvania nuclear
materials processing facility near Hicksville, New York.

The first suit was commenced in April 2002, and later amended in
September, naming 205 plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of US$3
billion.  The complaint named more than 20 other corporate defendants
and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  

Plaintiffs claim to have sustained numerous types of cancer and other
medical conditions. Some plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged injuries
to their decedents who died as many as 20 years ago.

A status conference originally set for September 17, 2002, was reset
for October 31, 2002.  It is anticipated that the filing date for
defendants' motion to dismiss will be December 2, 2002.  Based upon the
information developed to date and recognizing that the outcome of
litigation is uncertain, management believes that the risk of a
materially adverse verdict is remote.

In April 2002, nine named plaintiffs initiated a separate class action
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against many of the same
defendants named in the first lawsuit.  At that time, the Company was
not named as a defendant.  That action was amended and filed in
September 2002 to include the Company as a defendant and removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  

Based upon the information developed to date and recognizing that the
outcome of litigation is uncertain, management believes that the risk
of a materially adverse verdict is remote.


DVT LITIGATION: Airline Blood Clot Suits Commences in Britain's Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed on behalf of airline passengers who claimed they
suffered from the "economy class syndrome" opened at Britain's High
Court, the Associated Press reports.  The suit alleges that the
airlines failed to inform them of the ailment, also known as "deep vein
thrombosis," a condition in which a blood clot forms in the deep veins
of the legs, and could be fatal when part of the clot breaks off and
blocks a blood vessel in the lungs, the.  The condition has been linked
to long-haul flights.

The three-day hearing is held to determine whether the condition could
be classified as an accident under the Warsaw Convention, which relates
to death and injury during air travel.  If this is determined, the
plaintiffs can then proceed to seek compensation from over 30 airlines.

"Airlines need to know that they cannot walk away from the fact that
there is a problem and people are still dying on our airplanes," Ruth
Christoffersen, whose 28-year-old daughter Emma collapsed and died
after getting off a Qantas flight from Australia to London two years
ago, told AP.

Airlines deny liability for the condition.  "We are dealing with
repeated, statistically predictable and relatively frequent deaths and
injuries inflicted, the claimants say, by the acts and neglect of those
they are paying to look after them," Stuart Cakebread, the claimants'
lawyer, told AP.

Many experts do not believe the condition is related specifically to
airplane conditions, but to the fact that passengers stay still for too
long, the Associated Press reports.  However, Mr. Cakebread said there
was "a causal link between air travel and DVT."


LANDAIR CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over Securities Buy-Out Proposal in TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Landair Corporation faces three similar class actions filed in the
Circuit Court for Greene County, Tennessee by three alleged
shareholders of the Company.  These actions were brought individually
and as putative class actions on behalf of the public shareholders of
the Company other than the defendants and any person or entity related
to or affiliated with any of the defendants.

The complaints, which also names the Company's Board of Directors as
defendants, generally allege, among other things, that the defendant
directors are breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the buy-out proposal from Scott M.
Niswonger, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, and John A. Tweed, the Company's President and Chief Operating
Officer pursuant to which they would acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company not already owned by them for $13.00 per share.

The complaints seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the Company from proceeding with the buy-
out proposal.  The Company believes these lawsuits are entirely without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the suits.


MEMBERWORKS INC.: Group Drops Two Company Defendants From Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Arbitration Association determined that the arbitration in
the consumer class action against Memberworks, Inc. should go forward
without West Corporation or West Telemarketing Corporation as
defendants, granting a motion filed by the Company.

The suit was commenced in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California, naming as defendants:

     (1) West Corporation,

     (2) West Telemarketing Corporation,

     (3) Memberworks Incorporated,

     (4) MWI Essentials,

     (5) MWI Leisure Advantage,

     (6) MWI Home & Garden,

     (7) MWI Connections and

     (8) MWI Valuemax

The complaint alleges that class members were sold club memberships by
misleading means or billed for club memberships they did not purchase
as a part of an upsell offer after ordering another product.  The
plaintiff asserts four separate claims, namely:

     (1) the defendants mailed unordered merchandise to the plaintiff
         and the similarly situated class members in violation of 39
         USC (S) 3009,

     (2) conversion,

     (3) unjust enrichment and

     (4) fraud.

