/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/021128.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 28, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 235


AMERICAN TOBACCO: High Court Grants Certiorari in Tobacco Suit
ANICOM INC.: SEC Revokes Common, Series C Preferred Stock Listing
BOEING CO.: Appellate Court Nullifies $15M Settlement
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Sex-Abuse Documents Turned Over on Court's Order
CENDANT CORP.: Chase Wins Ruling To Take a Stab At Settlement Fund

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Delays Ruling On Overcharging Suit
CIBC WOOD GUNDY: Court Grants Class Certification to Lawsuit
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Pact Reached with Physicians to End Lawsuits
CITIGROUP INC.: NY Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
DELAWARE FOODS: Fear of Listeria Contamination Spurs Ham Recall

DELTA & PINE: Disenchanted Farmers File Lawsuit Over Seed Variety
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Suit Seeks Halt to 60-Day Penalty for Tenants
EUNO FINE CHEMICALS: Judge Approves $6.5M Settlement Deal
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Arbitration Plea in Lewis Tree Suit

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Rejects Contract-Breach Claim
PCORDER.COM: Class Representatives Uninformed, Judge Says
PEERLESS: Court Tosses Fraud Suit on Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Rejects Emergency Motion for TRO
RECALL CHECKLIST: Shoppers Told to "Check it Twice" for Recalled Toys

SPRINT CORP.: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Survives Dismissal
ST. PAUL COMPANIES: Shareholders Claim Fraud in Handling Asbestos Case
TROY GROUP: Lawsuit Charges Officers of Fiduciary Breach

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME WARNER: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LOOKSMART LTD.: Rabin & Peckel LLP Commences Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
OM GROUP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
PAINEWEBBER INC.: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.: Berger & Montague Commences Fraud Suit in NJ

SEARS, ROEBUCK: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Lovell Stewart Files Fraud Suit in S.D. NY


AMERICAN TOBACCO: High Court Grants Certiorari in Tobacco Suit
The Supreme Court of Louisiana court found that the lower courts acted
prematurely in considering the applicability of comparative fault
principles to the claims of plaintiffs Gloria Scott and others before
adjudication relating to the liability for damages of The American
Tobacco Co. Inc. and others in their tobacco class action litigation.

The High Court vacated the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of
Orleans, Louisiana and the Louisiana trial court's rulings regarding
comparative fault and the court of appeals' judgment regarding the trial
court's pre-trial order and the trial court's Judgment on Motion for
Notice of Fundamental Trial Issues and Reasons for Judgment and remanded
the case.

The court stated that whether principles of comparative fault were
applicable to plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and/or cessation
programs for Louisiana residents who are or were smokers of defendants'
cigarettes and whether individual claimants' injuries were caused in
part by their own conduct did not have to be determined until
defendants' liability was established.

The court concluded that Phase I of the trial should be conducted for
the sole purpose of determining defendants' liability for damages. After
liability has been tried, the trial court could formulate a plan for
subsequent phases of the trial in which subclasses might be formed and
individualized issues, such as comparative fault and prescription, might
be addressed.

ANICOM INC.: SEC Revokes Common, Series C Preferred Stock Listing
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order on Tuesday,
revoking the registration of Anicom Inc.'s common stock and Series C
preferred stock because the company has failed to file an annual report
on Form 10-K since December 31, 1999, and quarterly report on Form 10-Q
since March 31, 2000.

Anicom, formerly a national distributor of wire and cable products based
in Rosemont, Illinois, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in January
2000, just six months after announcing that it would restate its
financial statements for 1998, 1999, and the first quarter of 2000.

The SEC issued the Order after determining it would accept Anicom's
offer to settle a public administrative proceeding brought under Section
120) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.In its offer, Anicom
agreed to consent, without admitting or denying liability, to the
commission'sOrder, which found that it was necessary and appropriate
for the protection of investors to revoke the registration of Anicom's
common stock and Series C preferred stock.The Order took effect
immediately upon issuance.

BOEING CO.: Appellate Court Nullifies $15M Settlement
A federal appeals court Tuesday threw out a $15 million settlement in a
class-action case accusing Boeing Co. of discriminating against about
15,000 black employees, the Associated Press reports.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals objected to the $4 million in
attorneys' fees under the 1999 settlement, and the large disparity in
the payments provided to the employees.

The settlement covered two class-action suits brought on behalf of
former and current Boeing employees. The lawsuits accused the world's
No. 1 maker of passenger jets of discriminating against blacks when it
came to promotions, harassing them and retaliating against them when
they complained.

Boeing admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to spend $15 million to
compensate the workers and set up programs to fight discrimination.

When a federal judge approved the deal in 1999, the Rev. Jesse Jackson
and several Boeing employees objected, arguing that the settlement was
inadequate because it did not provide enough money for some and did not
go far enough to prevent further bias.The appeals panel, ruling 2-1,
agreed the deal was unsatisfactory.

Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon said there was no justification for some
employees receiving 16 times more than others. The court also found that
the $3.85 million in attorneys' fees was unjustified and could have led
attorneys for the plaintiffs to undermine their own clients.

Alan Epstein, a Philadelphia lawyer representing about 2,000 Boeing
workers who objected to the 1999 deal, said the decision means the case
will have to be litigated or a new settlement approved.

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Sex-Abuse Documents Turned Over on Court's Order
A judge on Monday denied the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston's
effort to keep secret thousands of pages of personnel files covering 65
priests accused of sexual misconduct, Reuters reports.

Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney's ruling means the documents
could be made public as early as next week, possibly fanning the flames
of the clergy sexual abuse scandal that has engulfed the church in the
United States this year.

Sweeney's ruling came as lawyers for alleged sexual abuse victims met
with attorneys for the archdiocese to try to settle hundreds of lawsuits
against the church.

Lawyers for alleged victims of Father Paul Shanley have been trying
since August to obtain the personnel files to prove a central claim in
their lawsuits: that the archdiocese routinely protected and reassigned
priests accused of sexually abusing children.

The archdiocese, acting under an order from Sweeney, turned over the
roughly 11,000 pages of documents to plaintiffs' attorneys on Friday.
But as it handed over the files, the church filed a related motion
seeking to shield them from the public.

In Monday's ruling, Sweeney barely hid her anger over what she perceived
as delaying tactics by the archdiocese.

"The sense of desperation inherent in the motion is not in any manner
supported by cogently articulated facts or law," Sweeney said as she
denied the archdiocese's motion.

"If the tone of this endorsement is harsh, so be it. The court simply
will not be toyed with," she added.

David Thomas, an attorney representing more than 200 alleged clergy
sexual abuse victims, welcomed the judge's ruling, which he said would
allow him and his colleagues to begin releasing them to the public as
early as next week. Thomas said he had already seen some of the files
and that they support the plaintiffs' arguments.

