CAR_Public/021111.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, November 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 223

                              Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles 232 Plaintiff Claims in NY Antitrust Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Four Suits Over Drugs Under Medicare in CA
APPLIED MICRO: Court Refuses To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
APPLIED MICRO: Defendants in Derivative Suit To Ask For Its Dismissal
AVICI SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit

BOEING CO.: Expects Certification For Discrimination Suits in mid-2003
DVT LITIGATION: Suit Delayed over Judge's Ownership of Airline Shares
GAS COMPANIES: NV Files Antitrust Suit Over Natural Gas Market Control
GEN-X SPORTS: Recalls 88,000 Skateboard Ramps For Accident Hazard
H&R BLOCK: Texas State Court To Order Forfeit Of US$75 Million In Fees

HOOVERS INC.: Individual Defendants Accept Tolling Agreement in NY Suit
HUB GROUP: IL Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
ONVIA.COM: NY Court Dismisses Former Execs From Securities Fraud Suit
ORAPHARMA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit
RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Court Rejects Petition For Interlocutory Appeal

RIBOZYME CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit
RR DONNELLEY: Appeals Court Ruling on Statute of Limitations in IL Suit
RR DONNELLEY: Jury Says No Discrimination in Shutdown of Chicago Plant
SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SL INDUSTRIES: Named As Defendant in NJ Suit Over Contaminated Water

STERLING TRUST: Settles CA Suit Over Personal Choice Promissory Notes
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Derivative Lawsuit
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit
WYOMING: ACLU Asks Judge To Order State Prison To Ensure Inmate Safety

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in S.D. OH
BROADWING INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CREDIT SUISSE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
ENDOCARE INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NUI CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
RETEK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MN Court

SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
TENET HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles 232 Plaintiff Claims in NY Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories has settled claims of 232 plaintiffs in the
consolidated prescription pharmaceutical pricing antitrust class action
filed on behalf of retail pharmacies and individuals in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suits uniformly alleged that the Company, other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, and pharmaceutical wholesalers conspired to fix prices
for prescription pharmaceuticals and/or to discriminate in pricing to
retail pharmacies in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

In July 2002, the claims of 232 plaintiffs pending in six of the
federal suits and the state court case in Santa Clara County,
California were settled for an amount not to exceed $233,000 and
dismissed.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Four Suits Over Drugs Under Medicare in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories faces four additional class actions filed on behalf
of individuals or entities that allege generally that the Company and
other pharmaceutical companies reported false information in connection
with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid.

The suits are:

     (1) John Rice v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et. al., (filed on
         July 12, 2002 in the Superior Court for Alameda County,
         California),

     (2) Constance Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et. al.,
         (filed on August 23, 2002 in the Superior Court for San
         Francisco County, California),

     (3) Ronald E. Turner v. Abbott Laboratories, et. al., (filed on
         September 9, 2002 in the Superior Court for San Francisco
         County, California), and

     (4) Congress of California Seniors v. Abbott Laboratories, et. al.
         (filed on September 24, 2002 in the Superior Court for Los
         Angeles County, California).

The Company intends to vigorously oppose these suits.



APPLIED MICRO: Court Refuses To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California refused to dismiss the consolidated amended securities class
action pending against Applied Micro Circuit Corporation.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
was brought as a purported shareholder class action under Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act.

The Company moved to dismiss the first consolidated suit in March 2002,
which the court granted, giving plaintiff 45 days to file an amended
complaint.  In June 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, alleging that the Company and the individual defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial prospects for the quarters
ended December 31, 2000 and March 30, 2001, in order to inflate the
value of the Company's stock.

Defendants again brought a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, which motion was denied in October 2002.  The Company
expects that discovery in this matter will commence during the third
quarter of fiscal 2003.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  The Company
cannot predict the likely outcome of these lawsuits, and an adverse
result in either lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


APPLIED MICRO: Defendants in Derivative Suit To Ask For Its Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The directors and certain executive officers of Applied Micro Circuits
Corporation intend to ask the Superior Court of California in the
County of San Diego to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative
suit pending against them.

The suit alleges overstatement of the financial prospects of the
Company, mismanagement, inflation of stock value and sale of stock at
inflated prices for personal gain during the period from November 2000
through February 2001.

Defendants demurred to the consolidated state complaint, which demurrer
was partially granted and partially overruled in February 2002.  In
February 2002, the Company's Board of Directors formed a special
litigation committee to evaluate the claims in the consolidated state
complaint.  The special litigation committee retained independent legal
counsel and submitted a report to the court in July 2002.

Defendants intend to file motions seeking dismissal of the actions,
which motions are expected to be heard by the court in early 2003.
Limited discovery against the individual defendants in this lawsuit and
third parties has commenced.  The Court has ordered limited discovery
to take place regarding the special litigation committee's report.  The
Company expects that such discovery will take place during the third
quarter and conclude in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.  The Company
cannot predict the likely outcome of these lawsuits, and an adverse
result in either lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


AVICI SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice certain of Avici Systems, Inc.'s officers
and directors as defendants in the twelve securities class actions
pending against them, the Company and one or more of the Company's
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws and seek
unspecified damages and allege, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions
and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's stock in the
aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO.

The lawsuits further claim that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus
and registration statement.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300
other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City which, along with the cases against the Company, have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on various
legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  This
motion is currently pending.

