CAR_Public/021125.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, November 25, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 233

                              Headlines                            

BABY TREND: Voluntarily Recalls 15,000 Infant Swings For Injury Hazard
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Officers Dismissed from NY Securities Lawsuit
CYLINK CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit For $6.2 Million
DISNEY STORE: Voluntarily Recalls 14,500 Plush Dolls For Choking Hazard
EL PASO: Major Stockholder Sues, Alleges False & Misleading Statements

H&R BLOCK: Agrees To Settlement In Texas Lawsuit Over Tax Refund Loans
HAWAII: Substitute Teachers Bring Lawsuit Seeking Millions In Back Pay
HMO LITIGATION: Insurers Ask Ohio Court To Dismiss Doctors' Fraud Suit
HOME DEPOT: Agrees to $3.8M Settlement Over Pricing In Massachusetts
INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary Will Appeal Contempt Sanctions

JDS UNIPHASE: Plans To File Motion To Dismiss CA Securities Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Stockholder Derivative Suits
KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 410T Walker Attachments For Injury Hazard
MCDONALD'S CORP.: Lawyers Spar Over Legal Basis Of Fast-Food Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: South Dakota High Court To Decide Antitrust Suit's Fate

NCS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Favorable Summary Judgment in DE Lawsuit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Derivative Suit
PEMSTAR INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Fraud Suit in MN
PHILIP MORRIS: Oregon Woman Commences Light Cigarette Suit in OR Court

PSS WORLD: FL Court Hears Oral Arguments Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
PSS WORLD: Sued For Labor Act, Unfair Competition Act Violations in FL
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Expects Bias Suit Settlement Finalized in December
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.: PA Consumer Suit Focuses on Installment Issues
SECURE COMPUTING: Agrees To Settle CA Securities Fraud Suit For $10.1M
THOMAS & BETTS: Fairness Hearing For Suit Settlement Set December 2002
THORN AMERICAS: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Clarify Certification Order
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Four New York Unions File Lawsuit Over HMO Payments

WAL-MART STORES: Testimony Underway In Overtime Wage Suit in OR Court
WAL-MART STORES: TX Court Refuses Class Certification To Employee Suit
WASHINGTON: State's Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Foster Care Suit
WILD OATS: Faces Consumer Suit Over Hepatitis A Outbreak in BC Canada

*Employee Wage, Hour Lawsuits On The Rise, Filed in Courts Nationwide


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ASIA GLOBAL: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
ENDOCARE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
OM GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
SEPRACOR INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                         *********


BABY TREND: Voluntarily Recalls 15,000 Infant Swings For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baby Trend, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to repair about
15,000 infant swings.  A screw on the swing's support arm can loosen or
detach, causing the seat to separate and drop to one side.  This
presents a fall hazard to infants.  The Company has received 10 reports
of the screws loosening.  No injuries have been reported.
        
This recall involves "Trend Swing" stationary infant swings, model
numbers 8711 and 8722 found on a label on the bottom of the seat.  The
swings were sold in khaki/gingham and navy/white plaid, and feature a
toy bar, song player and timer.  "Baby Trend" is printed on the front
of the seat's tray and "Trend Swing" is printed on the arm.  "Baby
Trend" and "Made in China" are also printed on the label on the bottom
of the seat.
        
Toys R Us stores sold these swings nationwide from November 2001
through September 2002 for between $60 and $90.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 328-7363
between 8 am and 4:30 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.babytrend.com


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Officers Dismissed from NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Cybersource Corporation's officers and one of its former
officers have been dismissed as defendants in the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Several suits were filed in July and August 2001 against the Company,
the Company's Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage
firms that served as underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.  The actions were filed on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial
public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December
6, 2000.

The action alleges that the Company's underwriters charged secret
excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for
allocations of the Company's stock in the offering.  The two individual
defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in
preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering,
which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive
commissions.

In December 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions
to expand the purported class to persons who purchased the Company's
stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering
during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer defendants in the
case, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

The Company believes that the allegations seem directed primarily at
its underwriters and has been informed that this action is one of
numerous similar actions filed against underwriters relating to other
initial public offerings.  The Company intends to exercise its
indemnification rights against the underwriters and to defend itself
vigorously.

While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, the
Company does not presently believe that an adverse outcome in the
lawsuit would have a material effect on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


CYLINK CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit For $6.2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cylink Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities class
action pending against it and certain of its current and former
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The consolidated suit alleges, among other things, that the Company's
previously issued financial statements were materially false and
misleading and that the defendants knew or should have known that these
financial statements caused its common stock price to rise
artificially.  

The complaints also allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  

On October 16, 2002, the Company entered into an agreement with all
plaintiffs to settle the class action for US$6.2 million.  The
settlement amount will be paid entirely from insurance proceeds under
insurance policies held by the Company.  The settlement agreement is
subject to court approval and the Company expects that it will be
approved in March 2003.


DISNEY STORE: Voluntarily Recalls 14,500 Plush Dolls For Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Disney Store, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 14,500
Sulley with Boo plush dolls sold exclusively at The Disney Store
nationwide.  The recalled 12-inch doll is a blue monster named Sulley
that is holding a 6-inch girl doll, named Boo.  Both are characters in
the 2001 animated film, Monsters, Inc.  The Boo doll's hair has
ponytail holders that could detach, posing a choking hazard for young
children.
        
The Company has not received any reports of injuries or incidents
involving these dolls and is voluntarily recalling them to prevent
future incidents.
        
The recall includes only the 12-inch Sulley with Boo plush dolls.  The
Sulley doll is a blue monster with purple spots, a tail and horns.  
Sulley is holding a Boo doll in his right arm.  Boo is a little girl
with dark hair and small pink ball ponytail holders and rubber bands.  
Labels on the Sulley doll read, "Disney Store," "SULLEY W/BOO 12"," and  
"Made in China."
        
The Disney Stores nationwide exclusively sold these plush dolls
from July 2002 through October 2002 for about $20.      
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 566-3161
between 8 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.disneystore.com
        

EL PASO: Major Stockholder Sues, Alleges False & Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of El Paso Corporation's largest single shareholders sued the
Houston energy concern, alleging it violated securities laws by making
false and misleading statements about its financial health and
performance, The Wall Street Journal reports.

In a suit seeking class action status, Oscar Wyatt Jr. details a list
of alleged abuses, including so-called round-trip trading, improper
profit recognition and hidden debt.  The lawsuit accuses the Company of
artificially inflating profit by overvaluing trading contracts and
concealing debt through off-balance sheet partnerships.  Mr. Wyatt and
his family are major shareholders of El Paso stock after El Paso's
acquisition last year of Coastal Corp., a company Mr. Wyatt led.

The general allegations in the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in
Houston, echo charges Mr. Wyatt has made for several months outside
court.  The charges set forth in the lawsuit describe alleged actions
by the company and several officers in detail - for example, providing
exact trading data that attempt to show the Company conducted round-
trip trades, which the Company has denied.

Similarly, the complaint gives what it alleges is detailed data to show
that the Company engaged in round-trip or "wash" trades.  These are
essentially mirror-image swaps of the same amount of energy for the
same price.  This practice is the focus of several federal probes -
including at least two grand-jury investigations - looking into the
practice at a number of energy companies.  