The purported class is composed of all persons in the United States
who, after calling a telephone number to inquire about or purchase
another product:

     (i) were sent a membership kit in the mail;

    (ii) were charged for a Memberworks membership program; and

   (iii) were customers of a joint venture between Memberworks and the
         Company or were wholesale customers of the Company.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, which was denied.  The Company joined with Memberworks on
a motion to dismiss on various other grounds. On July 12, 2002 this
motion to dismiss was granted.

On September 12, 2002, the plaintiff filed a petition to arbitrate the
claims with the American Arbitration Association's Fresno, California
office.  Despite the fact that the court's order on July 12, 2002
explicitly held that the plaintiff's claims against West Corporation
and West Telemarketing Corporation were not subject to mandatory
arbitration, the plaintiff named West Corporation and West
Telemarketing Corporation as defendants in the arbitration.

The Company believes that West Corporation and West Telemarketing
Corporation are not proper defendants in the arbitration and that the
American Arbitration Association lacks jurisdiction over West
Corporation and West Telemarketing Corporation.

On September 25, 2002, the Company sent a letter to the American
Arbitration Association detailing this position.  The American
Arbitration Association determined that the arbitration should go
forward without West Corporation or West Telemarketing Corporation as
parties.  However, the American Arbitration Association indicated that
it may consider West Corporation or West Telemarketing Corporation
necessary parties in the future.


NEXPRISE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexprise, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during time periods
from December 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit generally alleged that the Company and certain individuals
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements during 2000, including in the Company's registration
statement for its convertible notes offering.

No discovery has taken place, and the court has not set a trial date.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

A putative stockholder derivative suit is also pending in the
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County against certain of the
Company's present and former officers and directors, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty and insider trading.  The Company is named solely as
a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought.

After a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, the parties
stipulated to a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the federal
securities suit.


NEXPRISE INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexprise, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against it, several of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering.

The suit is similar to hundreds of suits filed against more than 300
other issuers of securities, affiliated individuals and dozens of
underwriters of the securities offerings.  These suits were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes under Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the initial public
offering of Chemdex securities, incorporated in the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that the underwriters had made secret
arrangements for aftermarket purchases of the securities and made
arrangements for excessive and improper underwriters' compensation in
the form of increased brokerage commissions.

The litigation is in an early phase and no substantive rulings have
been issued by the court.  Although the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the action and intend to defend the suit
vigorously, it cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the
lawsuit.


NORTHWESTERN ENERGY: MO Court Refuses Motion For Dismissal From Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana District Judge Thomas McKittrick denied NorthWestern Energy's
motion asking for it to be dismissed in a class action filed by former
shareholders of Montana Power Company, the Montana Standard reports.

The Company was added to the list of defendants after the initial case
was filed and had asked the court to reconsider its ruling on that
matter.  Judge McKittrick heard oral arguments on Monday and then
denied the request, leaving the Company as a part of the suit.

The matter affects the subsidiary that took over a portion of MPC - not
the parent company NorthWestern Corp.  The original class-action
lawsuit was filed in August, but has been revised extensively. Since
then, other lawsuits have been filed against Montana Power or its
successor company, Touch America, by out-of-state lawyers, the Montana
Standard reports.

The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Montana Power Co.,

     (2) Montana Power LLC,

     (3) Touch America Holdings Inc.,

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (5) Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,

     (6) PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd.,

     (7) Westmoreland Coal Co.,

     (8) Westmoreland Mining LLC,

     (9) BBI Power Corp.,

    (10) CES Acquisition Corp,

    (11) Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLC,

    (12) NorthWestern Energy LLC and

    (13) three parties not yet named
The lawsuit also names as defendants the top officers of Montana Power
Co., now Touch America Holdings, including Chief Executive Officer Bob
Gannon, Chief Operating Officer Jerry Pederson, President Mike Meldahl
and all of the members of the board of directors of Touch America
Holdings, formerly Montana Power Co.


ODYSSEY PICTURES: Court Refuses Class Certification to Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
California State Court refused to certify as a class action the fourth
amended suit filed against Odyssey Pictures, Inc., in connection with
the Company's treatment in its financial statements of the disposition
of its subsidiary, Double Helix Films, Inc in June 1991.  

A suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Norman Muller,

     (2) Jerry Minsky,

     (3) Dorian Industries, Inc., and

     (4) Communications and Entertainment Corp

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from and after June,
1992.  