On October 9, 2002, the Court approved a stipulation between the
plaintiffs and the individual defendants providing for the dismissal of
the individual defendants without prejudice.

The Company and its officers and directors believe that the claims
against the Company lack merit, and intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.  While the Company can make no promises or guarantees as to
the outcome of these actions, the Company believes that the final
result of these actions will have no material effect on its
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


BOEING CO.: Expects Certification For Discrimination Suits in mid-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Company expects that court rulings on class certification for
four new sex discrimination class actions pending against it will be
revealed in mid-2003.

The first class action was filed against the Company in February 2000,
alleging gender discrimination and harassment.  The suit, filed in the
United States District Court in Seattle, Washington names as
defendants:

     (1) The Boeing Company,

     (2) Boeing North American, Inc., and

     (3) McDonnell Douglas Corporation

The suit alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice
of unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation against females
over the course of many years.  The complaint, Beck v. Boeing, names 28
women who have worked for Boeing in the Puget Sound area; Wichita,
Kansas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.  The suit was later
amended to name 10 additional plaintiffs, including the first from
California.  The lawsuit attempts to represent all women who currently
work for the Company, or who have worked for the Company in the past
several years.

The Company has denied the allegation that it has engaged in any
unlawful "pattern and practice."  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was filed in May 2001.  The class they sought included
salaried employees in Puget Sound, Wichita, St. Louis, and Long Beach,
and hourly employees in Puget Sound, Wichita, and St. Louis.

In October 2001, the court granted class certification to a segment of
the population sought by the plaintiffs.  The court ruled that the
action could proceed on the basis of two limited subclasses:

     (i) all non-executive salaried women (excluding engineers) in the
         Puget Sound area, and

    (ii) all hourly women covered by the Machinists' Bargaining
         Agreement in the Puget Sound area.

The claims to be litigated are alleged gender discrimination in
compensation and promotion. The court also held that the plaintiffs
could not seek back pay.  Rather, should liability be found, the
potential remedies include some form of injunctive relief
as well as punitive damages.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has accepted the Company's
interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision, particularly
the ruling that leaves open the possibility of punitive damages.

In January 2002 and March 2002, four other gender discrimination class
actions were filed in locations that were originally part of the Beck
case but subsequently excluded from the class certified by the district
court.  The four new cases cover females employed in California,
Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma.  Many of the named plaintiffs in these
new cases were also named plaintiffs in Beck. Like Beck, these new
cases focus on compensation and promotion decisions.

The Company intends to continue its aggressive defense of these cases.
It is not possible to predict what impact, if any, these cases could
have on the financial statements.


DVT LITIGATION: Suit Delayed over Judge's Ownership of Airline Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action by victims of deep-vein thrombosis was adjourned
recently after the presiding judge revealed he owned shares in one of
the airlines involved, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.  The airlines deny liability for the condition, a
potentially fatal blood clot, also called DVT.

A hearing began this Monday at the High Court in London to establish
whether DVT can be classified as an accident under the Warsaw
Convention, which covers compensation for death and injury during air
travel.  The convention, adopted in 1929, defines an accident as an
event that is "external" to the passenger.

Should that be established in their favor, the claimants plan to take
action against up to 30 airlines, including British Airways, Delta
Airlines and American Airlines.

Judge Sir Robert Nelson said he had remembered Tuesday, after seeing a
newspaper article about British Airways, that he had shares in the
airline.  Judge Nelson said he has since sold the shares, and that his
ownership of them was "absolutely incapable" of affecting his decision
in the case.

"But the sensitivity of the holding of such shares - even a small
number - is in my view such that the parties must be given the
opportunity to consider whether I should continue," Judge Nelson said.
A hearing on November 15 will determine whether Judge Nelson should be
replaced.  The case will resume on November 18.

DVT, or deep-vein thrombosis, is a condition in which a blood clot
forms in the deep veins of the legs.  It can be fatal when part of the
clot breaks off and blocks a blood vessel in the lungs.  The condition
has been linked to long-haul flights and other environments in which
people sit still for long periods.


GAS COMPANIES: NV Files Antitrust Suit Over Natural Gas Market Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Nevada filed an antitrust class action accusing three
power companies of scheming to control the natural gas market in the
state, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The recently filed class action was filed in state court in Las Vegas
and is based on other suits filed in northern and southern California,
said Nevada consumer advocate Timothy Hay.  The suit follows a similar
civil suit filed by California ratepayers which also targets El Paso
Corp., Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric.  All three
have denied wrongdoing in that case.

Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa claims the companies
joined with Enron to manipulate natural gas prices by limiting flow on
one natural gas pipeline and conspiring to prevent the expansion of
another pipeline into the Las Vegas area.  Although Enron is named as a
co-conspirator, the company cannot be sued because it is in bankruptcy.

Nevada's complaint names the state and two families as plaintiffs, who
represent southern California energy market customers.  Under the
state's antitrust law, if the state proves two or more energy firms
colluded to commit antitrust violations, the state can seek triple
damages.

Plaintiffs' lawyers claim energy executives conspired at a 1996 meeting
in a Phoenix hotel room to divide up California's energy market and
exclude cheaper Canadian gas.  Under the alleged plan, El Paso agreed
to kill a Canadian pipeline project that would have competed with
pipelines operated by Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas &
Electric, both controlled by Sempra Energy.