Although the Company denies conducting wash trades, the lawsuit cites
such details as confirmation numbers, counterparties and brokers, all
an attempt to suggest that some of El Paso's trades fit the regulators'
definition of the controversial practice.

Mr. Wyatt's complaint also alleges that a long-term power agreement
entered into by El Paso earlier this year should be scrutinized for how
it was valued.  The lawsuit alleges that a single pair of electricity
trades between El Paso and Morgan Stanley, one the company's bankers,
was used to help value the agreement at more than $400 million for El
Paso in the first quarter of the year.

El Paso's outside accountant PricewaterhouseCoopers, was satisfied
about the valuation of the agreement between El Paso and a unit of
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., a New Jersey investor-owned
utility, only after the Morgan Stanley trades, the lawsuit claims.  
PricewaterhouseCoopers declined to comment citing company policy on
client accounts.


H&R BLOCK: Agrees To Settlement In Texas Lawsuit Over Tax Refund Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block has agreed to settle a class action in Texas that charged it
with receiving kickbacks from a bank that issued loans to the Company's
tax-preparation customers, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The settlement, in which the Company denies liability, provides, among
other things, a five-year package of $20 coupons that class members can
use to obtain services from the Company.  If every potential rebate
coupon and benefit were redeemed - which the Company called "not a
realistic scenario," - the value of the settlement would be $262.2
million.  Plaintiffs' lawyer Robert C. Hilliar said the Company also
must pay legal fees of $49 million.

In the case, Texas plaintiffs, representing a class of 700,000 members,
took legal issue with the Company's so-called refund anticipation loan
program, which provides loans to tax-return filers in advance of their
actual income-tax refund.  

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company received a kickback from the
bank that actually provided the refund loan, and that it did not
disclose this transaction to customers.  No banks were named as
defendants in the case.

The Company said it would split an undisclosed portion of the cost of
the settlement with its major franchisee, which operates more than half
of all the Company's offices in Texas.  The Company said its share of
the settlement will result in a pretax charge of $41.7 million, or 14
cents a share, which it would take in the fiscal second quarter ended
October 31, 2002.  The settlement must be approved by Judge J. Manuel
Banales of the district court in Kleberg County, Texas.

Two weeks ago, the judge startled the Company by issuing a letter, in
which he said he intended to award plaintiffs nearly $75 million in
damages.  The judge found that the Company had engaged in "intentional,
willful and deliberate" conduct by failing to disclose the "kickbacks"
it received from the loaning bank as part of its refund anticipation
loan program.

The judge appeared to base the damages done the plaintiffs on what
Judge Banales termed H&R Block's breach of fiduciary duty to the
customers seeking the refund anticipation loan.  This statement of the
extent of duty flowing from Block to the customer created controversy
and debate, which seems to have concluded with damages chiefly in the
form of coupons to be redeemed by plaintiffs continuing to purchase
services from Block.

The Texas settlement does not end, however, Block's legal problems over
its refund anticipation loan program.  A second class action, in
Chicago, remains unresolved.  Block initially had agreed to settle the
Chicago suit for $25 million.  However, some plaintiffs in that case
have argued that $25 million is insufficient, resulting in a federal
appeals court sending the case back to district court for a hearing on
its fairness.  That hearing ended last Friday, and the judge is
expected to issue a decision sometime in December.


HAWAII: Substitute Teachers Bring Lawsuit Seeking Millions In Back Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Maui attorney has filed a class action against the state of Hawaii,
claiming 5,300 substitute teachers are owed millions of dollars in back
pay, Associated Press Newswires reports.  The lawsuit contends that
state law has been violated because the substitutes were paid less than
the daily pay for starting teachers.

Attorney Eric Ferrer, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit,
which was filed recently in Maui Circuit Court, challenges an opinion
by the state attorney general's office that substitutes are supposed to
receive the same wage level as instructors.

The lawsuit seeks retroactive pay for at least two years, and perhaps
as far back as 1996.  David Garner, one of the plaintiffs, said the
back pay could total more than $3 million a year.

Earlier this year, state education officials set a uniform pay scale
based on pay level for instructors after receiving complaints that
substitutes' pay had not kept pace with teacher salaries as required by
law.  Substitute teachers are not members of the Hawaii State Teachers
Association and do not receive health and retirement benefits.

The Laborers International Union of North America is trying to organize
substitute teachers into a bargaining unit.


HMO LITIGATION: Insurers Ask Ohio Court To Dismiss Doctors' Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care insurers have asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit, brought
by doctors in the Cincinnati area, alleging that the insurers illegally
conspired to reduce reimbursements for medical services. The insurers
say their dispute should be settled out of court, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The insurers' attorneys recently asked Hamilton County Common Pleas
Court Judge David Davis to dismiss the lawsuit in order to allow for
arbitration.  The insurers claim the doctors sued under an Ohio
antitrust law that does not apply to reimbursement rates for medical
services.

Lawyers for the doctors have said that the antitrust law was enacted to
generally bar any activity that hinders competition and that it would
apply to the price-fixing they allege.  The doctors' lawsuit alleges
that the insurers entered into an illegal agreement to reduce
reimbursement rates paid to doctors in the region.  The doctors are
asking the state court to end the alleged collusion and order
reimbursement rates comparable to those in other regional markets.  The
doctors also request unspecified money damages.

The doctors further allege that the illegal conspiracy to shortchange
them has undermined health care in the region.  The lawsuit says that
low reimbursement rates since the mid-1990s have made it harder to
recruit new doctors to Cincinnati, prompted older doctors to retire
early and left fewer specialists to serve patients in the region.

Cincinnati-area doctors are reimbursed at a rate of 35 to 50 percent of
the cost of services they provide, said Stanley Chesley, a lawyer for
the doctors.  Mr. Chesley said doctors in Indianapolis, a city about
the size of Cincinnati, are reimbursed at 70 percent.

Mr. Chesley urged Judge Davis to allow the lawsuit to continue while
the physicians gather additional data to support it.  Judge Davis said
he expects to rule within two months.  Richard Wayne, another lawyer
for the doctors, said if the lawsuit is allowed to continue, he hopes
it will go to trial within a year.

The Cincinnati Academy of Medicine and at least five physicians in
southwest Ohio filed the lawsuit against:

     (1) Aetna Health Inc.,

     (2) Humana Health Plan of Ohio,

     (3) United Healthcare of Ohio Inc. and

     (4) Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield


HOME DEPOT: Agrees to $3.8M Settlement Over Pricing In Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot reportedly has agreed to pay an estimated $3.8 million to
settle a class action that claimed consumers were hurt because the
stores did not stamp prices on individual items as required by
Massachusetts, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

However, neither the lead plaintiff, Coleman Herman, 59, nor any other
individual consumer will receive any money, The Boston Globe reports.  
Instead, up to half the money will pay lawyers and the rest will go to
consumer groups and charities, including Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Herman would not comment on his complaint under provisions of the
recently signed settlement agreement.  Mr. Herman had started his
campaign with a $25 claim in small claims court, then filed the class
action after the state attorney general's office declined to enforce
the regulation.

Home Depot spokesman John Simley said the settlement was "the best
possible outcome under the circumstances."  Home Depot said it would
have to spend $20 million over the next three years in order to comply
with the Massachusetts law at its 31 state locations and two Expo
Design Centers, according to the terms of the settlement.