"Generally the documents show what we've alleged in our complaints: that
there is a pattern and practice within the archdiocese of protecting
alleged child abusers and negligently handling the allegations," he told

The pending release of the documents fueled speculation the archdiocese
might try harder to reach a global settlement of clergy sexual abuse

But Mitchell Garabedian, a plaintiffs' attorney who met with the
archdiocese's lawyers and a mediator at a Boston hotel on Monday to
discuss a possible settlement, said he was not optimistic.

"I didn't see the light at the end of the tunnel after today's talks,"
Garabedian said after the 4-1/2-hour meeting ended."I firmly believe
we have to proceed with litigation and if a settlement happens along the
way, so be it," he added.

Boston Cardinal Bernard Law has repeatedly apologized for his handling
of accused pedophile priests but has refused to step down, angering some

The scandal in Boston mirrored those in other parts of the United
States, as bishops and other archbishops faced anger from the Catholic
laity over the shuffling of pedophile priests from parish to parish as
sexual abuse continued over decades.The anger bolstereda new policy
of "zero tolerance" from American bishops. This policy has been
questioned by the Vatican and is under review.

CENDANT CORP.: Chase Wins Ruling To Take a Stab At Settlement Fund
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey and concluded that the district court's ruling in favor of
Cendant Corp. did not represent a sound exercise of judicial discretion.

The ruling stemmed from an appeal by Chase National Manhattan Bank. The
bank was late in filing documents confirming its right to participate in
the distribution of a fund created to settle a class action involving
fraud by the employees of Cendant Corp.

Cendant moved to dismiss all late cured claims and the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the
late filings of Chase. Chase appealed.

The appellate court stated that, although the record supported the
district court's view that Chase carelessly and inefficiently handled
its serious responsibilities, Cendant was not prejudiced by the delay,
and the district court was not hindered in any substantial degree.

The court noted that Chase's lack of diligence in following the progress
of the district court's proceedings was far from commendable, but did
not amount to a lack of good faith.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Delays Ruling On Overcharging Suit
A judge's decision could pave the way for a class-action lawsuit by more
than 100,000 South Carolina customers Charter cable is accused of
intentionally overcharging.

If the cable television giant is found liable, it could cost the company
millions in damages and reduced future revenue, lawyers associated with
the case said.

Two Charter customers, Nikki Nicholls and Geraldine Barber, both of
Spartanburg, and two former Charter employees filed affidavits with a
Spartanburg County court, asking that their complaint be expanded into a
class-action suit.

On Monday Spartanburg County circuit court Judge Don Beatty said that he
would take the request under advisement before deciding if the case
warrants class-action status.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said that about 111,000 Charter customers,
including their clients, were told they needed digital cable boxes but
that the switch would not entail an extra cost.However, those
customers' bills went up by $3 per month after the switch.In addition,
the attorneys said that 107,000 customers were charged a $2.95 monthly
wire-maintenance fee.

The affidavits said that the fee was added without the customers'
request and provided no benefit because Charter already provided the
same service to other customers at no extra charge.

Former service technicians Bryan Alverson and Eugene Williams said in
their affidavits that they were told to give customers analog boxes even
if they had cable-ready televisions.

They said that they were later given financial incentives to replace
those analog boxes with digital ones and that they were told not to tell
customers the digital boxes would cost more. Charter has more than
246,000 customers in South Carolina who get cable television and
internet service from the company.A company spokeswoman said that the
allegations are untrue and that no class-action is warranted.

"Charter always keeps the customer and the value of our products in mind
as we do business," Charter spokeswoman Deborah Seidel told News 4. "I
think as we move forward, the allegations made by the plaintiffs'
attorneys will be proven to be not true."

Attorneys on both sides said they don't know how long the ruling will

CIBC WOOD GUNDY: Court Grants Class Certification to Lawsuit
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted plaintiffs, Dorian King and Diane King's motion for class
certification against defendants, CIBC Wood Gundy and CIBC Oppenheimer,
for allegedly concealing and misrepresenting material information about
Senior Unsecured Notes due in 2004.

The district court stated that plaintiffs satisfied all four class
certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) by showing that:

(1) the 106 institutional investors for plaintiffs' class were too
numerous that it made joinder of all members impracticable;

(2) the putative class members' claims shared common questions of fact
and law;

(3) the claims of the putative class representatives were typical of
those of the entire putative class; and

(4) the putative class members would be adequately represented in the

In addition, the court found that questions of law or fact common to the
members of the class predominated over questions affecting only
individual members and that a class action was superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case.

CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Pact Reached with Physicians to End Lawsuits
CIGNA HealthCare announced Tuesday that it has reached an agreement to
resolve bill payment claims brought on behalf of physicians and other
health care providers in state and federal courts.

As part of the agreement, CIGNA HealthCare will be implementing certain
changes in its practices and procedures that will make it easier for
doctors to do business with the company.

The changes are part of an agreement CIGNA HealthCare has reached with
parties bringing claims on behalf of physicians and other health care
providers in Kaiser v. CIGNA, a national class action lawsuit. That
lawsuit, which was filed initially in a state court in Madison Co.,
Ill., was recently removed to federal court, where the settlement
agreement was filed Tuesday.

The court must hold a hearing and approve the agreement before it can
become final. If approved by the federal court, the agreement will
encompass most of the claims, brought on behalf of health care
providers, asserted in other state and federal jurisdictions, including
the cases consolidated in federal court in Miami.

In conjunction with the agreement, CIGNA Corp. expects to recognize an
after-tax charge in the fourth quarter of 2002 of approximately $50
million to $65 million. The estimated charge reflects insurance
recoveries that CIGNA expects to receive. No significant amounts will be
paid out until the settlement becomes final, which is expected in mid-

"We have been working to improve our relationships with physicians and
other health care providers over the past several years," said W. Allen
Schaffer, M.D., CIGNA HealthCare senior vice president and chief medical
officer. "During this period, we have made numerous changes, including
streamlining utilization management and other processes, discontinuing
many referral requirements, and improving communications with providers,
all of which ultimately benefits our members. The agreement we are
announcing today continues that process."

As part of the agreement, CIGNA HealthCare will:

1. Post on its Web site additional explanations of its claim coding and
other payment policies;

2. Establish an e-mail procedure that will enable providers to make
minquiries regarding fee schedules and to obtain claim coding

3. Appoint a third-party administrator to review certain claims that
were denied since January 1, 1996, to determine whether they should be

4. Establish a $10 million "prompt pay fund" to compensate providers for
claims that have been processed outside of the company's timeliness

5. No longer require providers to submit copies of their medical records
to obtain payment for office visits occurring on the same day as
separately billed surgeries or other procedures; and

6. Pay interest on fully documented claims that are not paid within 30
days in those locations in which interest payments are not required by

"We are making accommodations in our business practices that will ease
administrative burdens for physicians. This, in turn, will strengthen
our business by improving our working relationships with those we count
on to provide quality care to our members and customers. This agreement
also enables us to use, in much more productive ways, resources we
otherwise would have devoted to litigation," said Patrick E. Welch,
president of CIGNA HealthCare.