In exchange, Southern California withdrew a bid for a pipeline project
that it allegedly could have completed for significantly less money
than El Paso, which also was bidding on the project.  Also canceled was
an alternative plan that would have piped in natural gas from Mexico.
The complaint claims the scheme resulted in unfairly high rates in the
Southern California energy market, which includes the Las Vegas area.

Consumer advocate Timothy Hay said Tuesday that the state would
consider settling the suit out of court.  The power companies reserved
comment until they have reviewed the complaint.


GEN-X SPORTS: Recalls 88,000 Skateboard Ramps For Accident Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gen-X Sports, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 88,000
skateboard ramps.  The ramps can crack causing users to fall and suffer
injuries.

The Company has received one report of the ramp cracking. The user, who
was riding a scooter at the time of the incident, fell and broke his
collarbone.

The recalled ramps include the Rage SSD (model 310937) and Skate Attack
SSD (model 312912).  The ramps are black and have a sticker with the
Rage or Skate Attack logo and name on each side.  The four peg holes,
used to anchor the ramp, are located on the underside of the ramp in
each corner. The ramps are 39-inches long, 28-inches wide and as high
as 12-inches.

Discount department and sports stores sold the ramps nationwide
from March 2002 through September 2002 for between $20 and $40.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 846-4369
between 8:30 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.genxsportsinc.com.


H&R BLOCK: Texas State Court To Order Forfeit Of US$75 Million In Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas state court judge has notified lawyers that he intends to order
H&R Block to forfeit $75 million in fees collected by the company and
sought by plaintiffs in a class action, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

The Company, in a statement, said it was "shocked" at the judge's
ruling and said, also, that it is evaluating all of its options,
including an immediate appeal.

The notice of award was made as part of a lawsuit filed in Kleberg
County District Court by attorney Robert C. Hilliard of the law firm
Hilliard & Munoz.  The suit is one of two class actions pending against
the Company in Texas.

The notice comes on the heels of a controversy involving the Company, a
tax preparer in Kansas City, Missouri.  Trading in Block's stock was
halted for four hours Friday of last week, after Avalon Research Group
Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida, disclosed that the Company's damages in
Texas class actions could reach $2 billion.  Avalon has a "sell" rating
on the Company's stock.  The Company, however, has said that there is
no basis for Avalon's assertions.

The notice of award by Texas state court Judge Manuel Banales is far
larger that the $12.5 million the Company has agreed to pay in a
similar case pending in Chicago.  The Company says the $12.5 million is
the largest amount it has ever paid to settle a class action.  A
fairness hearing involving the Chicago settlement resumes later this
month.

The plaintiffs in the Texas case had sought a disgorgement of revenue
generated by the Company in the years between 1992 and 1996, as part of
its refund-anticipation loan, or RAL, program.  The program provides
loans to tax-return filers in advance of their actual income-tax
refund.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Company received a cash
'kickback' from the bank that actually provided the refund loan, and
that it did not disclose this transaction to its RAL customers.

In a recently written letter to lawyers, Judge Banales said he would
grant the plaintiffs' request for a partial summary judgment.  The
judge also said he would hold that the Company owed a fiduciary duty to
the plaintiffs and that it had breached that duty.

"I further find that defendants committed a clear and serious violation
of duty and that forfeiture is appropriate.  I further find that the
misconduct occurred in each instance in which an RAL transaction
occurred, when defendants failed to disclose the 'kickback' or 'license
fee.'  I further find that such conduct was intentional, willful and
deliberate," he stated.


HOOVERS INC.: Individual Defendants Accept Tolling Agreement in NY Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Hoover's Inc.'s officers and one of its directors accepted a
tolling agreement offered by plaintiffs in the securities class action
pending against the company, by which the two would dismissed as
defendants from the suit without prejudice.

The Company faces several securities class actions filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from July 20,1999 through December
6,2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suits, which also name certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors and one of the underwriters of its July 1999
initial public offering, allege:

     (1) that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in
         the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
         exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
         agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
         stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices; and

     (2) that the Prospectus for the Company's initial public offering
         was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
         because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The suits are being coordinated with more than 300 other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these suits.


HUB GROUP: IL Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division granted Hub Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it, its officers
and former officers, who signed the Company's periodic reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and its former auditors.

The suit was commenced in February 2002 by Riggs Partners, LLC, alleges
that the defendants violated Section 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 there under
and section 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing or
causing to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
periodic reports that contained inaccurate financial statements.

In July 2002, the Company and its officers and former officers filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.  The Company's
former auditors also filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

On October 23, 2002, the federal district court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failing to allege
facts sufficient to state a claim.  The court also granted the motion
of the Company's former auditors.

The court's order also requires plaintiffs to file any amended
complaint by November 22, 2002.  If no further claims are filed, the
lawsuit will terminate.  If any further claims are filed, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend itself and its officers.  An adverse
judgment based on comparable claims, if filed, could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of
operations.


ONVIA.COM: NY Court Dismisses Former Execs From Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice, Onvia.com, Inc.'s former executive
officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert, as defendants in the
consolidated securities class action pending against them, the Company
and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB).

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's
securities between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000, charges
defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Company shares in
         the IPO in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions;
         and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under which
         the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those
         customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase
         Onvia shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal without prejudice was
entered, dismissing former officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T.
Calvert.  The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these
charges.  The results of litigation proceedings are inherently
unpredictable, however, and the Company is unable to provide assurance
regarding the outcome of these complaints or possible damages that may
be incurred.