Jon Hurst, president of the Retail Association of Massachusetts, said
the settlement could set a dangerous and costly precedent.  Mr. Hurst
said several other retailers already have been targeted in class
actions and warned that millions of dollars in settlements and in
stamping prices on items would eventually be passed down to consumers.


INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary Will Appeal Contempt Sanctions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Secretary Gale Norton will challenge a judge's ruling that
held her in contempt for concealing failures in fixing a history of
mismanagement of royalties from Indian land, according to Associated
Press Newswires.

Government attorneys recently filed a notice with the US Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, indicating they plan to
appeal the September contempt ruling by the US District Judge Royce
Lamberth.

"The Justice Department and the Department of Interior remain confident
that the law and the facts of this case do not justify the court's
September 17 finding of contempt," said Interior Department spokesman
Daniel DuBray.

Judge Lamberth ruled in September that Secretary Norton and Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs Neal A. McCaleb had failed to comply with
his 1999 order to the department to account for more than a century of
proceeds from oil, gas, mining and timber royalties on Indian land.

Moreover, Judge Lamberth said they had committed "fraud on the court"
by concealing the failures and misrepresenting their progress in fixing
the management problems and protecting the Indian money.

"In my 15 years on the bench, I have never seen a litigant make such a
concerted effort to subvert the truth-seeking function of the judicial
process," Judge Lamberth wrote in his ruling.  "The Department of
Interior is truly an embarrassment to the federal government in general
and the executive branch in particular."

Ms. Norton was the third Cabinet official held in contempt since the
class action was filed in 1996 on behalf of 350,000 American Indian
account holders in the Trust Fund.  Former President Clinton's Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were found
in contempt in 1999.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Dennis Gingold, said a civil contempt ruling
cannot be appealed until the lawsuit is resolved.  Even if the
government could, it have to show that Judge Lamberth erred in his
ruling, and the record in this case is "overwhelming in the pervasive
fraud that has been perpetrated on the court."

In 1887, Congress assigned American Indians small parcels of land and
tasked the Interior Department with managing the royalties.  For more
than a century, an untold amount of money intended for some of the
nation's poorest residents was lost, stolen or never collected.  A
group of Indians sued the government in 1996, claiming the government
squandered between $10 billion and $40 billion.


JDS UNIPHASE: Plans To File Motion To Dismiss CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended
securities class action filed against them in December 2002 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in March 2002, several securities class actions were filed
against the Company and several of its current and former officers and
directors, on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the
Company's securities from July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001.  The
suits were later consolidated.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various violations
of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b), 14(a),
20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

No trial date has been set in the suit.  The Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the suit is
without merit.


JDS UNIPHASE: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Stockholder Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the federal shareholder
derivative suits filed on its behalf against several of its current and
former officers and directors in state and federal courts.  Some of
these actions also named its independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP,
as a defendant.

The suits allege state law claims for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) misappropriation of confidential information,

     (3) waste of corporate assets,

     (4) contribution and indemnification,

     (5) insider trading,

     (6) abuse of control,

     (7) gross mismanagement and

     (8) unjust enrichment

These actions include:

     (1) Coykendall v. Kaplan, filed on April 11, 2002 in California
         Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara,

     (2) Plotkin v. Kaplan, filed on May 1, 2002 in California Superior
         Court for the County of Santa Clara,

     (3) Wright v. Straus, filed on May 13, 2002 in California Superior
         Court for the County of Santa Clara,

     (4) Schienberg v. Straus, filed on August 9, 2002 in California
         Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara,

     (5) Bogosian v. Straus, filed on May 16, 2002 in California
         Superior Court for the County of San Mateo,

     (6) Abo v. Kaplan, filed on June 19, 2002 in California
         Superior Court for the County of San Mateo,

     (7) Williams v. Ernst & Young, filed on September 3, 2002 in
         California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo,

     (8) Equitec-Cole Roesler, LLC v. JDS Uniphase Corp., filed on
         October 8, 2002 in California Superior Court for the County of
         San Mateo,

     (9) Cromas v. Straus, filed on April 25, 2002 in the Delaware
         Court of Chancery for New Castle County;

    (10) Corwin v. Kaplan, filed on April 24, 2002 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California; and

    (11) Shalom v. Kaplan, filed on June 21, 2002 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California

On September 27, 2002, the District Court for the Northern District of
California vacated its order to show cause regarding the court's
jurisdiction over the federal court actions and consolidated the two
actions.  The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated federal
actions is due to be filed on December 13, 2002 and to be heard on
March 14, 2003.  No trial date has been set in either the state or
federal court actions.


KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 410T Walker Attachments For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 410,000 toy
attachments on baby walkers.  The flower toys on the baby walker's tray
can detach from the stems, exposing sharp edges and posing a laceration
hazard to young children.
        
The Company has received 15 reports of injuries associated with the
exposed sharp edges of the toys' stems.  The injuries to children
included lacerations around the eyes, eyelids, face and tongue.
        
The walkers are multi-colored and have either a detachable toy bar
or a detachable music center on the tray.  On each tray are two 6.5-
inch stems with 3.5-inch stars on top.  The recalled walkers were sold
under the "Tot Rider" and "Carter's" brand names.  

Tot Rider walkers included in the recall are model numbers 14303-AC,
14303-CC and 14401-OT.  The model numbers are printed on stickers
located on the inside wall of the base of the walkers.  The names "Tot
Rider" and "Kolcraft" are printed on stickers attached to the front of
the walker.

The Carter's model walkers included in the recall have model numbers
14303-LB, 14303-UE and 14304-LJ.  The model numbers are printed on
stickers located on the inside wall of the base of the walkers.  The
words "Carter's" and "Music Center" are printed on stickers attached to
the front of the walker.  

Walker models 14303 and 14304 were manufactured from December 2000
through August 2002, and walker model 14401 was manufactured from
January 2000 through July 2002.  The manufacturing date is printed on
the sticker with the model number.  Some of the walkers were made in
the US and some were made in China.
        
Discount, department and juvenile product stores sold the walkers
with these toys nationwide from December 2000 through October 2002 for
between $20 and $40.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 888-695-9988 anytime or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.kolcraft.com


MCDONALD'S CORP.: Lawyers Spar Over Legal Basis Of Fast-Food Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempt to sue McDonald's over its calorie-crammed burgers and fries
recently brought both sides to Manhattan federal court, where a
plaintiffs lawyer claimed the fast-food chain has created a national
epidemic of obese children, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.  

The lawsuit against McDonald's is the first to make the untested
argument that fast-food companies are legally liable for the health
problems of some of their customers.  The class action was filed on
behalf of New York children who have suffered health problems,
including diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, allegedly due to
McDonald's food.

McDonald's lawyer, Brad Lerman, on the other hand, insisted that the
lawsuit was a frivolous attempt to cash in on the Golden Arches, "the
kind of lawsuit that should not be in court."

"People do not go to sleep thin and wake up obese," Mr. Lerman said.  
"The understanding and comprehension of what hamburgers and french
fries do has been with us for a long, long time."

Attorneys for Oak Brook, Illinois-based McDonald's has asked Judge
Robert Sweet to dismiss the case, arguing that those persons who filed
the claims cannot show their health woes were caused by Big Macs, and
insisting that the Company has never misled customers about their food.