A second action, alleging substantially similar grounds, was filed in
December 1996 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California under the caption heading "Diane Pfannebecker v.
Norman Muller, Communications and Entertainment Corp., Jay Behling,
Jeffrey S. Konvitz, Tom Smith, Jerry Silva, David Mortman, Price
Waterhouse & Co., Todman & Co., and Tenato Tomacruz."

Following the filing of the second action, the first action was
dismissed by stipulation in May 1997.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in the second action and after a hearing on the
motion in July, 1997, the Court dismissed the federal securities law
claims as being time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
and dismissed the state securities law claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  The lower court's dismissal of this action was
upheld on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.

The case was refiled in California state court in August 1998. The
Court granted motions to dismiss two of the complaints filed by the
plaintiff, whereupon a third complaint was filed.  More recently, a
fourth amended complaint has been filed adding claims that the
defendants, including the Company, violated provisions of the
California Securities Laws.  There was no trial date set in
this matter.

The Company has met on several occasions, through its legal counsel, to
discuss and answer certain attempts at settlement.  Due to the nature
and complications of this suit, matters have generally been very slow
to receive response to.

In June of 2002, the plaintiff, along with the defendants and Company
counsel, attended a hearing on the merits of the class action status.  
The judge ruled in favor of the defendants in that there were no
grounds to continue this case as a class action.  Subsequently, the
Company was able to receive a dismissal of this case.  The Company, at
the same time, entered into settlement discussions with respect to any
claims of indemnification.


PACER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Court Ruling in Drivers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action pending against Pacer International
appealed the State of California, Los Angeles Superior Court's ruling
absolving its subsidiaries, Interstate Consolidation, Inc. and
Intermodal Container Service, Inc., of liability

The suit alleges:  

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) unfair business practices,

     (3) conversion and money had and received in connection with
         monies allegedly wrongfully deducted from truck drivers'
         earnings.

The defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore Submission Agreement
dated as of October 9, 1998, pursuant to which the plaintiffs and
defendants have waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a
certified class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a
maximum judgment of US$1.75 million.

On August 11, 2000, the court issued its Statement of Decision, in
which Interstate Consolidation, Inc. and Intermodal Container Service,
Inc. prevailed on all issues except one.  The only adverse ruling was a
Court finding that Interstate failed to issue certificates of insurance
to the owner-operators and therefore failed to disclose that in 1998,
Interstate's retention on its liability policy was $250,000.  The court
has ordered that restitution of $488,978 be paid for this omission.

The court entered judgment on the August 11, 2000 decision on January
23, 2002.  Plaintiffs' counsel has appealed the entire ruling and the
Company is appealing the restitution issue.  

Based upon information presently available and in light of legal and
other defenses and insurance coverage, management does not expect these
legal proceedings, claims and assessments, individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SCIQUEST INC.: Individual Defendants Enter Settlement in NY Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual defendants in the securities class action pending against
Sciquest, Inc. have entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs in the suit, while the Company has asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case includes claims against the Company, three of its officers,
and seven investment banking firms who either served as underwriters,
or are the successors in interest to underwriters, of the Company's
initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus used in the Company's initial
public offering contained material misstatements or omissions regarding
the underwriters' activities in connection with the initial public
offering.

The case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with over 1000
other lawsuits filed against other issuers, their officers, and
underwriters of their initial public offerings.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.  All defendants
have filed motions to dismiss and are awaiting the court's decision.  
Discovery is stayed pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss.  
Additionally, plaintiffs and the individual defendants have entered
into a stipulation dated October 9, 2002 pursuant to which the
individual defendants are expected to be dismissed from the action
without prejudice.  The stipulation is subject to court approval.


SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Ordinance Requires Slave-Trade Ties Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council in Chicago has passed an ordinance requiring all
business to research and report on any ties their companies ever had to
the slave trade, the Houston Chronicle reports

Chicago, whose 1.1 million black residents make up one-third of the
city's population, became the first city in the United States to impose
this requirement.  The effort is likely to affect a handful of
insurance companies, perhaps a railroad or two and a couple of banks.