ORAPHARMA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice certain of Orapharma, Inc.'s officers as
defendants in the consolidated securities class action pending against
them, the Company, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on:

     (1) allegedly material misstatements and/or omissions in the
         prospectus for the Company's initial public offering
         concerning the commissions received by the underwriters of
         such offering, and

     (2) failure to disclose the existence of purported agreements by
         the underwriters with some of the purchasers in such offering
         to buy additional shares of the Company subsequently in the
         open market at pre-determined prices.

The plaintiffs also asserted charges relating to manipulation and/or
material omissions arising from alleged touting by the underwriters'
analysts of the stocks of issuers, including the Company, with whom the
underwriters were conducting initial public offerings.

In June and July 2002, all defendants filed motions to dismiss all the
consolidated, amended complaints on numerous bases.  In October 2002
the court approved and entered a stipulated order dismissing without
prejudice all claims against the Company's officers in these cases
pending against the Company.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  The Company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.  An unfavorable
outcome in litigation could materially and adversely affect the
Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.


RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Court Rejects Petition For Interlocutory Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Raytheon
Corporation's petition for interlocutory appeal of a lower court's
refusal to dismiss the securities class action pending against it and
certain of its officers.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court in Boise, Idaho,
on behalf of all purchasers of common stock or senior notes of
Washington Group Inc. (WGI) from the period April 17, 2000 through
March 1, 2001.

The plaintiffs claims to have suffered harm by purchasing WGI
securities because the Company and certain of its officers allegedly
violated federal securities laws by purportedly misrepresenting the
true financial condition of Raytheon Engineers & Constructors (RE & C)
in order to sell RE & C to WGI at an artificially inflated price.

The Company and the individual defendants then filed a motion seeking
to dismiss the action in mid-November 2001.  On April 30, 2002, the
court denied the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition with the District Court
requesting permission to seek an immediate appeal of the lower court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which the court granted on July 1, 2002.  In August 2002, the Ninth
Circuit issued an order denying the petition for interlocutory appeal.
Defendants have filed their answer to the amended complaint and
discovery is under way.

The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant and members of
its Board of Directors and several current and former officers have
been named as defendants in another purported shareholder derivative
action filed in July 2001 in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts.

The derivative suit contains allegations similar to those included in
the federal suit, and further alleges that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties to the Company and purportedly failed to
maintain systems necessary for prudent management and control of the
Company's operations.

On June 28, 2002, all of the defendants in the derivative suit filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  In September 2002, the plaintiff
agreed voluntarily to dismiss this action without prejudice so that the
plaintiff may re-file the action in Delaware.


RIBOZYME CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: RZYM) reached an agreement to
settle a shareholder class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado in December of 1999, over the
trading in the Company's common stock on a single day in 1999.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock on November 16 and 17, 1999, alleges that the Company violated
certain federal securities laws based upon its having made an allegedly
misleading announcement on November 15, 1999, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

The Company's liability insurance policy covered the full amount of the
settlement.  The settlement is subject to final court approval.  "We
are pleased to have resolved this issue that dates back to 1999," said
Howard W. Robin, President and Chief Executive Officer of RPI.  "The
full amount of the settlement was well within the limits of the
company's insurance policy.  The lawsuit has no impact on RPI's current
cash position, and has not interfered with the pursuit of our focused
business strategy."

For more information, contact Cathy Robins, Dir. Corporate
Communications, Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Phone: 1-303-449-6500
or Amy Sullivan, Senior Vice President of Noonan Russo Presence by
Phone: 1-415-677-4455 ext. 219, for Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


RR DONNELLEY: Appeals Court Ruling on Statute of Limitations in IL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court heard R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Co.'s appeal of a federal
court's ruling on the appropriate statute of limitations to apply to
race discrimination class action pending against them on behalf of its
current and former African-American employees.

The first suit was filed in November 1996 in the United States District
Court in Chicago, Illinois, alleging that the company racially
discriminated against them in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1871, as amended, and the US Constitution (Jones, et al. v. R.R.
Donnelley & Sons Co.).  The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, and asks for actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages in an amount not less than US$500 million.

Although plaintiffs sought nationwide class certification, most of the
specific factual assertions of the complaint relate to the closing by
the company of its Chicago catalog operations in 1993.  Other general
claims relate to other company locations.

Another suit was filed in June 1998 in the same court on behalf of
current and former African-American employees, alleging that the
company racially discriminated against them in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Adams, et al. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons
Co.).

While making many of the same general discrimination claims contained
in the Jones complaint, the Adams plaintiffs are also claiming
retaliation by the company for the filing of discrimination charges or
otherwise complaining of race discrimination.  The complaint seeks the
same relief and damages as sought in the Jones case.

On April 6, 2001, in an amended opinion, the district court judge in
the two suits certified three plaintiff classes in the actions:

     (1) a class consisting of African-American employees discharged in
         connection with the shutdown of the Chicago catalog
         operations;

     (2) a class consisting of African-American employees of the
         Chicago catalog operations after November 1992 who were other
         than permanent employees; and

     (3) a class consisting of African-Americans subjected to an
         allegedly hostile working environment at the Chicago catalog
         operations, the Chicago Financial, Pontiac or Dwight,
         Illinois, manufacturing operations.