"It is a serious lawsuit with serious issues," countered Samuel Hirsch,
who represents the plaintiffs, including one Bronx teen who ate at
McDonald's every breakfast, lunch and dinner for three years while
living in a homeless shelter.

"They (McDonald's) have targeted children" by marketing cheap toys to
package with Happy Meals and other menu items, Mr. Hirsch said.   Mr.
Hirsch argued, as well, that the high fat, sugar and cholesterol
content of McDonald's food is "a very insipid, toxic kind of thing"
when ingested regularly by young kids.

Judge Sweet did not immediately rule on the request to dismiss the case
against McDonald's.

According McDonald's Web site, a Big Mac packs 590 calories and 34
grams of fat while a large order of fries weighs in at 540 calories and
26 grams of fat.

Mr. Hirsch said the public understands that burgers and fries are not
health food, but they may not understand how bad they really are.  
Affidavits signed by parents of obese children claim they never saw
poster or pamphlets inside McDonald's restaurants describing the
nutritional content of the food being sold.


MICROSOFT CORP: South Dakota High Court To Decide Antitrust Suit's Fate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Dakota Supreme Court was asked to rule that state consumers
cannot be qualified parties in a class action against Microsoft Corp.,
Associated Press Newswires reports.  Lawsuits have been filed in
several states against the software company for allegedly violating
antitrust laws and overcharging for its products.

Circuit Judge Steven Zinter, now a member of the state's Supreme Court,
had ruled earlier that a class action could proceed.   However,
Microsoft has lodged an appeal, and arguments were heard on Wednesday
of this week.

Charles Casper, a Microsoft lawyer from Philadelphia, told the justices
that Judge Zinter was too lenient in adopting a legal standard that
allows indirect purchasers of Microsoft products to proceed with the
lawsuit.  

Those pushing the lawsuit are relying on the unsound economic theories
of an expert witness whose method of calculating damages has been
scuttled by Microsoft data, Mr. Casper said.  "The data upset the
theory."

It would be impossible to determine how much Microsoft allegedly
overcharged for products that reached consumers because retail prices
vary wildly for computers and other electronics, Mr. Casper argued.  
However, Mark Moreno, a Pierre lawyer working to keep the class action
alive, said Judge Zinter carefully chose the proper legal yardsticks in
allowing the case to proceed to trial.

"It is clear that he (Judge Zinter) pondered this thing a great deal,"
Mr. Moreno said.  "There is more than sufficient evidence to establish
a threshold showing."

Sophisticated expert analysis can determine at trial how much extra
money had been paid for Microsoft products purchased by consumers, Mr.
Moreno added, and prices have been monopolistically inflated for years.


NCS HEALTHCARE: Court Grants Favorable Summary Judgment in DE Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware granted summary
judgment in favor of NCS Healthcare, Inc., in a consolidate securities
class actions commenced after the Company entered a merger with
Omnicare, Inc. in August 2002.

Seven lawsuits (six of which are purported class actions and one of
which was filed by Omnicare) were initially filed in connection with
the proposed merger.  The five purported stockholder class actions that
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware have been
consolidated into a single proceeding.  The Omnicare lawsuit and the
consolidated stockholder lawsuit, which together are referred to as the
"Delaware lawsuits," each name the Company, the Company's directors,
Genesis and Geneva Sub as defendants.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties and certain other duties to the
Company's stockholders by entering into the merger agreement and the
voting agreements.  The lawsuits seek various relief, including:
      
     (1) an injunction against completion of the proposed merger;

     (2) a judgment that the proposed merger would require approval by
         both the holders of NCS Class A common stock and the holders
         of NCS Class B common stock voting as separate classes;

     (3) a judgment that would rescind the proposed merger if it is
         completed prior to a final judgment on the Delaware lawsuits;

     (4) a declaration that the merger agreement and the voting
         agreements are null and void;

     (5) a declaration that the voting agreements violated the
         Company's certificate of incorporation and resulted in an
         automatic conversion of the NCS Class B common stock to which
         the voting agreements pertained, into NCS Class A common stock
         (which would mean that the shares agreed to be voted would
         represent less than a majority of the voting power of NCS);
         and

     (6) an award of compensatory damages and costs

On October 25, 2002, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued a ruling dismissing all of Omnicare's claims except for Count I,
which count seeks a judgment declaring that the voting agreements
violated the Company's certificate of incorporation and resulted in an
automatic conversion of the NCS Class B common stock to which the
voting agreements pertained, into NCS Class A common stock.

On October 29, 2002, the court issued a ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants as to Count I of Omnicare's amended
complaint and Count I of the consolidated stockholder lawsuit.  In the
summary judgment, the court ruled that the voting agreements did not
violate the NCS' certificate of incorporation and did not result in a
conversion of the NCS Class B common stock into NCS Class A common
stock.

Omnicare has appealed these rulings.  A motion for a preliminary
injunction relating to the remaining claims of the consolidated class
action is currently scheduled for November 14, 2002.  The Company
believes that the allegations set forth in these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to contest them vigorously.   However, the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty.

      
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Network
Associates, Inc. filed an amended consolidated suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Prabhat Goyal, and

     (3) Peter Watkins     

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between July 19 and December 26, 2000, asserts causes of action (and
seeks unspecified damages) for alleged violations of Exchange Act
Section 10(b)/SEC Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section 20(a).

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues and
earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the Company's class
period financial statements were false and misleading and failed to
comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The defendants first filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which the
court heard on April 16, 2002.  On April 29, 2002, the court entered an
order approving a jointly stipulated withdrawal of defendants' motion
to dismiss.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative lawsuit pending against
Network Associates, Inc. and certain of its officers plan to appeal the
Superior Court in Santa Clara County's dismissal of the suit with the
California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District.

The suit names as defendants the Company (as a nominal defendant) and:

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Peter Watkins,

     (3) Prabhat Goyal,

     (4) Leslie Denend,

     (5) Virginia Gemmell,

     (6) Edwin Harper,

     (7) Enzo Torresi, and

     (8) others

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  In
particular, the complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a
course of conduct by which they improperly accounted for revenue from
software license sales, and that, as a result of their actions, certain
of the Company's financial statements were false and misleading and not
in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Nominal defendant the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint, which
the court sustained with leave to amend.  The court later granted
plaintiff limited discovery for purposes of amending the complaint to
meet the demand futility test imposed by Delaware law.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in December 2001, to which the
Company filed a demurrer, which was joined by the individual
defendants.  The court entered an order on March 28, 2002 sustaining
the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing the amended
complaint with prejudice.


PEMSTAR INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Pemstar, Inc. filed
a consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

Several suits were commenced, alleging in essence, that the defendants
defrauded their shareholders by making optimistic statements during a
time when they should have known that business prospects were less
promising.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Allen Berning,

     (2) William Leary,

     (3) William Kullback,

     (4) Robert Murphy,

     (5) Steve Petracca,

     (6) Karl Shurson,

     (7) Robert Ahmann,

     (8) Paul Singh,

     (9) Gregory Lea,

    (10) Thomas Burton &

    (11) Bruce Jaffe

On August 23, 2002 and October 2, 2002 two different individual
shareholders also commenced identical shareholder derivative actions
against the Company as nominal defendant and its Board.  Those actions
are currently pending in United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  The allegations in the derivative actions are almost
identical to those in the securities action.