CIGNA continues to believe that its claims processing actions over the
years have been appropriate and is not acknowledging any liability or
wrongdoing by entering into the agreement.

CIGNA representatives will discuss the agreement on a call that will
take place at 8:30 a.m. EST on Wednesday, November 27, 2002. The call-in
numbers for the conference call are as follows:

     1-877-282-2315 (Domestic)
     1-703-871-3016 (International)
     1-888-266-2081 (Domestic Replay)
     1-703-925-2533 (International Replay)

CIGNA Corp. (NYSE: CI) and its subsidiaries constitute one of the
largest investor-owned employee benefits organizations in the United
States. Its subsidiaries are major providers of employee benefits
offered through the workplace, including health care products and
services; group life, accident and disability insurance; retirement
products and services; and investment management.

CITIGROUP INC.: NY Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted plaintiffs the Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System's motion for consolidation and appointment as lead plaintiff in a
series of putative securities class actions against Citigroup Inc.

The suits alleged that Citigroup Inc. misrepresented a 1999 transaction
with the Enron Corp., affirmatively misrepresented Citigroup's potential
Enron-related exposure in a 2001 annual report and failed to disclose
the true extent of Citigroup's potential legal liability arising out of
its structured finance deals with Enron.

The court found that Pompano incurred the largest financial losses of
any lead plaintiff movant and was otherwise adequate and typical. As
such, Pompano was presumptively the most adequate plaintiff. The court
denied plaintiffs G.M.O. Pelican Fund, Stanley Holt, William Mayo,
Khusal Mehta, Karen Picciano and Jerry Robertson's motion for
appointment as co-lead plaintiff

During the class period, Pompano's members purchased Citigroup
securities on the open market at prices alleged to have been
artificially inflated by the materially false and misleading statements
issued by defendants and thereby suffered damages.

Pompano satisfied the adequacy of representation element, as there was
no indication or evidence of a conflict of interest between Pompano and
the purported class, Pompano obtained qualified and experienced counsel
and Pompano had a significant interest in the outcome of the litigation
so as to ensure its vigorous prosecution.

The court denied Robertson's motion for appointment as co-lead counsel
because it did not rebut the presumption that Pompano was an adequate
class representative. Lastly, the court approved Pompano's selection of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP as lead counsel, finding that
it had substantial experience and success in prosecuting securities
fraud actions, rendering it capable of serving as lead counsel.

DELAWARE FOODS: Fear of Listeria Contamination Spurs Ham Recall
Delaware Foods Inc., a Muncie, Ind., establishment, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 95 pounds of ready-to-eat ham that may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced Tuesday.
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological testing.

The products subject to recall are:

FULLY COOKED" bearing the package code "6515;"
5 to 13.5-lb. packages of "DELA BRAND, WATER ADDED, SLICED CHEF HAM,
SMOKED - FULLY COOKED - BONELESS" bearing the package code "6515A;" and,
10-lb. packages of "DELA BRAND, WATER ADDED, SALAD DICED HAM 1/4"X1/4",
FULLY COOKED," bearing the package code "1516."
Each package also bears the establishment code "EST. 2084" inside the
USDA seal of inspection.The ham was produced on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1
and distributed to hotels, restaurants, and institutions in Indiana.

"We want consumers to be aware of the recall because of the potential
for foodborne illness," said Dr. Garry L. McKee, FSIS administrator.
"Diners may also wish to ask if their meals contain the products."

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people
rarely contract listeriosis. Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe
headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause
miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weak immune systems infants, the frail or
elderly and persons with chronic disease, with HIV infection, or taking

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Kevin Mitchell,
production manager, Delaware Foods Inc., at (765) 284-1406. Media with
questions about the recall may contact Shirley Shaw, owner, Delaware
Foods Inc., at (765) 284-1406.

DELTA & PINE: Disenchanted Farmers File Lawsuit Over Seed Variety
Delta & Pine Land Co announced that three lawsuits were filed July 29,
2002, in the Court of Common Pleas of Hampton County, South Carolina
under which the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that certain seed
acquired from D&PL which contained the Roundup Ready gene and/or the
Bollgard gene did not perform as the farmer had anticipated.One of
those cases was removed to United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Beaufort Division, where it is presently pending.

The same type of lawsuit was also filed against Monsanto and various
retail seed suppliers in the State of South Carolina. One lawsuit was
filed November 15, 1999, in the Beaufort Division of the United States
District Court, District of South Carolina; two of the other cases were
filed on November 15, 1999, in the Court of Common Pleas of Hampton
County, South Carolina. The two 1999 state court lawsuits were removed
to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
but were subsequently remanded back to the state court in which they
were filed. These lawsuits also include varietal claims aimed solely at

One of the 1999 cases filed in Hampton County as well as the 1999 case
filed in the United States District Court seek class action treatment
for all purchasers of certain D&PL varieties which contain the Monsanto

D&PL and Monsanto are continuing to investigate the claims to determine
the cause or causes of the alleged problem. Pursuant to the terms of the
Roundup Ready Agreement and the Bollgard Agreement between D&PL and
Monsanto, D&PL has a right to be contractually indemnified against all
claims arising out of the failure of Monsanto's gene technology.

D&PL will not have a right to indemnification, however, from Monsanto
for any claim involving varietal characteristics separate from or in
addition to the failure of the Monsanto technology and such claims are
contained in each of these lawsuits.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Suit Seeks Halt to 60-Day Penalty for Tenants
The law firms of Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & LeClainche, P.A., a West
Palm Beach trial law firm, and consumer lawyer Rod Tennyson have filed a
massive consumer class action on behalf of tenants against the largest
owner of apartment buildings in the United States.

The 19-page suit accuses Equity Residential of violating Florida law by:

1. Unlawfully charging tenants an extra 60 days' rent plus a one-month
"lease fulfillment fee" for early termination,

2. Charging an extra two months' rent for tenants who stayed through
their lease term but failed to give 60 days' notice.

3. Failing to give tenants copies of their prospective leases, and
engaging in hard-nosed collection tactics.

Equity Residential, based in Chicago, is America's number one apartment
company, a member of the S&P 500, and a real estate investment trust
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol EQR (NYSE:EQR).

It owns more than 1,000 properties across 36 states, with 225,000
apartment units. Of these, 184 apartment rental properties are in
Florida, with 33,000 units.

According to its web site, Equity Residential has properties in most
major metropolitan areas in the state, including Miami, Fort Lauderdale,
West Palm Beach, Orlando, Jacksonville, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fort
Myers, Daytona Beach, the Space Coast, Key West, Tallahassee,
Gainesville and Northwest Florida.

In five years, Equity's revenues have trebled to $2.1 billion, and its
net income has nearly tripled to $473 million. Its assets have nearly
doubled to $13 billion, before depreciation.

"Hard-nosed tactics may help make this landlord a successful corporate
conglomerate, but they are illegal in the State of Florida," said Rod
Tennyson, a West Palm Beach consumer lawyer representing the tenants.
"Tenants in this state who terminate early are required to only pay rent
for the days the property goes unrented. You shouldn't have to pay any
extra penalty."

The company markets heavily to people in their 20s, and uses a
nationally standardized system for collections, credit checks and

Tammy Yates, 24, a recent graduate of the University of Central Florida
then starting a teaching job, signed her 12-month lease at Mission Bay
Apartments near the campus east of Orlando in August 2001. With little
credit experience, she found the detailed credit application daunting
and got her parents to co-sign the lease for a well-appointed $870-a-
month apartment to share with a graduate student roommate. She paid on
time, was a good tenant, and decided to move at the end of her 12-month
lease. She went to the office to turn in the key.

"They said: 'By the way, you owe an extra 60 days rent'," Yates said.
"It was quite a surprise. It wasn't rent I owed; it was a penalty fee.
The only notice they gave was a sticky note on the door that I didn't
see. My roommate said she hadn't seen it, either. Maybe it blew away. It
was on the first floor and outside. Nothing in the mail. They said my
phone had been disconnected. I had disconnected a week earlier but left
the forwarding number on the message. Obviously, they didn't try very
hard to reach me."

"Regular annual tenants suffer enough with the illegal 60-day charge,"
said Joseph R. Johnson of Babbitt Johnson. "But those who terminate
early pay an extra 30-day penalty, so they pay the equivalent of 90

The suit asks for the company to stop the 60-day penalty for all tenants
and 30-day "lease fulfillment" penalty for those who terminate early,
and provide relief for all tenants in the class. It seeks relief under:
CHAPTER 559, Part VI of the Consumer Collection Practices Act, as an
unenforceable obligation, and CHAPTER 501, PART II of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"This is a great opportunity for Florida's new Attorney General Charlie
Crist to side with tenants around the state and demonstrate that this
law has teeth," said Joseph Johnson of Babbitt Johnson. "These are the
very protections state attorneys general are there to enforce."

EUNO FINE CHEMICALS: Judge Approves $6.5M Settlement Deal
A federal judge has approved a $6.5 settlement against a Japanese
chemical company accused of fixing sorbates prices, ending four years of
litigation on behalf of purchasers of the widely used food preservative.

The settlement by Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry, Ltd. brought to $96.5
million the amount purchasers recovered from six international sorbates
producers, said Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, a law
firm representing plaintiffs.

"We are pleased that we were able to return to class members the money
they were overcharged," said Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., managing partner of
Berman DeValerio's San Francisco office. "We were able to negotiate a
very substantial settlement, despite an extraordinarily longstanding and
secretive conspiracy."

Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order Nov. 15. The class action
covered anyone who directly purchased various sorbates additives from
1979 through the end of 1997. Berman DeValerio chaired the executive
committee representing plaintiffs in the case.

Plaintiffs charged the six defendants, one U.S. producer, a German
company and four Japanese manufacturers, with meeting secretly for
nearly 20 years to set prices in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The group eventually controlled some 95% of the international market for
sorbates, including sorbic acid and potassium sorbate.

The other defendants in the case were Hoechst A.G. of Germany; Eastman
Chemical Company of the United States; and Nippon Gohsei Industries,
Ltd., Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Chisso Corporation of Japan.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ordered First Virtual
Communications Inc. on Tuesday to cease and desist from violating the
anti-fraud and record-keeping provisions of the federal securities laws.

The commission's order found that FVC materially overstated its revenues
and earnings for nthe fourth quarter and year end December 1998 in a
January 28, 1999, press release by improperly recognizing revenue from
sales with various return rights.FVC, without admitting or denying the
commission's findings, consented to the order to cease and desist.

Since 1993, FVC, a Silicon Valley technology company, headquartered in
Santa Clara, California, has engineered and manufactured video-
conferencing products and, through independent distributors, marketed
and sold these products to the ultimate customer.

FVC's common stock traded on Nasdaq's National Market from April 1998
through August 8, 2002, when it started trading on Nasdaq's small cap

The commission's order found that FVC had granted its largest
distributor various return rights on $5.9 million in sales. For FVC to
recognize revenue on the sales with various return rights, Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles required that FVC must have been
reasonably able to estimate the amount of future returns.

The order found that FVC had no reasonable basis for estimating the
future returns and, therefore, should not have recognized revenue on the
$5.9 million in sales.

These actions, the order states, caused FVC to overstate its fourth
quarter revenue by 114% and annual revenue by 16% and announce annual
earnings of $1.1 million instead of a loss of $2 million.

In April 1999, FVC correctly reported its financial results in a press
release and an annual report on Form 10-K.

FREEBORN & PETERS: Lower Court Reversed in Class Certification Issue
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the City and
County of Denver District Court and held that the presumption that a
general partnership interest was not a security was not applicable to a
limited partnership interest in Colorado.

The trial court misconstrued the applicable law when it determined
whether the interests were securities for the purpose of assessing
whether the individual questions predominated over the common ones for
class certification.

In finding that the trial court also erred in ruling that fault would
have to be apportioned among the defendants, Lawson M. Kerster and the
law firm of Freeborn & Peters, and the settling defendants, the
appellate court concluded that apportionment was not required because
plaintiffs, Penelope Toothman, Robert Mosbarger, Marvin Nevonen and
others' claims were premised on a theory of concerted activity.

The court also concluded that, contrary to defendants' arguments, the
issue of partial certification was sufficiently raised and preserved for

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Arbitration Plea in Lewis Tree Suit
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted defendants Lucent Technologies Inc. and others' motion to
compel arbitration in a purported class action brought by plaintiff
Lewis Tree Service Inc. and others.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants sold them Y2K defective
telecommunications equipment. The court held that plaintiffs' claims,
based on the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, were subject to arbitration

(1) plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate, pursuant to a Business
Product Purchase Agreement; and

(2) precedent indicated that there was a presumption that
statutory claims were subject to arbitration.

The court concluded that the Purchase Agreement was not an unenforceable
adhesion contract. The court found no evidence that plaintiffs were
subject to any economic compulsion to contract, and plaintiffs were
sophisticated purchasers.

In fact, a plaintiffs' executive, responsible for the purchase of the
equipment at issue, acknowledged that he had read and understood the
agreement's terms and conditions and had consulted his attorney.

The court also found that defendants' filing of their motion to compel
arbitration after discovery was timely. The court stated that defendants
were forced to wait until after discovery because plaintiffs had raised
baseless arguments that the Purchase Agreement did not cover their
contractual relationship with defendants.

Additionally, plaintiffs provided no evidence that defendants' filing of
the motion after discovery was prejudicial to plaintiffs.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Rejects Contract-Breach Claim
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part, and denied in part defendant Lucent Technologies'
motion for summary judgment in a purported class action brought by Lewis
Tree Service Inc. and others on behalf of purchasers of allegedly Y2K
defective telecommunication equipment sold by defendants.

The court, applying New Jersey law, pursuant to the parties' Business
Product Purchase Agreement, concluded that plaintiffs could not prevail
on their breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness and
breach of express warranty claims because the Purchase Agreement
disclaimed liability for those claims.

The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the agreement was an
adhesion contract, finding that there was no compulsion requiring
plaintiffs to contract. The court further found that all plaintiff
contract-related claims were time barred, as the Purchase Agreement
required that all claims be brought within 12 months of the signing of
the agreement.

Regarding the common law fraud claim, the court found that the claim
could not be dismissed as time barred. The court rejected defendants'
contention that plaintiffs had been put on constructive notice in
February of 1997 regarding the Y2K problems by defendants' disclosure of
the problems on their website, and that the statute of limitations began
to run then.

The court stated that it could not find as a matter of law that
defendants' disclosures satisfied Internet Readiness and Disclosure
Act's requirements.

PCORDER.COM: Class Representatives Uninformed, Judge Says
A federal judge in Austin, Texas has refused to certify a class action
securities fraud suit stemming from the initial public stock offering
for internet company pcOrder.com because he found the candidates for
class representatives lacked standing and/or competency and the proposed
lead counsel suffered from conflicts of interest.He questioned whether
the prospective lead counsel were "truly concerned about their clients
interests" since they had kept them in the dark.

Plaintiff Jerry Krim filed one of many shareholder suits against
pcOrder.com, its directors, its investment bankers and its parent
company, Trilogy Software Inc. alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with pcOrder's March 1999
initial public offering and a secondary offering nine months later.

Generally, they charged that they lost tens of millions of dollars
because pcOrder falsely claimed to have a viable business plan, the
ability to report accurate financial information and freedom from
competition from parent Trilogy Software.

However, Krim did not seek the job of class representative in the Texas
litigation and most of the plaintiffs who were initially in the lead
role withdrew. Several shareholders came forward to take the class
representative position, but the court found fault with their standing
as shareholders or their competency to carry out the job.

He disqualified two applicants because they could not prove that their
stock was issued in the IPO or the secondary offering. Although they
need not prove that they themselves bought the stock during the IPO,
they must show that the stock they own was issued at that time, not that
it was probably issued then, the court held.

It said the applicants who did have standing to sue would make
unacceptable class representatives because they knew virtually nothing
about the claims of the suit and the plaintiffs they would champion.

The court blamed that condition in part on the law firms that sought the
lead counsel position. He said they had failed to inform their clients
about their case or the parallel cases where those attorneys represented
plaintiffs making similar claims against pcOrder and its directors.

"Furthermore, counsel participated in a full week of settlement
negotiations with defendants, who offered to settle all lawsuits against
pcOrder.com," the court noted. "Although unsuccessful, the negotiations
demonstrate the problematic nature of counsel's multiple representations
in negotiations."

The court noted that while it might, at a later date, be in the best
interest of one group of plaintiffs to settle all claims, it might well
be decidedly against the best interests of another group to settle at
that point; moreover, it would be difficult or impossible for the
attorneys to juggle their responsibilities to be both candid and
protective of the rights of the various groups.

In light of the fact that the prospective lead counsel failed to
disclose their involvement in other lawsuits and negotiations and failed
to prepare their clients for deposition in this case, the court refused
to appoint the applicants to the lead counsel spot. It also denied the
motion to certify the class.

"If counsel were truly concerned with their clients' interests, they
would have offered to withdraw from all potentially conflicting
representations, not just the ones with the least amount of money to be
made," the judge concluded.

PEERLESS: Court Tosses Fraud Suit on Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed on November 12 a shareholder class against suit filed against
Peerless Systems Corp. (Nasdaq:PRLS), the company announced Wednesday.

The court's order does not preclude the plaintiffs from pursuing
separate claims.

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2000 against
Peerless, a provider of imaging and networking systems to the digital
document markets, and two of its former officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

Plaintiffs submitted a voluntary dismissal of the action against the
company and its former officers. No consideration has been provided by
the company or its former officers, and each side is to bear its own
costs, a news release issued by the company said.

"It is with great pleasure that I can announce that the lawsuit has been
dismissed," said Howard J. Nellor, President and Chief Executive Officer
of Peerless Systems. "We are delighted with this result and can now
devote all of our resources to aggressively moving forward with our
corporate objectives."

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Rejects Emergency Motion for TRO
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in
a securities litigation class action suit against Qwest Communications
International Inc., denied lead plaintiffs' emergency motion for a
temporary restraining order to freeze the proceeds of defendants Joseph
P. Nacchio and Philip F. Anschutz's alleged insider trading in Qwest

The district court found that plaintiffs did not satisfy all of the four
key factors that must be proven pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 65 in order
to support a claim for a TRO or preliminary injunction.

Although the court assumed that plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood
of success, plaintiffs did not present any allegations or evidence
establishing the risk of irreparable injury.

Furthermore, the court could not conclude that the threatened injury to
plaintiffs outweighed whatever damage the proposed injunction might
cause defendants. The court declined to address public interest factors.
However, plaintiffs were permitted to submit a supplement to their
motion if they developed additional evidence.

RECALL CHECKLIST: Shoppers Told to "Check it Twice" for Recalled Toys
The U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission warned holiday shoppers on
Tuesday about dangerous toys that may have been purchased earlier this
year but have since been recalled.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a checklist of
recalled children's products including Gearbox Pedal Cars with lead-
laden paint and Air Powered Rockets by Estes Industries that have caused
reports of eye injuries.

"We've made our list and want consumers to check it twice," said safety
commission chairman Hal Stratton in a statement.

Other items the commission worries might still find their way into
children's' stockings this year, despite recalls, include Firestormer
and Skyblazer toy planes by Spin Master Toys. The plastic air intake
chamber can burst, causing cuts.

Checklist of recalled children's products:

* Gearbox Pedal Cars (75,000) distributed by Alpha International Inc.
The paint on some of these pedal cars contains high lead levels. CPSC
standards ban toys and other children's products containing high
levels of lead.Young children could ingest the lead from the car's
paint coating, presenting a lead poisoning hazard.Call Alpha
International at (800) 368-6367 to receive a replacement car or
return the product to the place where purchased to receive a full

* Air Powered Rockets (140,000) distributed by Estes Industries.The
rockets' foam tips can break off exposing sharp edges that can cause
face lacerations or eye injuries.The rocket system also has a weak
pump handle that can break during use, posing a risk of hand
lacerations.Estes and CPSC have received 16 reports of rocket tips
breaking off.Six children were struck in the face by the rockets,
including two who suffered detached retinas and four who suffered
cuts requiring stitches.There were 68 reports of broken pump
handles, including 6 hand lacerations.Call Estes Industries toll-
free at (800) 576-5811 to get a replacement rocket, or visit

* Firestormer and Skyblazer toy air-powered planes (137,000)distributed
by Spin Master Toys.The plastic air intake chamber of the air-
powered toy planes can burst, throwing plastic pieces, posing a
laceration, bruise and abrasion hazard to consumers.Spin Master
Toys received seven reports of Firestormer planes bursting, including
four reports of injuries (chest abrasion, cut leg, bruised shoulder,
and ringing in the ears) to children.There have been no reports
involving the Skyblazer planes.Call Spin Master Toys at (800) 622-
8339 to get a free replacement plane, or visit www.spinmaster.com

* Animal Toy Sponges (280,000) distributed by Dollar Tree Stores.The
eyes on the toys can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children. CPSC and Dollar Tree Stores received one report of an eye
coming off. Return the toy sponge animals to the store where
purchased for a full refund.Call Dollar Tree Stores at (800) 876-
8077 or visit www.dollartree.com

* Stuffed Polyester Pool Animals (310,000) distributed by Dollar Tree
Stores. The seams can separate exposing the polyester stuffing and
foam beads. The foam beads pose a choking hazard to young children.
CPSC and Dollar Tree Stores have received one report of the seam
ripping, exposing the polyester stuffing and a plastic bag containing
foam beads. Return the stuffed animals to the store where purchased
for a full refund.Call Dollar Tree Stores at (800) 876-8077 or
visit www.dollartree.com

* Cotton Candy Machine (188,000) distributed by Rose Art Industries.
The electric motor on the cotton candy machine can jam and overheat,
posing a fire hazard.The heating unit can be activated without the
spinner in place, presenting a risk of burn to consumers.CPSC and
Rose Art have received 225 reports of the machines overheating.
There have been three reports of fire, one resulting in an estimated
$2,000 in property damage.CPSC received a report of two unconfirmed
minor injuries.Call Rose Art at (888) 262-4474 for a free
replacement motor unit.Visit www.roseart.com

* Baby Walkers that can fall down stairs (2 brands totaling 53,500
units). Oriental International Trading Company distributed 3500 such
walkers, and Bikepro distributed 50,000.The walkers will fit
through a standard doorway and are not designed to stop at the edge
of a step. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or
killed if they fall down stairs.Return the baby walkers to the
store where purchased for a full refund.Call Oriental International
Trading Company at (866) 666-9868 or visit www.bike-stroller.com.
For Bikepro walkers call Bikepro at (800) 261-2559.

* Toy Tracks on Activity Center (152,000) distributed by Graco
Children's Products.The toy track can break, presenting a cut or
pinch hazard and exposed small parts pose a choking hazard to young
children. Graco received 11 reports of the toy tracks breaking.Four
children received minor scratches and one child's finger was pinched.
Call Graco to receive a free replacement track at (800) 673-0392 or
visit www.gracobaby.com

Other Hazardous Products:

* Playpens that can collapse (5 brands totaling more than 1,500,000
units) and entrap a child in the V-shape folded top rails.The top
rails must be turned to set up the playpen.CPSC is aware of 15
deaths to children when the top rails of playpens collapsed.A new
industry standard requires that the top rails of these playpens
automatically lock into place when the playpen is fully set up.CPSC
obtained voluntary recalls of the following playpens with top rails
that people had to turn into place when setting up the playpen:
Evenflo "Happy Camper," "Happy Cabana," and "Kiddie Camper;" Century
"Fold-N-Go" Models 10-710 and 10-810; Baby Trend "Home and Roam" and
"Baby Express;" and Kolcraft "Playskool Travel-Lite Model."CPSC
also issued a safety warning about "All Our Kids" Models 742 and 762
playpens imported by a firm that is out of business.

* Lane Cedar Chests (12 million) distributed by Lane Co.The cedar
chest lids automatically latch shut when closed, posing a suffocation
hazard to children.Twelve children suffocated inside the chests.
New locks, used since 1987, will prevent entrapments because they do
not automatically latch shut.No Lane cedar chests manufactured
since 1987 pose this safety hazard.Contact Lane to get new free
locks (easy to install at home) to prevent entrapments, (888) 856-
8758 or www.newlock.net

* Old Chest Freezers (made between 1945 and 1970) have heavy lids that
latch.Children can suffocate in old chest freezers (and in other
products with heavy lids that latch).CPSC knows of 27 deaths
between 1980 and 1999 in old chest freezers.Destroy the old
freezer, take the door off, or remove the latch.Call (202) 872-5955
or http://aham.org/freezer_safety/freezer_safety.cfm

SPRINT CORP.: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Survives Dismissal
A federal judge in Kansas has permitted a securities fraud class action
against Sprint Corp. to proceed based on one allegedly false statement
regarding its merger with WorldCom.

The plaintiffs, who are Sprint stockholders, assert that the company
issued the misleadingly optimistic statement so management could benefit
through the vesting of $1.7 billion in stock options.

The lawsuit arose out of four allegedly false statements made by Sprint
in advance of its proposed merger, which was ultimately blocked by
regulators as anti-competitive. At the time, the companies were the top
two providers of Internet "backbone" services in the world and among the
top three long distance telecommunications providers in the United

The complaint alleges that Sprint managers had "secretly" modified the
"change-in-control" provision of the company's long-term stock option
plan so that options would vest if Sprint's stockholders approved a
merger in which Sprint was not the surviving entity.

Thereafter, management allegedly issued optimistic statements to gain
stockholder approval of the proposed merger with WorldCom, which they
knew would be blocked by regulators, the shareholders assert.

The complaint also accused Sprint of issuing false and misleading
information regarding its financial performance to inflate stock prices.
As a result, the shareholders lost billions of dollars when prices rose
and then fell, they said.

U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia found that merely packaging an
allegedly false or misleading statement as a belief or opinion does not
automatically insulate the speaker from liability. However, such
statements must be "material" to be actionable.

The judge dismissed most of the company's optimistic statements as mere
"puffery" but found materiality in four statements issued after
corporate managers were told that the Justice Department was unlikely to
approve the merger, that the Federal Communications Commission was
suspending its investigation (a very negative development), and that
European regulators had serious concerns about the merger.

Optimistic statements issued after these developments omitted any
mention of them.

The general risk disclosures issued in the joint proxy statement seven
weeks earlier did not immunize the statements against liability under
the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, Judge Murguia said. Moreover, the
statements did not fall within "safe harbor" provision of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act because they were not accompanied by
"meaningful cautionary statements," he added.

The court found scienter, or fraudulent intent, based on the strong
motive alleged, enabling Sprint managers to exercise $1.7 billion in
previously unexercisable stock options. However, only one of the four
statements deemed to be "material" was made prior to shareholder
approval of the merger; therefore, that statement alone was actionable,
Judge Murguia said.

Finally, there was causation, because the Sprint shares were allegedly
artificially inflated due to the materially misleading statements and
then fell 15 percent when the truth about the merger became known.

Individuals and entities who purchased Sprint stock before the Justice
Department blocked the merger were permitted to sue, and the proposed
class period for the suit is Oct. 4, 1999, through Sept. 19, 2000.

ST. PAUL COMPANIES: Shareholders Claim Fraud in Handling Asbestos Case
For the second time in a month, the St. Paul Companies Inc. has been
sued by shareholders claiming fraud and misrepresentation in the firm's
handling of a $1 billion asbestos-claim settlement, according to a
report by the Star Tribune (Mpls./St.Paul).

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, is nearly identical
to the one filed two weeks ago by Pennsylvania attorneys who claim that
St. Paul did not disclose the seriousness of a claim by California
distributor Western MacArthur, until the company announced its decision
to settle for $980 million in June.

The latest suit, filed by the law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff in
Philadelphia, accuses the St. Paul of learning the magnitude of the
claim in March but failing to notify shareholders until June.The
company had set aside only $367 million in preparation for the claim.

The $980 million settlement resulted in a higher-than-expected $380
million charge to second-quarter earnings.The St. Paul's stock dropped
from a high of $50 in May to $23 after the news.The complaint names
the company, CEO Jay Fishman and CFO Thomas Bradley.St Paul officials
have vowed to fight the suit.

The Western MacArthur case stemmed from claims made against
Baltimore-based USF&G before the St. Paul Companies bought USF&G in
1998. USF&G insured Western Asbestos in 1961, and the lawsuit settled
this summer was meant to force the St. Paul to pay claims against
Western. The settlement is awaiting bankruptcy court approval in

If the settlement is approved, however, it could trigger a mountain of
new claims. Hundreds of contractors sued Western MacArthur's parent firm
last week.

TROY GROUP: Lawsuit Charges Officers of Fiduciary Breach
TROY Group Inc. (NASDAQ: TROYE) announced that it and its directors have
been sued in Orange County Superior Court.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief against the
defendants declaring that the action may be properly maintained as a
class action, declaring that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties by entering into an acquisition agreement with the Dirk family,
enjoining the defendants from consummating such acquisition unless the
Company adopts and implements a process to obtain the highest possible
price for stockholders, and directing the directors to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests
of the stockholders.The Company believes that the lawsuit is
completely without merit.

As previously announced, a Special Committee of the Board has been
formed and is currently working with its financial advisor to evaluate a
proposal by the Dirk family to purchase the outstanding shares of the
Company that the family does not already own. However, no price or other
terms have been agreed to, and there can be no assurance that the
parties will be able to reach agreement on the terms for any such

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AOL TIME WARNER: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
A class action Complaint has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 02 Civ. 9411,
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
AOL Time Warner securities (NYSE:AOL) January 12, 2001 through September
3, 2002, inclusive. Credit Suisse First Boston and Jamie Kiggen are
named as defendants in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint
alleges that defendants issued and maintained "Buy" and "Attractive"
recommendations on AOL securities without any rational economic basis;
failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining these
recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and concealed
significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from
providing independent objective analysis.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact, the price of AOL securities
were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing plaintiff
and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.

For more details, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric J. Belfi or
Sharon Lee, Rabin & Peckel LLP, by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10016, by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818, by Fax: 212-682-1892,
or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.

LOOKSMART LTD.: Rabin & Peckel LLP Commences Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
A class action complaint has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, civil action number 02-CV-
9368, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired LookSmart Ltd. securities (NASDAQ:LOOK) between May 25, 2000
and June 25, 2001, both dates inclusive. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and
Henry Blodget are named as defendants in the complaint.

The complaint charges defendants Merrill Lynch and Blodget with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges
that defendants issued analyst reports concerning LookSmart that
recommended the purchase of LookSmart common stock and that set price
targets for LookSmart common stock, which were materially false and
misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.

In particular, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
significant material conflicts of interest, which resulted from the use
by defendant Merrill Lynch of defendant Blodget's reputation and ability
to issue favorable analyst reports, to obtain investment banking
business for Merrill Lynch. It is also alleged that defendants, in
issuing their LookSmart analyst reports, in which they recommended the
purchase of LookSmart securities, failed to disclose material, non-
public, adverse information, which they possessed about LookSmart.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants maintained an "Accumulate/Buy"
or "Neutral/Buy" recommendation on LookSmart stock in order to obtain
and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric J. Belfi or Sharon
Lee by Mail: Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818, by Fax: 212-682-1892, or by E-
mail: email@rabinlaw.com.

OM GROUP: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
Scott + Scott LLC announces that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
behalf of purchasers of OM Group Inc. publicly traded securities during
the period between July 30, 2002 and Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint charges OM Group and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. OM Group
produces and markets metal-based specialty chemicals and related

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false statements about the company's business and prospects. After
reporting somewhat disappointing 2ndQ 02 results, defendants told
investors that its business was strong and all the indicators were for a
good second half. As a result, OM Group stock continued to trade above
US$50 per share.

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

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

Fore more details, contact Scott + Scott LLC by Phone: +1-800-404-7770,
or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.

PAINEWEBBER INC.: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
Seeger Weiss LLP announced that on November 22, 2002, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of all customers of PaineWebber Inc. who
purchased shares of the common stock of Qualcomm Inc. during the period
December 29, 1999, through January 17, 2002, inclusive.

The Amended Complaint charges that PaineWebber violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that
defendant knowingly or recklessly issued a series of materially false
statements and misleading analyst reports concerning the stock of
Qualcomm Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant deliberately made unsubstantiated
positive recommendations of Qualcomm stock in order to attract
investment banking and retail customer business. Furthermore, defendant
failed to disclose the true motivation for its recommendations to its
customers who relied on PaineWebber for investment advice.Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class members.

For more details, contact David R. Buchanan, Esq., or Michael S. Farkas,
Esq., by Mail: Seeger Weiss LLP, One William Street, New York, New York
10004, by Phone: 212-584-0700 or by E-mail: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com,
mfarkas@seegerweiss.com; or Thomas R. Grady, Esq., or Susan R. Healy,
Esq., by Mail: Grady & Associates LPA, 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite
200, Naples, Florida 34102, by Phone: 239-261-6555 or by E-mail:
trgrady@gradylaw.com, shealy@gradylaw.com.

SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.: Berger & Montague Commences Fraud Suit in NJ
On November 25, 2002, the law firm of Berger & Montague P.C. filed a
class action suit against Schering-Plough Corp. (NYSE: SGP), Putnam
Investment Management LLC and Schering's Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Schering securities from early in the afternoon of October 1, 2002
through the close of trading on October 3, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission by privately
disclosing material adverse information to selected persons, who sold
Schering stock while in possession of such inside information.

On October 1, 2002, Schering's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President privately warned managers of Putnam, adviser to a number of
mutual funds that were one of Schering's largest investors, that
Schering's earnings in 2003 and 2004 would be far below forecasts. At an
analyst meeting closed to the press on October 3, 2002, Kogan advised
those present that Schering's fiscal 2003 and 2004 earnings would be
"terrible," and stated that analysts' forecasts for Schering were too
high. At 10:44 p.m. on October 3, 2002, Schering finally advised the
public about its expected earnings shortfall, but only after Putnam and
others sold their Schering stock while in possession of material,
adverse, inside information in amounts more than triple the previous
three-day average daily volume.

As a result of the selective disclosure by defendants of adverse,
material, non-public information to Putnam and others, they were able to
sell enormous amounts of Schering stock before the general public
received such information, thereby enabling them to benefit from the
receipt of their inside information to the detriment of plaintiff and
the Class. From the time Putnam first learned of the material inside
information through the close of the market on October 4, 2002, Schering
stock plunged from $21.80 per share to as low as $16.10 per share, a
drop of over 25%.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., or Barbara A. Podell,
Esq, or Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager, by Phone:
888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or by Fax: 215-875-5715 or by E-

SEARS, ROEBUCK: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. announces that it
has sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. (NYSE:S) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division. The shareholder lawsuit is on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased Sears securities during the
period January 17, 2002 through October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Sears; Alan Lacy (CEO, President and
Chairman), Glenn Richter (CFO from October 4, 2002, Senior V.P., Finance
since inception of Class Period), Paul J. Liska (CFO until October 4,
2002) and Thomas E. Bergmann (Chief Accounting Officer), violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period.
These alleged misstatements had the effect of artificially inflating the
price of Sears securities.

The complaint states that the defendants, throughout the Class Period,
represented that Sears was growing its earnings strongly, driven by its
Credit and Financial Products segment and that it would achieve earnings
growth of 22% in 2002 over 2001.In addition, in each of its press
releases and SEC reports filed during the Class Period, Sears reported
its provisions for uncollectible accounts and in, its 2001 annual report
represented that such reserves were "adequate."

These, and other statements were allegedly false and misleading because,
in that they did not disclose that the Company's risk for uncollectible
accounts had increased materially throughout the Class Period and, in
addition, that Sears was under-reserving for its uncollectible accounts
which inflated its earnings and balance sheet, the complaint said.

On October 17, 2002, Sears reported in a press release that it will grow
its 2002 earnings by 15%, rather than the 22% it reaffirmed as recently
as ten days previously, because of a "$222 million increase in the
domestic provision for uncollectible accounts."

In addition, according to the press release, earnings for the third
quarter were 26% less than the previous year. In reaction to the press
release, the price of Sears common stock plummeted, falling 32%, from an
October 16 close of $33.95 per share to close at $23.15 per share on
October 17, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased
Sears securities during the Class Period (January 17, 2002 through
October 17, 2002).

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Michael E. Moskovitz by
Mail: Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., by Phone:
toll-free number 800-470-6824, or by E-mail:

SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
Milberg Weiss Tuesday announced that a class action has been commenced,
on behalf of an institutional investor, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Syncor International Corp. (NASDAQ:SCOR) publicly traded securities
during the period between April 24, 2000 and November 5, 2002.The
complaint charges Syncor and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused
Syncor's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements, particularly
about the Company's improving international operations. As a result of
this inflation, defendants were able to sell 333,500 shares of their
Syncor stock for proceeds of $8.56 million. Later, Syncor was hoping to
be acquired by Cardinal Health Inc..

Unknown to investors, defendants were engaging in an illegal payment
scheme which was the actual reason for the supposed improvement in
international operations. It was during due diligence by Cardinal that
the illegal payments were uncovered and defendants realized the activity
could no longer be concealed.On November 6, 2002, before the markets
opened, the Company issued a press release announcing an investigation
into payments to customers.

The press release stated in part: "Syncor International Corporation
announced that a committee of outside directors, together with special
outside counsel, has been investigating the propriety of certain
payments made by overseas subsidiaries to customers in several foreign
countries, including Taiwan and China. To date, the investigation
indicates that some of the payments made to state-owned and private
healthcare facilities may have violated foreign and U.S. law, including
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

Trading in Syncor stock was immediately halted after the announcement.
When trading resumed, the stock dropped below $27.40 per share, from
$35.92 the prior day.

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

Syncor provides high technology health care services concentrating on
nuclear pharmacy services, medical imaging, niche manufacturing and
radiotherapy. For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, William
Lerach or Darren Robbins, by Phone: 800-449-4900, or by E-mail:

XO COMMUNICATIONS: Lovell Stewart Files Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP filed a class action lawsuit
on November 13, 2002 on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the securities of XO Communications Inc.
(OTC BB:XOXOQ.OB, formerly NasdaqNM:XOXO) between October 11, 1997 and
November 1, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit is related to a group of actions brought against Jack
Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney. In one of the related actions
involving Global Crossing securities, in which the Court has not yet
appointed a lead plaintiff, Lovell Stewart Halebian represents the
investor with the largest financial interest in the litigation (with
almost $130 million in losses) and the presumptive lead plaintiff.

The action, Sullivan v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., et ano., is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500
Pearl Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 02-CV-9056 and asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and the common law
and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that during the class period Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc. and Jack Grubman, Salomon Smith Barney's lead telecommunications
analyst, made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact,
including recommending XO Communications and setting price targets for
XO Communications stock without any reasonable basis, failing to
disclose nonpublic information that defendants possessed about XO
Communications, and failing to disclose that defendants maintained a
"buy" recommendation on XO Communications in order to obtain and support
lucrative investment banking engagements for Salomon Smith Barney.

The complaint alleges that the foregoing harmed investors by causing the
market price of XO Communications securities to be artificially inflated
during the class period.

For more details, contact John Halebian or Christopher J. Gray by Phone:
(212) 608-1900, or by E-mail: info@lshllp.com.



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* * *