The judge also consolidated the two suits for pretrial purposes.  In an
order dated June 8, 2001, the district court ruled that a four-year,
rather than a two-year, statute of limitations applied to classes one
and three.  The Company promptly appealed the ruling

On April 4, 2002, the court of appeals heard the Company's appeal on
the issue of the appropriate statute of limitations to apply but has
not yet ruled.  The district court judge has also set for trial
beginning in November 2002, the claims of four of the plaintiffs with
individual claims unaffected by the pending appeal on the statute of
limitations question.

The consolidated suit relates primarily to the circumstances
surrounding the closure of the Chicago catalog operations.  The Company
believes that it acted properly and without discriminating in closing
the operations.  The company believes it has a number of valid defenses
to all of the claims made and will vigorously defend its actions.


RR DONNELLEY: Jury Says No Discrimination in Shutdown of Chicago Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois jury ruled that RR Donnelley & Sons, Co. did not
discriminate against older workers in the shutdown of its Chicago
catalog operations, after a two trial in the United States District
Court in Chicago, Illinois.

The Company faces two similar class actions, the first of which was
filed in December 1995, alleging that older workers were discriminated
against in selection for termination upon the closing of the Chicago
catalog operations (Gerlib, et al. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.).

The suit also alleges that the company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in determining benefits payable under its
Retirement Benefit and Separation Pay Plans to retiring or terminated
employees.  The complaint seeks recalculation of pension benefits and
separation pay due plaintiffs since their termination dates, as well as
actual damages for, and reinstatement to correct, the alleged
discrimination.  On August 14, 1997, the court certified classes in
both the age discrimination and ERISA claims limited to certain former
employees of the Chicago catalog operations.

In December 2000, another class action was brought against the Company
and certain of its benefit plans in the same court on behalf of certain
former employees of the Chicago catalog operations (Jefferson, et al.
v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., et al.).

The suit alleges that enhanced pension benefits were not paid to
plaintiffs and that plaintiffs are being required to contribute to the
costs of retiree medical coverage, both allegedly in violation of plan
documents and ERISA.  The complaint seeks:

     (1) recalculation of pension benefits due plaintiffs since their
         retirement dates,

     (2) reimbursement of any amounts paid by plaintiffs for medical
         coverage,

     (3) interest on the foregoing amounts, and

     (4) declaration as to the benefits due plaintiffs in the future

The two suits raise many of the same claims for recalculation of
benefits due employees and are before the same district court judge.
Several of these claims have been decided at the trial court level
through rulings on summary judgment motions of the parties.

In an order dated October 26, 2001, further clarified in an order dated
January 25, 2002, the court ruled that permanent employees who were
eligible and elected to receive special augmented separation pay in
conjunction with the closure of the Chicago catalog operations
were not eligible to also receive regular separation pay, and that
employees other than those considered permanent employees at the date
of closure were not eligible to receive special augmented separation
pay.

In the same order, the judge ruled that under the terms of the
Company's plans, permanent employees who were eligible and elected to
receive enhanced retirement benefits were also entitled to receive
regular separation pay.

In an order dated June 11, 2002, the court found that employees who
were otherwise not eligible to receive enhanced retirement benefits at
the date of closure of the Chicago catalog operations but whose
combined age and service equaled 75 years or more at the date of their
termination were entitled to receive enhanced retirement benefits, and
that employees of the Chicago catalog operations in 1994 who were in
surplus occupations were entitled to receive enhanced retirement
benefits regardless of their age at the date of termination.

In the June 2002 order, the judge further ruled that members of the
classes who elected to receive augmented separation pay in connection
with the closure of the Chicago catalog operations were not entitled to
also receive enhanced retirement benefits.

As to other claims of the plaintiffs in the cases, by order dated
January 4, 2002, the court granted summary judgment on the Jefferson
claim relating to medical benefits, finding that retirees from the
Chicago catalog operations were not entitled to non-contributory
medical benefits for life.

Following a two week trial on the age discrimination claim raised in
Gerlib, on August 2, 2002, a jury upheld the Company's position,
finding that the company did not discriminate against older workers in
the shutdown of the Chicago catalog operations.

The Company believes that it acted properly and without discriminating
in closing the operations, and that the adverse rulings of the district
court judge are based on language contained in its plan documents
rather than on wrongdoing of the company.

Further, with regard to all cases, the company believes it has a number
of valid defenses to all of the claims made and will vigorously defend
its actions.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, California
statutory wage and hour laws, and laws relating to unlawful and unfair
business practices.

The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work times
and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed before and
after hours and during meal periods.  The lawsuit seeks class action
status and seeks damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment
against the Company.

The Company does not currently believe that the outcome of this
litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.  However, the Company cannot
presently determine the potential total damages, if any, or the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.


SL INDUSTRIES: Named As Defendant in NJ Suit Over Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SL Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary SL Surface Technologies, Inc.
(Surftech) were named as two of the 39 defendants in the class action
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County, alleging,
among other things, that plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a
result of consuming contaminated water distributed from the Puchack
Wellfield in Pennsauken, New Jersey (which supplies Camden, New
Jersey).

The suit alleges that SurfTech and other defendants contaminated ground
water through the disposal of hazardous substances at industrial
facilities in the area.  SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating
facility in Pennsauken.