It is too early to predict the likelihood of prevailing on the various
lawsuits described above.  The Company believes the actions are wholly
without merit.


PHILIP MORRIS: Oregon Woman Commences Light Cigarette Suit in OR Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Portland-area woman has filed a class action against Philip Morris,
alleging claims of "light" and "low-tar" made for Marlboro Light
cigarettes violate the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, according
to an Associated Press Newswires report.  

It is one of about a dozen class actions filed recently across the
nation, claiming violation of consumer protection laws.  Some name
other tobacco companies.

The class in the Portland lawsuit consists of anybody who ever bought
their cigarettes in Oregon, and seeks unspecified damages, not to
exceed $74,000 per class member.  Plaintiff Marilyn C. Pearson
estimates in the lawsuit that there are more than 100,000 members in
the class.

The lawsuit contends that Philip Morris knew that Marlboro Lights
delivered about the same amount of tar and nicotine to smokers as
regular cigarettes did but did not disclose the information.  The
lawsuit also alleges that consumers paid for "low-tar" cigarettes that
were delivered to the smoker.  Ms. Pearson, the lead plaintiff, seeks
refund of the purchase price of all Marlboro Light cigarettes sold in
Oregon.

As precedent in Oregon, the present case may cite a lawsuit of last
May, in which Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Roosevelt Robinson
reduced a $150 million judgment against Philip Morris by a third.  
Nonetheless, the finding of liability of Philip Morris prevailed.  The
lawsuit had been filed by the family of Michelle Steward of Salem, who
claimed Philip Morris falsely implied that smoking Merit cigarettes,
marketed as "low tar," was safer than smoking regular cigarettes.  Ms.
Steward died of lung cancer.

In another Multnomah County case, in 1999, a jury awarded more than $80
million to the family of Jesse Williams of Portland, who died after
smoking Marlboros for four decades.  A Portland judge reduced the
award, but the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated it in June.


PSS WORLD: FL Court Hears Oral Arguments Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division heard oral arguments for PSS World Medical,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
pending against it and certain of its current officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between December 23, 1997 and May 8, 1998 that the defendants engaged
in violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The allegations are based upon a decline in the Company's stock price
following a May 1998 company announcement regarding the Gulf South
Merger, which resulted in earnings below analyst's expectations.

PSS filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the
court granted without prejudice.  Plaintiffs then filed their second
amended complaint, which the Company again moved to dismiss.  That
motion is pending.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the claims.  
There can be no assurance that this litigation will be ultimately
resolved on terms that are in its favor.


PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
refused to dismiss a consolidated securities class action pending
against PSS World Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's common stock at various times during the period between
October 26, 1999 and October 3, 2000, alleges, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning, among
other things, the Company's financial condition.  The plaintiffs
further allege that because of the issuance of false and misleading
statements and/or failure to disclose material facts, the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the class
period.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the suit are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against the claims.  
There can be no assurance that this litigation will be ultimately
resolved on terms that are favorable to the Company.


PSS WORLD: Sued For Labor Act, Unfair Competition Act Violations in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. faces a class action filed by three former and
present employees of the Company in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The suit alleges that the Company wrongfully classifies its purchasers,
operations leader trainees, and accounts receivable representatives as
exempt from the overtime requirements imposed by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Wage Orders.  The plaintiffs seek:

     (1) court approval to proceed as a collective action under the
         Fair Labor Standards Act,

     (2) a representative action under California's Unfair Competition
         Act, and/or

     (3) a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States
         who have occupied any one of the three positions within the
         pertinent limitations period

The Company opposed this motion.  It is unknown whether the Court will
tentatively approve a collective action and allow discovery on the
issue of who is eligible to participate in the collective action.

In addition, two of the three named plaintiffs bring individual claims
for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The Company is vigorously defending against the claims and is working
with human resource personnel to collect personnel and payroll
information necessary to determine:

     (i) the employees who are potentially eligible to participate in
         the suit; and

    (ii) the extent of overtime liability, if any

There can be no assurance that this litigation will be ultimately
resolved on terms that are favorable to the Company.

     
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Expects Bias Suit Settlement Finalized in December
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. expects the settlement of several gender
discrimination lawsuits to be finalized in December 2002, ending almost
three years of litigation.

In September 1999, an action was filed against the Company in federal
court in the Western District of Tennessee by the US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the Company engaged in
gender discrimination with respect to four named females and other
unnamed female employees and applicants within the Company's Tennessee
and Arkansas region.

The allegations underlying this EEOC action involve charges of wrongful
termination and denial of promotion, disparate impact and failure to
hire.  The group of individuals on whose behalf EEOC seeks relief is
approximately seventy individuals.

In August 2000, a putative nationwide class action was filed against
the Company in federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois by Claudine
Wilfong and eighteen other plaintiffs, alleging that the Company
engaged in class-wide gender discrimination following its acquisition
of Thorn Americas.

The allegations underlying Wilfong involve charges of wrongful
termination, constructive discharge, disparate treatment and disparate
impact.  In addition, the EEOC filed a motion to intervene on behalf of
the plaintiffs, which the court granted on May 14, 2001.  On December
27, 2001, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

In December 2000, similar suits filed by Margaret Bunch and Tracy
Levings in federal court in the Western District of Missouri were
amended to allege class action claims similar to those in Wilfong.  

In November 2001, the Company announced that it has reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the Bunch matter.  Under
the terms of the Bunch settlement, while not admitting any liability,
the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $12.25 million to the agreed
upon class, plus plaintiffs' attorneys fees as determined by the court
and costs to administer the settlement subject to an aggregate cap of
$3.15 million.  On November 29, 2001, the court in Bunch granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and set a fairness hearing on
such settlement for March 6, 2002.

In early March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs' attorneys in Wilfong and the EEOC to resolve the
Wilfong suit and the Tennessee EEOC action.  At the parties' request,
the court in the Bunch case stayed the proceedings in that case,
including postponing the fairness hearing previously scheduled for
March 6, 2002.

Similarly, the court in the Tennessee EEOC action stayed the proceeding
in that case.  The definitive settlement agreement documents were filed
with the Wilfong court in June 2002, and the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on June 19, 2002.  The court held a fairness
hearing, approved the settlement and entered its order and judgment of
final approval on October 4, 2002.  Assuming there are no appeals, the
order and judgment will become effective on December 4, 2002.

Under the terms of the Wilfong settlement, while not admitting any
liability, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $47.0 million to
approximately 6,000 female employees and approximately 2,300 female
applicants who were employed by or applied for employment with the
Company during the period commencing on April 19, 1998 and ending on
June 19, 2002, plus up to $375,000 in settlement administrative
costs.  

The $47.0 million payment includes the $12.25 million payment discussed
in connection with the Bunch settlement.  Attorney fees of
approximately $10.5 million for class counsel in Wilfong will be paid
out of the $47.0 million settlement fund.  Pursuant to the settlement
procedures approved by the court, approximately fifty class members
opted out of the settlement.

In June 2002, the Company separately agreed to contribute an additional
$2.0 million to a dispute resolution fund in which approximately 100
class members in Bunch will participate.  The court has approved this
dispute resolution fund. Counsel to the plaintiffs in Bunch support the
dispute resolution fund and the Wilfong settlement.