The enactment seems clearly political, since the Slavery Era Disclosure
Ordinance lacks any real teeth.  It is unclear what, if any, effect the
law might have on the goal of its sponsor, Alderman Burton Natarus,
that goal being securing reparations for the descendants of slaves.

Alderman Dorothy Tillman, however, went so far as to suggest that
companies that might have conducted slave-related business, often
through predecessor companies, could be shut out of city contracts even
if they do acknowledge such histories.

Alderman Edward M. Burke, arguably the second-most powerful Chicago
politician after Mayor Richard M. Daley, announced from the council
floor that CSX Railroad, a company whose predecessors are believed to
have used slave labor, would not be granted zoning approvals it is
seeking until the company pays reparations, even though such
compensation is not included in the ordinance.

"If they start threatening companies . then we may be talking about
extortion," said Robert Bennett, former dean of Northwestern University
Law School.  "It is all pretty bizarre . It's politics.  There is a
public interest in having history about slavery, but this is a strange
way of going about compiling that history."

The national debate over reparations for blacks has simmered off and on
for years, with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., doing much to keep it alive
by introducing a bill to study the issue in every congressional session
since 1989.  His bill has never passed.

The reparations movement has picked up some steam in recent years after
compensation was awarded to Holocaust survivors and Japanese-Americans
interned during World War II.  Proponents of slavery reparations began
to focus their efforts after these two examples of reparations
payments.

Two years ago, the California Legislature passed the Slaveholder
Insurance Policy Act, which requires insurers who did business during
the slavery era to research their records and report the names of
slaves they insured and the slaveholders who took out the policies.

The vast majority of California insurers reported that they had been
incorporated after slavery was outlawed, according to a report by the
California Department of Insurance.  A few others said they had
conducted business during the period but could find no records relating
to slave policies.  Eight companies said they had issued life insurance
policies on slaves and revealed the names of 614 insured slaves and 433
slaveholders.

The Insurance Department has published the findings on its Web site,
but plans no further action.  The law requires only that insurers
disclose their historic activities, not that they pay any reparations.

The Chicago ordinance is based on the California law.  However, the
Chicago ordinance goes a step further in that it requires all
businesses with city contracts, not just insurance companies, to
research and report any slave trade history, with documentation to be
filed with the city's Department of Purchasing.  Beyond that, it is not
clear what will happen with the information.

Supporters of the ordinance are awaiting the filings of several
companies, including CSX Railroad and FleetBoston Financial Corp.  Both
companies are defendants in a class-action lawsuit filed this spring
that alleges they, or their predecessors, profited from slave labor.

One of the founders of a FleetBoston predecessor company, the
Providence Bank of Rhode Island, owned slave ships, the company says
there is no evidence the bank itself was involved in the slave trade.  
FleetBoston, through a trust, recently received a $27 million city
subsidy to construct a 31-story building in the Loop, the city's
financial district.

CSX, some of whose predecessor companies are believed to have used
slaves in building their lines, has a large facility on Chicago's south
side, and, like many businesses, has sought financial and political
help from the city.

Alderman Burke said he was sure there would be a great deal of
reluctance on the part of many members of the council to do business
with some of the companies, "unless the company states that it regrets
what it has done and lays out the steps it has made to become a good
corporate citizen."

SUPREME COURT: High Court Lets Mortgage Yield-Spread Ruling Stand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Supreme Court recently let stand an appeals court ruling that
allowed mortgage brokers to continue collecting yield-spread premiums,
the Dow Jones Business News reports.

The case, Glover v. Standard Federal Bank, is one of a series of legal
actions over a controversial mortgage industry practice where lenders
pay brokers a fee for loans that yield above-market interest rates.  
The practice is being closely watched by the mortgage lending industry
and consumer groups fighting the referral fee practice.

The 8th US District Court of Appeals affirmed that yield-spread
premiums do not violate real-estate settlement laws and reversed a
trial court's ruling giving the case class action status for 750,000
Standard Federal customers.

The class action was brought by Lonnie and Dawn Glover in Minnesota for
a class of plaintiffs who received loans from Standard Federal. The
Glovers argued that the yield-spread premium paid by Standard Federal
to their mortgage broker, Heartland Mortgage, was an illegal referral
fee.

However, the appeals court said it ruled based on updated Department of
Housing and Urban Development policy statements that sought to clarify
when a lender can pay a yield-spread premium to a mortgage broker.  One
of those statements issued by HUD in 2001, states that mortgage
settlements must be reviewed individually to determine if the referral
fee was appropriate.