The Company believes it has significant defenses against the claims and
intends to pursue them vigorously.  Technical data generated as part of
remedial activities at the SurfTech Site have not established offsite
migration of contaminants.


STERLING TRUST: Settles CA Suit Over Personal Choice Promissory Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sterling Trust Company settled a class action filed in October 1999
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, on behalf of all persons and entities that invested in
promissory notes issued by Personal Choice Opportunities.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Company, as custodian
of the plaintiffs' self-directed IRAs, breached its fiduciary duty and
was negligent.

In January 2002, the Company entered into a settlement with the
plaintiffs, which was later approved by the court.  The settlement
requires no payment from the Company, other than the $5,000 retention
amount pursuant to the terms of its insurance policy.  The remainder of
the settlement consideration was paid the by Company's insurer.  The
settlement has become final, and the case has been closed.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnstone Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it, certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's September
21,2000 secondary offering of common stock.

The first suit, filed by the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement
System, alleged that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements in the Company's prospectus issued in connection with the
secondary offering.

At about the same time, four other purported class actions were filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the same court alleging that the defendants made false or
misleading statements during the class period of June 5, 2000 through
January 2, 2001.

All five cases were consolidated on October 26, 2001, and by court
order dated December 3, 2001, Radiant Advisors, LLC was designated as
lead plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP were designated as
co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions.  Two separate
consolidated amended complaints were filed in March 2002.

On June 20, 2002, the court issued an order for plaintiff to show cause
as to why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for
plaintiff's failure to file one consolidated amended complaint.  The
plaintiff filed a certificate of counsel in response to the order on
June 27, 2002.  The Company filed its response on July 3, 2002.

On August 30, 2002, the court struck the two separate amended
complaints previously filed by plaintiff and ordered that a single
amended complaint be filed. Plaintiff filed a single amended complaint
on September 13, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 8, 2002.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Derivative Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuit against Turnstone
Systems, Inc. appealed the California State Court, county of Santa
Clara's decision dismissing the suit, filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and directors, with prejudice.

The suit alleges that the individual defendants caused the Company harm
by either making or permitting the Company to make false and misleading
statements between June 5, 2000 and January 2, 2001 and by permitting
certain officers to profit from stock sales during that period.  The
complaint asserts claims against the individual defendants for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) waste of corporate assets,

     (3) abuse of control and

     (4) gross mismanagement of the Company

The Company demurred to the complaint on July 9, 2001.  On September
28, 2001, a court order was issued sustaining the demurrer and granting
plaintiff limited discovery.  On December 19, 2001, subsequent to the
completion of the court-ordered discovery, plaintiff filed a first
amended derivative complaint alleging the same causes of action
asserted in the initial complaint.  The Company filed a demurrer to the
first amended derivative complaint on January 10, 2002.

On February 22, 2002, Judge Jack Komar issued an order sustaining the
demurrer and granting plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2002.  The Company
filed a demurrer to the second amended derivative complaint on April
22, 2002.  On May 28, 2002, Judge Komar issued an order sustaining the
demurrer and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal on August 1, 2002.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Turnstone System, Inc.'s current and former officers as
defendants in the securities class action pending against them, the
Company and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
of stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of individuals who purchased common stock in
the initial public offering between January 31 and December 6, 2000,
alleges generally that the prospectus under which such securities were
sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to
discounts and commissions received by the underwriters.  The case has
been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300 cases raising the
same or similar issues and also currently pending in the Southern
District of New York.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other
issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the underwriters' motion to dismiss on August
15, 2002 and to the issuers' motion to dismiss on August 27, 2002.

Each of the Company's current and former officers who were named in the
suit entered into a tolling agreement, effective as of July 20, 2002,
with the plaintiff.  Pursuant to the tolling agreement, plaintiff
agreed to dismiss the Company's current and former officers from the
lawsuit in exchange for a tolling of the statute of limitations with
respect to any claims that may be asserted against them through the
earlier of thirty days after the termination of the tolling agreement
or September 30, 2003.  On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing the Company's current and former officers from the lawsuit.


WYOMING: ACLU Asks Judge To Order State Prison To Ensure Inmate Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking a judge to order
the State of Wyoming's Penitentiary to ensure the safety of all current
and future inmates as part of the remedial action sought by a class
action claiming that the state has ignored inmate-on-inmate attacks at
the prison, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Inmate Brad Skinner filed the lawsuit earlier this year after he claims
he was seriously hurt when other inmates beat him.  Attorneys from the
ACLU are representing him.  Arguments in the motion for summary
judgment will be heard in US District Court on Friday.

In the motion, ACLU attorneys say the Wyoming Department of Corrections
has knowledge of 100 to 300 inmate-on-inmate attacks over the past six
years, one of which left an inmate dead.  The ACLU's attorneys say that
just three of those attacks have been investigated and no disciplinary
action was taken against prison staff members.   Prison policy requires
an investigation into any assault that results in serious bodily
injury.