The settlement agreement contemplates the settlement would be subject
to a four-year consent decree, which could be extended by the court for
an additional one year upon a showing of good cause.  Also, under the
settlement agreement, the Company agreed to:

     (1) augment its human resources department and its internal
         employee complaint procedures;

     (2) enhance its gender anti-discrimination training for all
         employees;

     (3) hire a consultant mutually acceptable to the parties for two
         years to advise it on employment matters;

     (4) provide certain reports to the EEOC during the period of the
         consent decree;

     (5) seek qualified female representation on its board of
         directors;

     (6) publicize its desire to recruit, hire and promote qualified
         women;

     (7) offer to fill job vacancies within its regional markets with
         qualified class members who reside in those markets and
         express an interest in employment by the Company to the extent
         of 10% of its job vacancies in such markets over a fifteen
         month period; and

     (8) to take certain other steps to improve opportunities for
         women.

The Company initiated many of the above programs prior to entering into
the settlement agreement.

In connection with the settlement, the parties have agreed that the
Bunch case and the Tennessee EEOC action will be dismissed with
prejudice once the Wilfong settlement becomes final.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Texarkana, Texas ordered
consolidated several securities class actions pending against Rent-A-
Center, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting material facts regarding the Company's financial performance
and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of 2001.  The suit
purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock from April 25, 2001 through October 8, 2001 and
seeks damages in unspecified amounts.

Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint is due by November 25, 2002,
and the Company anticipates its response to such complaint will be due
in early January 2003.  The Company believes plaintiffs' claims to date
are without merit, however, it cannot give any assurance that it will
be found to have no liability in this matter.


RENT-A-CENTER, INC.: PA Consumer Suit Focuses on Installment Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. faces a class action filed in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania state court on behalf of a class of Philadelphia
customers, alleging that the Company violated the Pennsylvania Goods
and Services Installment Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The amended complaint asserts that the Company's rental purchase
transactions are, in fact, retail installment sales transactions, and
as such, are not governed by the Pennsylvania Rental-Purchase Agreement
Act, which was enacted after the adoption of the Pennsylvania Goods and
Services Installment Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Discovery in the case is in its early stages.  Although the Company
believes that these claims are without merit, a recent trial court
decision in a similar case to which the Company was not a party held
that rental purchase transactions in Pennsylvania are in fact retail
installment sales transactions not governed by the Pennsylvania Rental
Purchase Agreement Act.

The Company strongly disagreed with this decision, it stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company has
filed preliminary objections to the suit, which are pending before the
trial court for decision.  The Company cannot give any assurance that
it will be found to have no liability in this matter.


SECURE COMPUTING: Agrees To Settle CA Securities Fraud Suit For $10.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of
its present and former directors and officers for US$10.1 million.

Several securities class actions were filed beginning April 1999 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock between November 10,
1998 and March 31, 1999.

The suits alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements
about our business condition and prospects in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5.

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants answered
and denied all allegations of wrongdoing.  In July 2002, the Company
reached a settlement of the suit, for $10.1 million.  US$2.8 million in
cash will be covered by the Company's insurance, while the US$7.3
million balance will be contributed by the Company in common stock or
in a combination of common stock and cash at the date of distribution.  
The final allocation of the contribution will be determined by the
Company at its sole option.

On February 11, 2002, a purported derivative action was filed in
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.  The Company is
named as nominal defendant.

The derivative action makes essentially the same factual allegations as
the securities class actions and alleges various causes of action,
including that the defendants breached their corporate fiduciary
duties.

Although the Company believes there are meritorious defenses to this
action and intends to defend itself vigorously, an unfavorable
resolution could have a material adverse effect on its business,
results of operations and financial condition.


THOMAS & BETTS: Fairness Hearing For Suit Settlement Set December 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
set for December 20,2002 the fairness hearing for the settlement of a
securities class action pending against Thomas & Betts Corporation.

Claims in the suit relate primarily to alleged violations of federal
securities laws and have been fully disclosed in the company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), an earlier Class
Action Reporter story states.  Five suits were filed against the
company in 2000 and were consolidated into a single action in December
2000.  In July 2002, the court ordered the parties to enter into formal
mediation.

On October 2, 2002, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding
to settle the suit and subsequently filed a stipulation and agreement
of settlement with the court.  Under the terms of the settlement, which
is subject to approval by the court, all claims against the Company and
its officers will be dismissed in their entirety without admission of
liability or wrongdoing.  The plaintiffs would receive US$46.5 million
in cash.

Should the court deny the parties' request to approve the settlement,
the Company intends to contest the litigation vigorously.  At this
time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation
and its ultimate effect, if any, on the financial condition of the
Company should the settlement not be approved by the court.  However,
management believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims.  


THORN AMERICAS: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Clarify Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action pending against Thorn Americas, Inc. has
asked New York State Court to clarify its ruling granting in part and
denying in part their motion for class certification.

The suit was commenced November 1997 alleges the Company has a duty to
disclose effective interest under New York consumer protection laws,
and seek damages and injunctive relief for the Company's failure to do
so.  This suit also alleges violations relating to:

     (1) excessive and unconscionable pricing,

     (2) late fees,

     (3) harassment,

    (4) undisclosed charges, and

    (5) the ease of use and accuracy of its payment records

This matter was already assumed by Rent-A-Center, Inc., who acquired
the Company.  The plaintiff has acknowledged that rent-to-own
transactions in New York are subject to the provisions of New York's
Rental Purchase Statute but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does
not provide Thorn Americas immunity from suit for other statutory
violations.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested:

     (i) class certification;

    (ii) injunctive relief requiring Thorn Americas to cease certain
         marketing practices, and price their rental purchase contracts
         in certain ways;

   (iii) unspecified compensatory and punitive damages;

    (iv) rescission of the class members contracts;

     (v) an order placing in trust all moneys received by Thorn
         Americas in connection with the rental of merchandise during
         the class period;

    (vi) treble damages, attorney's fees, filing fees and costs of
         suit;

    (vii) pre- and post-judgment interest; and

   (viii) any further relief granted by the court

The proposed class originally included all New York residents who were
party to Thorn Americas' rent-to-own contracts from November 26, 1991
through November 26, 1997.  In her class certification briefing,
plaintiff acknowledged her claims under the General Business Law in New
York are subject to a three year statute of limitations, and is now
requesting a class of all persons in New York who paid for rental
merchandise from us since November 26, 1994.

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties from
the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the Company obtained
a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division of the State of New
York, dismissing plaintiff's claims based on the alleged failure to
disclose an effective interest rate.  Plaintiff's other claims were not
dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a state-wide class in December 2000.  
Plaintiff's class certification motion was heard on November 7, 2001
and, on September 12, 2002, the court issued an opinion denying in part
and granting in part the requested certification.  The opinion grants
certification as to all of plaintiff's claims except plaintiff's
pricing claims pursuant to the Rental Purchase Statute.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and will appeal the
court's certification order if circumstances warrant.  However, the
Company cannot give any assurance that it will be found to have no
liability in this matter.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Four New York Unions File Lawsuit Over HMO Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four state workers unions claim in a lawsuit that United Healthcare
Corp. failed to adequately reimburse members and their families for
millions of dollars in insured medical expenses, says a report from
Associated Press Newswires.  The unions joined a class action filed in
federal court against United Healthcare, in spring 2000, by the
American Medical Association.