Consumer groups, filing a friend of the court brief in support of the
class-action status in the Glover case, said HUD's actions block
class-action consideration of the issue and allow what they called a
"secret incentive system" to continue.


*Survey Reveals Rise in Employee Suits Due To Higher Workplace Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Employer-provided laptops, PCs, cell phones, pagers and other modern
gizmos can be flexible tools for the mobile workplace, but they also
are making it hard for the employees to leave work behind, The
Bradenton Herald reports.

A recently taken national survey indicates that 93 percent of workers
who qualify for overtime under federal law cart work home.  More than
half receive no payment for this work, and two in 10 feel exploited.  
These are some of the key reasons for an escalating number of employee
class actions, according to the Employment law alliance, the network of
labor and employment attorneys that commissioned the poll.

"There may be no bigger issue in the American workplace," said Stephen
Hirschfeld, a San Francisco attorney who heads the alliance, as he
announced the survey's results.  "Employers just cannot say to
nonexempt employees that they are expected to be on call around the
clock, but pay them only the eight hours they work in an office."

Employers set themselves up for big-time overtime bills by not keeping
close tabs on off-premise work, said Phil Jones, partner-in-charge of
the labor and employment practice at Locke Liddell & Sapp and a
founding member of the alliance.  "They place themselves at great
financial risk if they do not have specific rules about when overtime
will and will not be worked," said the 56-year-old Dallas attorney, who
has specialized in labor law for 32 years.  "Employers need tight
accounting procedures and record-keeping for at-home work."

Fail at instituting these measures, and the costs to even small
companies can mount into the hundreds of  thousands of dollars,
particularly if their work forces are highly skilled.  Mr. Jones
suggests that companies require written authorizations before employees
are allowed to work overtime.

"I hate to sound cynical, but a lot of people may fudge on how much
they work at home when they are unsupervised," said Mr. Jones, who
defends employers in their labor disputes.   "If you don't have records
to rebut that (the number of hours worked), the Department of Labor is
going to accept what the employee has to say."

Too often, companies deal with these conflicts after the fact, which
antagonizes workers. On the other hand, reticent employees may sit and
seethe about the extra work without telling the employer they are
upset.  The result: unhappy workplaces often become fertile ground for
lawsuits.

There is another dangerous issue:  Too many companies do not understand
what jobs can be classified as exempt from overtime, Mr. Jones said.  
Simply taking someone off the clock does not mean that worker is not
due overtime, Mr. Jones added.

"Employers think that if they make employees salaried, and call them
exempt, that they are exempt," said Mr. Jones.  "But their job
description must fall into one of the four exempt categories set up by
the Department of Labor; executive, administrative, professional or
outside sales."

From Mr. Jones's employer-slanted perspective, according to The
Bradenton Herald, many employee claims as to the number of overtime
hours they have worked are exaggerated.  However, he does give
recognition to the fact that some employers may classify employees as
exempt from overtime, as managers, for example, when actually their
work may be wholly or chiefly menial; requiring therefore that they be
compensated for overtime hours.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Allegheny Energy, Inc.
(NYSE: AYE) from April 23, 2001 through October 8, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Allegheny Energy and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, on March 16, 2001, Allegheny Energy's subsidiary, Allegheny
Energy Supply Company, LLC, announced that it had completed its
acquisition of Global Energy Markets from Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

The complaint further alleges that Allegheny Energy made false and
misleading statements during the class period, in that it failed to
state that its revenues (and revenue guidance) materially depended upon
illusory, revenue creating, "wash transactions" with Enron, and other
deceptive energy trading practices.  At no point did Allegheny Energy
disclose to the investing public that:

     (1) the surge in its revenues was attributable to G.E.M.'s
         practice of engaging in deceptive and illusory trades; and

     (2) that after the Enron story broke, Allegheny Energy could no
         longer engage in these deceptive trading practices as
         successfully, and that revenues would drop as a result.

On September 25, 2002, the Company sued Merrill Lynch for fraud and
breach of contract related to the G.E.M. acquisition. In that lawsuit,
Allegheny Energy alleged that it overpaid for G.E.M. because the unit's
financial reports were inflated by sham trades involving Enron. The
Company admitted that G.E.M. engaged in a significant amount of wash or
round trip energy trades with Enron, and perhaps others. The Company
further admitted that the effect of those trades was to artificially
inflate revenues, trading volumes and growth rate.

The Company's September 25, 2002 admissions set a chain of events in
motion, which would result in the Company's stock's tumble from a high
of $12.85 on September 25, 2002, to $3.80 on October 8, 2002 -- a drop
of $9.05, or 70%.  On October 1, 2002, Moody's downgraded Allegheny
Energy's credit to junk status.

In a press release, the Company reassured investors that this would not
trigger any default or prepayment of the firm's debt.  A week later, on
October 8, 2002, the Company announced that it was in technical default
under its credit agreements.

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


AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of all persons who acquired American Electric Power Co., Inc.
(NYSE: AEP) between the dates of May 17, 1999 and October 9, 2002,
inclusive.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and several of its officers and
directors issued material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact, including:

     (1) Failing to disclose that AEP was engaging in electricity trade
         transactions involving sequential trades with the same terms
         and counterparties;

     (2) Overstating AEP's revenues in its SEC filings and elsewhere by
         including in revenues sums received in connection with such
         sequential trades with the same terms and counterparties;

     (3) Failing to disclose that AEP's traders were falsely reporting
         energy prices to Platt's, which publishes energy market
         reports regarding power trading prices and volumes; and

     (4) Failing to disclose that AEP did not have in place sufficient
         management controls to prevent AEP's traders from engaging in
         electricity trades involving sequential trades with the same
         terms and counterparties and falsely reporting energy prices
          to Platt's.

After Wall Street learned about widespread practices in the power
industry regarding so-called "round-trip" trades and AEP admitted to
having engaged in transactions involving sequential trades with the
same terms and counterparties, AEP stock tumbled to as low as $22.74
per share following an earnings warning on July 18, 2002, down 53% from
a 52-week high of $48.90 per share.

Following a disclosure on October 9, 2002 that five AEP traders had
been dismissed for reporting false and misleading price information for
use in indexes compiled by trade publications, shares of AEP further
declined to a 52-week low of $15.10 per share.

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


BROADWING INC.: Strauss & Troy Files Security Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Strauss & Troy initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Broadwing, Inc.
(NYSE: BRW) between January 17, 2001, and May 20, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its past and
present officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during the class period that failed to disclose
that the Company was severely undercapitalized with insufficient cash
from operations to service its massive debt, it inflated revenue
through the use of undisclosed IRU sales and purported swap
transactions and it failed to write-down goodwill recorded in
connection with the acquisition of Broadwing Communications.

The full truth was not disclosed until the Company filed its Form 10-Q,
for the quarter ended March 31, 2002 and analysts, on May 20, 2002,
expressed their concern about its financial results.  As a result on
May 21, 2002, Broadwing's share price plummeted 30%.

For more details, contact Richard S. Wayne or William K. Flynn by Mail:
Strauss & Troy, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, by Phone:
45202, 800-669-9341 or 513-621-2120 or by E-mail: classactions@strauss-
troy.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, a
subsidiary of Credit Suisse Group, and one of its technology analysts.  
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:A) during the period from
December 13, 1999 through September 9, 2002.

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

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

One internal Credit Suisse document discusses the "Agilent two-step",
in which Credit Suisse issued favorable reports on Agilent to the
investing public, while simultaneously informing favored customers
verbally that Credit Suisse's true opinion of Agilent was less
favorable.

The Secretary of the Commonwealth has suggested that criminal charges
be filed against Credit Suisse and on October 21st the Secretary filed
civil fraud charges against Credit Suisse.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, a
subsidiary of Credit Suisse Group, and one of its technology analysts.  
The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock
of Razorfish, Inc. (Nasdaq:RAZF) during the period from June 14, 1999
through July 20, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of favorable
research reports on Razorfish that were materially false or misleading
in that they did not disclose conflicts of interest of Credit Suisse,
and in particular the practice of Credit Suisse to gain lucrative
investment banking business in part by providing coverage and issuing
favorable research reports on prospective investment banking customers.

According to news reports, an investigation conducted by the Secretary
of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uncovered "very
troubling" internal Credit Suisse materials that "suggest . a pattern
of breach of fiduciary duty" and which appear to have "treated
investors like suckers."  On October 21, 2002, the Secretary of the
Commonwealth filed civil fraud charges against Credit Suisse.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500 Washington DC 20005 by
Phohne: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, a
subsidiary of Credit Suisse Group, and one of its technology analysts.  
The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock
of AOL Time Warner Inc. during the period from April 3, 2001 through
January 30, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of favorable
research reports on AOL that were materially false or misleading in
that they did not reflect Credit Suisse's true opinion of AOL and they
did not disclose conflicts of interest of Credit Suisse.

In particular, the reports did not disclose the practice of Credit
Suisse to use its research coverage as part of its marketing efforts to
gain lucrative investment banking business.

According to an administrative complaint filed by the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on one occasion Credit Suisse issued an
analyst report stating Credit Suisse believed AOL could achieve the
earnings guidance AOL had given the market, when Credit Suisse in fact
believed (as expressed in internal communications) that AOL could not
make its numbers.  The Massachusetts complaint alleges that Credit
Suisse "purposely misled investors" with its analyst reports.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington DC by Phone:
888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Liberate Technologies
(Nasdaq: LBRTE) between September 20, 2001 and October 15, 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' material omissions and the dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements regarding the nature of the Company's
revenue and earnings caused its stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants artificially
inflated revenue by recognizing certain software license fees in
violation of GAAP and the Company's own stated policies.  

On October 15, 2002, after the market closed, defendants disclosed that
the "appropriateness and timing" of certain software license fees had
been called into question and that the Company would likely restate its
fourth quarter and fiscal year 2002 financial results.  Company stock
price plummeted 16% in after-hours trading as a result of the
disclosure of its accounting problems.

On the next day, October 16, 2002, the fallout from the announcement
continued as Liberate Technologies stock dropped more than 22% from the
previous day's close.

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


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

The complaint charges the Company and John Kean, Jr. President, Chief
Executive Director and a Director and member of the Executive Committee
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market during the class period
concerning the failure to properly record its fixed cost expenses,
accrue necessary pension expenses, and reserve adequate amounts for its
self-insured medical benefits in its quarterly unaudited financial
statements.

As alleged in the suit, throughout the class period, defendants knew
that the Company was confronting material problems in its businesses
which were causing it to incur greatly increased costs throughout the
class period.  These costs included significant increases in fixed
costs for its telecommunications business, greatly increasing costs of
self-insuring for medical benefits, and the tremendous decline in the
value of its pension plan assets which would cause the Company to
accrue substantial pension expense.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


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

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

The complaint further alleges, among other things, that when issuing
its XO analyst reports, defendants failed to disclose significant,
material conflicts of interest which it had concerning the XO reports,
because of Salomon's desire to obtain investment banking business from
XO.

Throughout the class period, Defendants maintained a "BUY"
recommendation on XO in order to obtain and support lucrative financial
deals for Salomon.  The class period begins on October 11, 1997, at
which time Salomon rated XO common stocks as a "BUY" after initiated
coverage of XO on September 26, 1997.  The class period ends on
November 1, 2001, the date defendants belatedly downgraded XO form a
"BUY" to a "NEUTRAL."

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading analyst reports, XO
common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the class
period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox and Donald R. Hall by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022, by Phone:
800-290-1952, 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714, by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Tenet
Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) securities between October 3, 2001
and October 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that during 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.

However, the Complaint claims that defendants actually knew that the
quality of Tenet's profits were 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 invasive coronary
procedures, specifically heart catherizaton, including angiogram and
intravascular ultrasound, stent placement, and angioplasty performed by
Dr. Chae Moon for profit.  The scheme also included unnecessary
invasive coronary procedures, specifically coronary artery bypass
surgery and heart valve replacement surgery, performed by Dr. Fidel
Realyvasquez, Jr. for money.

The price of THC stock plunged more than 26 percent last Thursday after
federal prosecutors in Sacramento filed an affidavit regarding alleged
false billing by two doctors at the Company's hospital in Redding,
Calif. Numerous reports concerning the FBI investigation followed.

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.

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Tenet Healthcare Corporation
(NYSE:THC) between October 3, 2001 and October 31, 2002, inclusive.  
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.  

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

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California against
Tenet Healthcare Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Tenet Healthcare Corporation
(NYSE:THC) from October 3, 2001 through October 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that THC and certain of its officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as a result of the defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements about the Company's
operations and performance, as a result in part of the Company's
violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The lawsuit claims that during the class period defendants
misrepresented that THC's financial results were due to the Company's
commitment to quality and cost-effective care.  Throughout the class
period, defendants repeatedly stated that:

     (1) Tenet's financials were strong;

     (2) the Company's stellar bottom line was attributed to its state-
         of-the-art facilities and high-quality patient care; and

     (3) Tenet was consistently achieving record results.

In reality, however, the complaint claims that defendants actually knew
that the quality of Tenet's profits were inflated by, among other
things, a scheme to wrongfully induce patients to undergo unnecessary
and invasive surgeries and coronary procedures.

The scheme included unnecessary heart catheterization, including
angiogram and intravascular ultrasound, stent placement, angioplasty,
coronary artery bypass surgery and heart valve replacement surgery.

The price of THC stock plunged more than 26 percent last Thursday after
federal prosecutors in Sacramento filed an affidavit regarding alleged
false billing by two doctors at the company's hospital in Redding,
Calif. Numerous reports concerning the FBI investigation followed.

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.

For more details, contact Nikole Davenport by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia 30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999
(toll-free) or by E-mail: NMD@classlaw.com


TXU CORP.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against TXU Corporation (NYSE:TXU) and two of its top
officers in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, on behalf of all investors who bought TXU securities
from January 31, 2002 through October 11, 2002.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants pumped up the energy company's
stock price by misrepresenting to the investing public the condition of
TXU's European operations throughout the class period.

The complaint says TXU lacked a reasonable basis for its earning
projections for fiscal 2002 and 2003. Specifically, the defendants
misled or failed to tell investors that:

     (1) TXU's operations in Europe and, specifically, those in the
         United Kingdom were plagued with deficient, inadequate, and
         faulty internal and financial controls;

     (2) TXU's risk management in Europe was virtually non-existent,
         and there was no means of addressing the risk to TXU from the
         UK's unregulated electricity market;

     (3) At least one credit facility worth approximately $500 million
         contained "cross-default" provisions between TXU Europe and
         TXU;

     (4) TXU's UK operations used wholesale electricity "structured
         transactions" to meet earnings goals in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles by shifting earnings and
         profits from one quarterly period to another;

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

     (6) The European operations were impaired and overvalued by
         billions of dollars.

According to the complaint, the truth about TXU began to emerge on
October 4, 2002, when the company said it was revising its earnings
expectations for fiscal 2002 and 2003, and in the spate of news
articles and analyst reports that followed. The company revealed more
problems in an October 7, 2002 conference call with analysts.

TXU's stock plummeted as a result of these disclosures, falling from a
close of $32.90 per share on October 3, 2002 to $13.85 on October 8,
2002.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo or Jay W. Eng, Esq., by
Mail: 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
by Phone: 561-835-9400, 800-349-4612, by E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com


TXU CORP.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi 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 TXU Corp. (NYSE:TXU)
securities between April 25, 2002 and October 11, 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 TXU's financial results and
business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that TXU continuously touted that
its European operations were improving and would report EPS of $4.35+
and $4.60+ in 2002 and 2003, respectively.  Based on these false
statements, TXU's stock traded at artificially inflated levels
throughout the class period, up to $56 per share allowing defendants to
complete a secondary offering of 11.8 million shares of common stock,
raising nearly a billion dollars.

On October 4, 2002, TXU revealed that because of problems in Europe,
the Company would report 2002 EPS of only $3.25 resulting in a decline
to $27 per share from $40 per share the prior week.  Defendants
reassured the market that the Company was strong and the dividend was
"sound and secure."

Then on October 14, 2002 before the market opened, TXU announced that
it was cutting its dividend 80% to $0.125 per share and was selling all
its European assets.  As a result, TXU's stock immediately collapsed to
$10.10 per share before closing at $12.94; a one-day drop of 31% on
volume of 39 million shares.

For more details, contact Eric Crusius, and Anthony Vozzolo by Mail:
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.


TXU CORP.: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 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 falsely 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.

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.  Thereafter, the Company's stock price
fell to $27 per share, from more than $40 per share the prior week.

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

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

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401, by Phone: 612-339-6900,
or by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.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  * * *