The lawsuit has been divided into two parts; an individual claim by Mr.
Skinner seeking damages for the prison's failure to protect him from
the 1999 attack and the second part, a class action claim.  The lawsuit
names as defendants:

     (1) Corrections Director Judith Uphoff,

     (2) prison complex administrator Vance Everett,

     (3) security officer James Hewitt,

     (4) security officer David Ebell, and

     (5)_unnamed security officers

The lawsuit claims prison officials did nothing to fix problems caused
by a lack of staff and inmate overcrowding.  Prison officials also did
not investigate whether staff made mistakes in handling the attack on
Mr. Skinner, the lawsuit claimed.  The lack of a policy for such cases
has led to deaths and serious injuries.

In depositions for the lawsuit, Ms. Uphoff conceded that the death of
inmate Ellis Kennedy might have been prevented had prison policies been
followed.  Mr. Kennedy was found dead in his cell.  Ms. Uphoff also
acknowledged that enforcement of prison policies might have prevented
the multiple stabbing of Melvin Slayton.  ACLU attorneys said that Ms.
Uphoff and Mr. Everett admitted the policy requiring internal
investigations for assaults had not been followed.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE:AYE) between April 23, 2001
and October 8, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Alan J. Noia,

     (2) Michael P. Morrell,

     (3) Bruce E. Walenczyk, and

     (4) Daniel L. Gordon

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 16, 2001, Allegheny
Energy's subsidiary Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC announced that
it completed its acquisition of Global Energy Markets (G.E.M.) from
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch).  The suit alleges that
Allegheny Energy made false and misleading statements during the class
period in that it omitted to state that its revenues (and revenue
guidance) materially depended, on illusory, revenue creating, "wash
transaction" with Enron, and other deceptive energy trading practices.

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,
the Company alleged that it overpaid for G.E.M. because the unit's
financial reports had been 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.  The Company, in a press release,
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 Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased securities of Allegheny Energy Inc. (NYSE:AYE) between
April 23, 2001 and October 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price
of Company securities.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
Allegheny Energy's business and financial condition.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that, on March 16, 2001, the Company's subsidiary,
Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC announced that it had completed
its acquisition of Global Energy Markets (G.E.M.) 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.

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,
the Company alleged, among other things, that it overpaid for G.E.M.
because the unit's financial reports had been 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.  The
Company further admitted that the effect of those trades was to
artificially inflate revenues, trading volumes and growth rate.

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.

Upon this news 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%.

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


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of American Electric
Power Co., Inc. [NYSE: AEP] between May 17, 1999 and October 9, 2002,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers,
directors and three underwriters violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the class period.

The complaint alleges that AEP's trading operations were in disarray
and its management controls left the company at risk of contingent
legal liabilities arising out of the actions of its electric power
traders.  AEP, after first denying it engaged in activities referred to
as "wash" or "round-trip" trading later admitted to engaging in such
trades.

On August 30, 2002 AEP revealed that the SEC had initiated an informal
inquiry into its trading practices and on October 9, 2002 disclosed
that it had fired five employees for reporting inaccurate price
information.  As a result of this disclosure AEP's shares tumbled to a
52-week low.

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


BROADWING INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Broadwing, Inc. (NYSE:BRW) between
January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002 thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company, together with its
consolidated subsidiaries, purported to be a full-service, local and
national provider of data and voice communications services.
Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
represented to investors that:

     (1) the Company's business was strong;

     (2) it had unique attributes that set it apart from its
         competitors in the industry and that immunized it from the
         adverse effects of the industry-wide downturn and related
         "bandwidth glut";

     (3) the Company was successfully achieving strong financial
         results and executing on its business plan; and

     (4) the Company's goodwill asset was reasonably valued at $2.2
         billion.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the Company was not increasing its revenue by winning over new
         customers with unique and superior service offerings but
         rather through the use of one-time transactions with other
         carriers and sham swap transactions that had no economic
         substance;

    (ii) Broadwing's broadband revenue flow was extraordinarily
         unreliable because it was derived in large part from its
         competitors who were themselves vulnerable to the
         telecommunications industry downturn; and

   (iii) the Company's reported goodwill and shareholder equity were
         grossly over-valued.

On May 20, 2002, the truth emerged that a material portion of the
Company's revenue was derived from one-transactions with its
competitors.  Company share price plummeted 30% on these reports and
related concerns about the quality of the Company's revenue reporting
and liquidity, to close at $3.70 down $1.58 from the previous days
closing price of $5.28.

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation 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 Razorfish, Inc.,
(Nasdaq:RAZF) between June 14, 1999 and May 4 2001 inclusive.

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

The complaint further alleges, among other things, that when issuing
its Razorfish analyst reports, defendant CSFB failed to disclose
material, non-public, adverse information which it possessed about
Razorfish.  Throughout the proposed class period, CSFB maintained
positive recommendation on Razorfish in order to obtain and support
lucrative financial deals for CSFB.

The class period begins on June 14, 1999 at which time CSFB maintained
a "BUY" rating for Razorfish common stock.  The class period ends on
May 4, 2001 the date CSFB belatedly downgraded Razorfish to a "HOLD"
rating.  As a result of CSFB's false and misleading analyst reports,
Razorfish common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during
the proposed class period.

For more details, contact Joel B. Strauss or Donald R. Hall by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800-290-1952
or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP 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 (NYSE:CSR), and one of its technology analysts, on behalf of all
persons who purchased common stock of AOL Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:AOL)
during the period from January 12, 2001 through September 3, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by
issuing a series of favorable research reports on the Company 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 Ted Hess-Mahan or Liz Hutton by Mail: 75
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, or by 800-287-8119 by Fax:
617-439-0134, or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.