The unions accused United Healthcare of cheating more than a million
people covered under the Empire Plan, an insurance plan for state
workers, who use out-of-network providers.  According to its state
contract, the Company is supposed to reimburse patients 80 percent of
"reasonable and customary charges" paid out-of-pocket.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, United Healthcare has used its own formula
since 1998, to calculate what it determines as reasonable, resulting in
payments far below 80 percent.  The actual payments vary widely on a
case-by-case basis, said Alan Lubin, executive vice president of New
York State United Teachers union.

The other participating unions are the Civil Service Employees
Association, New York State Police Investigators Association and
Organization of Managerial and Confidential Employees.  

A spokeswoman for United Healthcare did not immediately return a call
seeking comment, Associated Press stated.


WAL-MART STORES: Testimony Underway In Overtime Wage Suit in OR Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony began recently in a class action against Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., alleging that the world's largest retailer cheated employees out
of overtime pay, reports Associated Press Newswires.  The trial is
expected to last five weeks.

More than 400 employees from 24 of Wal-Mart's 27 Oregon stores have
joined the lawsuit, the first to come to trial of dozens of such
lawsuits around the country.  Plaintiffs are asking for back pay, which
their attorneys say could total several million dollars.

Lead plaintiff Carolyn Thiebes, a former Wal-Mart personnel manager,
testified that formal Wal-Mart policy say employees are entitled to
overtime, but managers encouraged off-the-clock work without pay.  

William Wertz, a Wal-Mart spokesman, declined to say why the company
chose to try the case in Oregon before a jury, other than "it is in the
company's best interest to see this case go to trial."

Attorneys trying the case say a verdict may determine the fate of 39
other class-action lawsuits pending against the company in other
states.


WAL-MART STORES: TX Court Refuses Class Certification To Employee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas appeals court dealt a blow to current and former Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. employees in that state, who are suing the retail company
for underpaying them, The Kansas City Star reports.

The ruling could have local significance, according to the newspaper,
because similar lawsuits have been filed in Jackson and Wyandotte
counties, located in Missouri and Kansas respectively.  The lawsuits
charge that the Company committed "acts of wage abuse" against hourly
employees by forcing them to work off the clock, failing to pay them
overtime and preventing them from taking rest and lunch breaks.

Both of the local lawsuits seek certification as class actions, one on
behalf of hourly Wal-Mart workers in Missouri, and the other on behalf
of hourly Wal-Mart workers in Kansas.

The Texas lawsuit similarly sought class certification on behalf of
current and former hourly workers employed by Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
in Texas.  The proposed Texas class is believed to consist of 350,000
people.

The Texas trial court granted class certification.  However, in its
ruling, the Texas appeals court reversed, saying that individual issues
were likely to predominate over common issues and that the class-action
vehicle was therefore inappropriate.  

Even if the claimants could establish that the Company had entered into
350,000 oral contracts to provide rest and meal breaks, the court
stated, "individual issues regarding the alleged breach of each
contract will also predominate over common issues."

The Texas appeals court cited an opinion issued earlier this year by a
Louisiana federal court that also denied certification to a proposed
class of about 100,000 Wal-Mart workers.  In the Louisiana case, Basco
v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the court said that whether Wal-Mart entered
into and breached contracts with the workers would depend on:

     (1) whether it made offers to the plaintiffs;

     (2) whether the offerers had actual or apparent authority to make
         the offers;

     (3) what the conditions of the offers and the terms agreed to by
         the parties were; and

     (4) whether and to what extent each contract was breached

The motions for class certification in Jackson and Wyandotte Counties
are pending.  Though the Texas decision is not binding on either the
Missouri or Kansas courts, Wal-Mart undoubtedly will cite it in its
arguments opposing class certification in Missouri and Kansas.


WASHINGTON: State's Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Foster Care Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the state's
challenge to a judge's order that the state must make changes to its
foster care system, which the state alleges to be sweeping and
expensive, in order to reduce emotional damage caused by shifting
children from home to home, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The original lawsuit was filed in 1998, on behalf of 13 foster
children, alleging the state had not fulfilled its obligation to
provide them with stable homes.  The state eventually agreed to a
settlement of $1.3 million - about $100,000 for each child.  

However, the case was also certified as a class action, which put the
entire system on trial and resulted in the verdict, which produced the
court's order.  The court's questions cut to the central issue in the
case:  how much power should a judge have to order changes in the way
the Department of Social and Health Services handles foster children.

After a Whatcom County Superior Court jury found the department had
violated the constitutional rights of 3,500 current and former foster
children, each of whom had been in at least three foster homes, Judge
David Nichols ordered major changes in the system.

Judge Nichols called for more foster homes, better mental-health care
and other changes.  Within hours of his decision, the state appealed.  
State officials claim that they already are making major improvements
in the system and, they say that the intervention of a judge would
confuse and delay that process.  

"Should the court have gotten so involved in running this department?"
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander asked John Midgely, the attorney arguing
the case for the foster children.

Judge Nichols relied heavily on the children's lawyers and child
advocates in writing his order, at least partly because the department
refused to participate, calling his ideas "bizarre."  "The state did
not make its own proposal," responded Mr. Midgely.

State lawyers, meanwhile, had to cope with justices' questions on the
emotional heart of the case; a system that can separate siblings and
bump children from home to home for years with little warning or regard
for their emotional well-being, said the Associated Press Newswires
report.  For example, in one of the colloquies between justice and an
attorney for the state, Justice Thomas Chambers cited one of the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit who was moved 34 times between the ages of
three and 17.

"I presume she had 34 Moms and Dads that she never saw again?" Justice
Chambers asked William Williams, the assistant attorney general who
argued for the state.  

"In this case, there was no evidence that each one of these moves was
inappropriate at the time," Mr. Williams said.

It is likely that the court will rule sometime next year.

The state contends that about 10,000 children live in foster homes
across the state.  State officials say that Judge Nichols' order would
cost the state many millions of dollars, worsening an already large
state budget problem.  The judge's order directs the state to:

     (1) Increase the number of foster homes by 500, to about 6,800,

     (2) Provide physical and mental-health assessments within 30 days
         of each child's entry into foster care, and provide treatment
         for any problems,

     (3) Further assess a child's needs within two weeks of his or her
         third placement,

     (4) Place siblings together, unless one sibling poses a danger to
         another,

     (5) Avoid moving foster children int a different school in the
         middle of a term and do a better job of working with school
         officials to help foster children,

     (6) Provide additional training and support to foster parents, as
         well as a system of respite care,

     (7) Provide foster parents with complete information about a child
         before the child is placed in the home, and

     (8) Stop keeping foster children in "unsafe and clearly
         inappropriate placements," such as DSHS offices and detention
         facilities, or in homes where there is someone with a history
         of abusive behavior.

To ensure compliance with his order, Judge Nichols ordered the
Department of Social and Health Services to conduct studies, the first
to be submitted to him no later than next January 31.


WILD OATS: Faces Consumer Suit Over Hepatitis A Outbreak in BC Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Oats Markets, Inc. faces a class action pending in the Superior
Court of British Columbia, Canada on behalf of persons who did not
contract, but were concerned about contracting, hepatitis A, based on
the Company's announcement that a former employee had contracted
hepatitis A.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit.  At this
time, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of success in such
defense or the materiality of the suit.


*Employee Wage, Hour Lawsuits On The Rise, Filed in Courts Nationwide
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco, silicon breast implants, asbestos, faulty tires-- all have
been the focus of lawsuits resulting in some mind-numbing settlement
numbers for plaintiffs.  However, the latest wave of class action
litigation flooding the courts from coast to coast, reports the Boston
Herald, is wage and hour lawsuits.  These lawsuits, says the newspaper,
is drawing in a new brand of huge out-of-court financial deals for the
plaintiffs' bar.

"There is an explosion of litigation out there in this area," said
Scott J. Witlin, a Los Angeles-based labor and employment attorney with
Proskauer Rose LLP.  "Plaintiffs' lawyers are actively holding seminars
telling people this is the next big cash cow.  It is no secret."

The crux of the litigation revolves around employees classified as
"exempt" by their employers, and therefore not entitled to overtime pay
under state and federal laws.  Those same employees are banding
together to sue for overtime pay they say they have earned for
performing what are wholly or basically "non-managerial duties" and
they are winning substantial settlements.

Last month, United Parcel Service Inc. agreed to pay $18 million to
settle a overtime class action brought by nearly 6,000 part-time
workers who said the Company failed to pay them overtime or allow them
required break and meal periods.  Last August, the electronic company,
Radio Shack, settled a similar suit for $30,000.

In April, Starbucks Coffee Co. agreed to pay $18 million to settle an
overtime pay lawsuit brought by more than 1,000 individuals who claimed
they were not in fact managers, although they had been categorized as
managers of Starbucks' California stores.

Those settlements come on the heels of a trial verdict last year
against Farmer's Insurance Exchange, in which the insurer was held
liable for a $90 million judgment for failing to pay claims adjusters
overtime.  That judgment was compounded by interest as well as an order
to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees.

In part because of the Farmer's verdict, many lawyers are advising
their employer clients to settle claims rather than tempting fate with
a jury trial.  Mr. Witlin is of the opinion that the judgments could be
big and that "the potential exposure is huge, as well as the fact that
these are very expensive cases to litigate."

Triggering the growing litigation, says Mr. Witlin, are the employers
who are "misclassifying" workers as exempt and the longer and longer
workdays that are pressuring employees to demand fair pay.

Since the plaintiffs' attorney fees have been substantial and even
"staggering," as characterized by Mr. Witlin, this is still another
reason for the flood of lawsuits.  One recent California settlement,
said Mr. Witlin according to the Boston Herald, occurred relatively
soon after the suit for overtime pay was filed, and generated $4.5
million for the plaintiffs' attorneys alone.

Mr. Witlin commented, reported the Boston Herald, that "the plaintiffs'
bar is very well organized, and they are always looking for their next
big hit.  This (the wage and hour suits) is it."


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ASIA GLOBAL: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (OTC: ASGXF) common stock
pursuant to the Company's October 6, 2000 initial public offering.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.  The action arises from damages
incurred by the class as a result of a scheme and common course of
conduct by defendants, which operated as a fraud and deceit on the c
class.

The Company operates a worldwide fiber optic network and provides
global internet, data and voice services to wholesale and business
customers.  According to the complaint, defendants were aware before
the IPO that there was a worldwide glut in available fiber optic
capacity.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were aware of this glut and knew that
the Company could never meet its targets.  Instead, defendants went
ahead with the IPO of the Company and issued a prospectus containing
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business
and financial condition.

Consequently, investors who purchased on the IPO purchased the
Company's stock at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles by Phone:
800-437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


ENDOCARE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Endocare, Inc., (NASDAQ:ENDO), common stock between
October 23, 2001 to October 30, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5).  The action
arises from damages incurred by the class as a result of a scheme and
common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and
deceit on the class during the class period.

The Company is a medical device company focused on the development of
urological healthcare technologies.  The complaint alleges that during
the class period, 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.

As further alleged, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct,
plaintiff and the other class members purchased their Company
securities at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun or Marc L. Godino by Phone:
888-388-4605 by E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.secfraud.com


OM GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of OM Group, Inc. (NYSE: OMG) from April 25, 2002 through
October 30, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a producer and marketer of metal-
based specialty chemicals and related materials, made
misrepresentations concerning its business and financial condition.  

Specifically, on April 25, 2002, the defendants reported favorable 1stQ
2002 results and represented that the consumption rate on cobalt was
increasing, which would result in higher cobalt prices and favorable
results for OMG in 2002 and 2003.

After reporting disappointing 2ndQ 2002 results, defendants maintained
that business was strong and all indicators were for a good second
half.  As a result, OMG stock continued to trade above $50.

On September 19, 2002, OMG warned that the 3rdQ 2002 would be slightly
lower than prior statements. Then on October 29, 2002 OMG announced a
huge loss, an inventory write-down and a full restructuring.  On
October 31, 2002 it was disclosed that the CEO had sold all of his
holdings to cover a margin call on some 710,000 shares on OMG stock
which he had used as collateral for a huge loan. On this news, the
stock price declined to $6.12 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net


SEPRACOR INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC initiated a securities class action for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
SEC Rule 10b-5 against Sepracor, Inc. (Nasdaq: SEPR) and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
convertible debt securities between December 4, 2000 through March 6,
2002.

The action was filed by an institutional purchaser of Sepracor
convertible debentures after months of investigation including
consultation with an expert.  The complaint asserts that the defendants
misrepresented and concealed facts concerning its most important
product, Soltara, an antihistamine for which the Company had applied
for FDA approval.

The complaint charges that defendants falsely represented:

     (1) that there was no evidence that Soltara caused cardiac
         effects;

     (2) that Soltara had been tested at maximum exposure in patients;
         and

     (3) that the FDA had told Sepracor that the safety testing of
         Soltara was sufficient to allay any concerns about cardiac
         effects from the drug.

The complaint alleges that, contrary to defendants' misrepresentations:

     (i) Soltara had caused potentially fatal cardiac effects in both
         dogs and rats, as well as a serious liver disorder in dogs;

    (ii) Soltara had not been tested at maximum exposure in patients;
         and

   (iii) the FDA had not told Sepracor that safety testing of Soltara
         was sufficient to allay any concerns about cardiac effects
         from the drug.

In addition, the complaint asserts that defendants' representations
that they were "confident" that the FDA would approve Soltara by March
2002 were misleading in light of and by reason of the failure to
disclose these facts.

The complaint further alleges that on March 6, 2002, at the end of the
class period, defendants disclosed that their prior representations
were untrue, and that the FDA had declined to approve Sepracor's
application to market Soltara due to the facts defendants had
misrepresented.  These disclosures caused the market price of Sepracor
convertible debt securities to fall precipitously.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Rabin & Peckel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet
Healthcare Corp. securities (NYSE:THC) between October 3, 2001 and
October 31, 2002, both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) Jeffrey C. Barbakow, and

     (2) David L. Dennis,

The suit charges Tenet and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular,
plaintiff claims that defendants made material misstatements and
omissions regarding false billing and unnecessary procedures by doctors
at one of the Company's hospitals.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's reported financial results
during the class period were false and misleading, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles, and which caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors thereby.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892, by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.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  * * *