ENDOCARE INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Endocare,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ENDO) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 23, 2001 and October 30, 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.  The Company develops, manufactures,
and markets cryosurgical and stent technological devices for the
treatment of prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia.  The
Company is also developing cryosurgical technologies for treating
tumors in organs such as the kidney, breast and liver.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  As a result of
this inflation, the Company was able to complete a public offering of 4
million shares, raising proceeds of $68 million on Nov. 16, 2001.

On Oct. 30, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled,
"Endocare Will Delay Release of Third Quarter Results Until Completion
of Its Review Process." On this news the stock dropped below $3 per
share.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of Liberate Technologies (Nasdaq:
LBRTE) common stock during the period 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.

The Company's 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 Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


NUI CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, on behalf
of purchasers of NUI Corporation (NYSE: NUI) publicly traded securities
during the period between November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of NUI securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, NUI issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
businesses, and current and future financial prospects.  As alleged in
the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

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

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

On October 18, 2002, defendants shocked the market when they announced
that NUI's earnings for FY 2002 would be far below their prior
guidance, in part because of increased fixed cost expenses for its
telecommunications business, accruals for pension expenses, and
increases to the reserves for medical and health benefit claims.

Following this announcement, NUI's shares fell $9.27 per share, or
approximately 49%, to close at $10.90 per share.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


RETEK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Retek Inc. (Nasdaq: RETK) between
October 17, 2001 and July 8, 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.  The Company is a leading provider of
software solutions and services to the retail industry.

In April 2000, the Company announced that it had formed an alliance
with IBM to develop a partnership to develop a merchandising solution
for the food and drug segment of the retail market.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the defendants continuously led the market to
believe not only that the alliance was fully intact but also that the
alliance was on track to generate revenues of more than $1 billion for
the two companies for the year 2003.

Defendants, however, concealed that not only was the $1 billion
prospect a fallacy, but that throughout the class period the so-called
alliance was in shambles.  The Company wanted access to IBM's
consulting deals and IBM wanted Retek to change its software
applications so that they ran on IBM's platform, not Oracle's.

By October 2001, defendants realized that the conversion would be too
costly in the short run and delayed the full conversion to IBM
platforms, including the most critical, a merchandising product for
large-scale retail operations.

The complaint further alleges that by the beginning of the class
period, many of the Company's projects (IBM) were faltering and its new
products (Retek 10), which were scheduled to boast earnings, were
riddled with bugs.  Moreover, one of the Company's joint ventures,
PerformanceRetail Inc. (PRI), was hemorrhaging nearly $200,000 of the
Company's monies per month.

Finally, the defendants' projections were not only stale but actually
false when made as the defendants knew or made a conscious decision to
ignore the fact that circumstances underlying those projections (i.e.,
problems with Retek 10, the IBM alliance, PRI, an eroding customer
base) actually compelled the conclusion that the Company could not
possibly achieve the projections.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action alleging
securities fraud against Syncor International Corp. (NASDAQ:SCOR) and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period March 30, 2000 through and including
November 5, 2002, charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
trumpeting significant sales growth in the Company's international
business.

These press releases and public filings were materially false and
misleading in that they failed to disclose that throughout the class
period, the Company's Chairman of the Board and the director of its
Asian division were making illegal payments to the Company's overseas
customers.

Before the market opened on November 6, 2002, the Company shocked the
market by announcing that it was conducting an internal investigation
into illegal payments to its overseas customers and had contacted the
Justice Department and the Securities Exchange Commission, and that its
previously announced acquisition by Cardinal Health, Inc. was in doubt.

As a result of this news, Company stock price dropped sharply in pre-
market trading to $22.50 per share, down $13.42 per share from its
previous closing price of $35.92, and NASDAQ halted trading of Company
stock pending a satisfactory response to its request for additional
information from the Company.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, Ted Hess-Mahan, or Liz
Hutton, by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
800-287-8119 by Fax: 617-439-0134, or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of Tenet Healthcare Corporation
(NYSE: THC) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 3, 2001 and October 31, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Tenet, through its subsidiaries, owns or operates general hospitals and
related health care facilities serving communities in the United
States.  The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company's favorable financial results were due to
its commitment to quality and cost-effective care.

Throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly stated that the
Company'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 the Company was consistently achieving record results.

Defendants actually knew that the quality of the Company'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 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.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in 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 acquired Williams Communications
Group, Inc.; now known as Wiltel Communications Group, Inc. (OTCBB:
WTELV) between the dates of October 27, 1997 and November 2, 2001,
inclusive.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants issued reports recommending the
purchase of the Company's common stock and set price targets for the
Company's common stock without any reasonable factual basis.
Furthermore, when issuing their Company analyst reports, defendants
failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest in that
Defendants wanted to obtain investment banking business for Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc. (Salomon) from WCG.  Throughout the class period,
Defendants maintained a "Buy" recommendation on WCG in order to obtain
and support lucrative financial deals for Salomon.

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tenet Healthcare
Corporation (NYSE: THC) securities between October 3, 2001 and October
31, 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 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 the Company was consistently achieving record results.

However, the suit claims that defendants actually knew that the quality
of the Company'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
intra vascular ultrasound, stent placement, and angioplasty performed
by Dr. Chae Moon for profit.  The scheme also included 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *