CAR_Public/021205.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 5, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 241

                              Headlines


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: OH Suits Allege "Round Trip Trades" Skewed Reports
BELL CANADA: Court Approves Settlement Claims Identification Process
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Negotiates Schedule For Amended Securities Suit
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

BSQUARE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
CABLEVISION NY: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Suit V. Rainbow Group Merger
CELL PATHWAYS: PA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
CUMULUS MEDIA: WI Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
DOUBLECLICK INC.: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Suit

DOUBLECLICK INC.: IL Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Consumer Lawsuit
DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates Suits For Securities Violations
EBAY INC.: Merger With PayPal Reaps Rash of CA, DE, NY Suits
INDIAN FUNDS: Bush Government Wants High Court To Limit Rights To Sue
INFOSPACE INC.: JPMDL Orders Transfer of Securities Lawsuit To NY Court

INFOSPACE INC.: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suit
ITXC CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: Auto Buyer Files Suit V. Dealer Over Glass-Etching Fee
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Battles Various Antitrust Claims In MD Court

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: West Virginia To Join Antitrust Settlement Fight
OCEANIC USA: Recalls 24T Stage Regulators For Drowning, Accident Hazard
PAYPAL INC.: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Anti-Fraud Program in CA Courts
PDI INC.: To Ask NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in CA

SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA State Court Upholds Dismissal of Derivative Suit
SUPREME COURT: Agrees To Consider Limits On Inmate Visitation Rights
UNITED STATES: Justice Dept, Workers' Union Agree On Special-Rate Pay
UNITED STATES: Court To Decide on Limits for Reservation Site Searches
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit

VODAFONE PLC: UK, US Law Firms To Commence Suit In US For UK Investors

*Prominent Lawyer Melvyn Weiss Evaluates Legal Achievements, Exploits

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CREDIT SUISSE: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FOOTSTAR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
TRANSACTION SYSTEM: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in NE


                           *********


ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it, certain of its current or former
officers and directors, and several of the underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

This suit is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's IPO (March
20, 2000) through December 6, 2000.  The central allegation in this
action is that the underwriters in the Company IPO solicited and
received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased Company stock in the
IPO and the after-market. The complaint also alleges that the Company
defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose
in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements.

More than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits.  In July
2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against issuers and
individual defendants affiliated with issuers (including the Company
defendants) was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these
similar actions.  Plaintiffs opposed that motion, which is now fully
submitted and is pending before the court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against this suit.
However, the Company could be forced to incur significant expenses in
the litigation, and in the event there is an adverse outcome, its
business could be harmed.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: OH Suits Allege "Round Trip Trades" Skewed Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 24, 2002 and October 9, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
The suit also names as defendants E. Linn Draper, Jr. and Susan
Tomasky.

The suits claim that the Company failed to disclose that alleged
"round trip" trades resulted in an overstatement of revenues and that
the Company failed to disclose that the Company traders falsely
reported energy prices to trade publications that publish gas price
indices.

The suits allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 24, 2001 and October 9, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of AEP securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.

The time period within which others may file to attempt to become lead
plaintiff will end in late December 2002.


BELL CANADA: Court Approves Settlement Claims Identification Process
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada International (BCI) has disclosed that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has approved a claims identification process for BCI
at a recent hearing, held in Toronto, according to a report by Canada
Stockwatch.  BCI is operating under a court-supervised plan of
arrangement to dispose of its remaining assets, settle all claims
against the Company and make a final distribution to stakeholders.

At the hearing, the court also ruled on certain procedural steps with
respect to the class action filed by certain former holders of BCI's
6.75 percent convertible unsecured subordinated debentures.  In
accordance with an agreement reached between the parties to this
lawsuit, the court has ordered that this lawsuit be certified as a
class action within the meaning of applicable legislation.

The certification order does not constitute a decision on the merits of
the class action, and the Company continues to be of the view that the
allegations contained in the lawsuit are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.

As part of the agreement among the parties, the plaintiffs in the class
action have abandoned their claim for punitive damages.  The statement
of claim originating the lawsuit sought $30 million in punitive
damages.  The plaintiffs also have agreed to the dismissal of the class
action as against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., one of the original
defendants in the proceeding.

The claims identification process establishes a procedure by which all
claims against BCI will be identified within a specified period.  This
period will begin following the court's decision with respect to the
certification as a class action of the lawsuit filed by Wilfred Shaw, a
BCI shareholder.  This certification decision is expected in the first
quarter of 2003.  BCI intends to contest the certification of Mr.
Shaw's action.

Following the period for the identification of claims, it is expected
that the court, upon the advice of Ernst & Young Inc., the monitor
under BCI's plan of arrangement, will make further orders with respect
to the timing, determination and resolution of the identified claims.
In connection with the plan of arrangement, Ernst & Young, from time to
time, will file monitor reports with the court containing financial and
other information regarding BCI.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Negotiates Schedule For Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corporation is negotiating a litigation schedule in the
consolidated securities class action filed against in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit
charges the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technical
Officer and Chief Financial Officer with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated
complaint under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and that motion was granted by the court in March 2002.  The court
granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint and
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2002.

In May 2002 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, which motion was denied in July 2002.  The Company answered
the seconded amended complaint in September 2002.

The parties are currently negotiating a litigation schedule pursuant to
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including timelines
for plaintiffs' filing of a motion for class certification and for
discovery.  The Company believes the allegations in the purported
consolidated shareholder class action are without merit and is
defending the action vigorously.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the securities class action
filed against the Company and:

     (1) its Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) its Chief Technical Officer, and

     (3) its Chief Financial Officer

The suit was initially commenced in February 2002 in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange, and later moved to
federal court.  The suit purports to assert claims for violations of
the California Corporations Code, and intentional and negligent
misrepresentation, and seeks rescission of plaintiffs' alleged
purchases of the Company's stock.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which
the court denied in May 2002.  The Company subsequently filed a motion
to dismiss this complaint.

Upon the filing of the Company's motion, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed all of their state law claims and requested that the federal
court allow them 60 days leave to amend the complaint to plead federal
law claims only, which the Company did not oppose and which the court
granted.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, pleading claims under federal
law, in August 2002.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint, and the hearing is scheduled for January 2003.  The Company
believes the allegations in this lawsuit are also without merit.


BSQUARE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BSquare Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it, certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from October 19, 1999 to December 6, 2000, alleges
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors
to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The litigation is being coordinated with over 300 nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed the individual defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
individual defendants.  On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss
all claims against it and the individual defendants.  The court has not
ruled on this motion.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.  However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.


CABLEVISION NY: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Suit V. Rainbow Group Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision NY Group, Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss
the consolidated class action charging it with breach of fiduciary
duties and breach of contract with respect to the exchange of the
Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for the Company's common stock, on
behalf of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.

The suit seeks to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
         Cablevision NY Group common stock;

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets", or, in the
         alternative, award rescissory damages;

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award rescissory
         damages;

     (4) award compensatory damages; and

     (5) award costs and disbursements.

In October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.  The Company believes the claims are without
merit.


CELL PATHWAYS: PA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the securities
class actions pending against Cell Pathways, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors.

In March, April and May of 2001, eleven stockholder class actions were
filed, alleging that the Company and its officers made false and
misleading statements about the Company's drug candidate, Aptosyn(R),
which caused artificial inflation of the Company's stock price during
the class period of October 27, 1999 to September 22, 2000, when the
Company announced that the FDA had informed the Company that it would
be receiving a "not approvable" letter for its new drug application for
Aptosyn(R).

In February 2002, a stipulation of settlement was agreed to.  Pursuant
to this stipulation of settlement, and following a preliminary order by
the court, the Company's insurance carrier paid $2.0 million into
escrow and the Company issued 1.7 million shares into escrow.

On September 23, 2002, following a hearing, the Court entered a final
order approving the settlement and dismissing the action at which time
the $2.0 million and 1.7 million shares were released from escrow.  The
time to appeal therefore has expired.


CUMULUS MEDIA: WI Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
granted final approval to a settlement of the securities class action
filed against Cumulus Media, Inc., certain of its present and former
directors and officers and certain underwriters of the Company's stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's common stock during various time periods between October 26,
1998 and March 16, 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 Sections 11 and 12(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, given the
restatement on March 16, 2000 of the Company's results for the first
three quarters of 1999.

On May 20, 2002, the Court approved a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement pursuant to which plaintiffs agreed to dismiss each claim
against the Company and the other defendants in consideration of $13
million and the issuance of 240,000 shares of the Company's Class A
Common Stock.

Upon Court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement, a
measurement date was reached with respect to the Company's Class A
common stock to be issued under the settlement, and the stock portion
of the settlement liability will no longer be adjusted each reporting
period for changes in the fair value of the Company's Class A common
stock.

The Company had previously funded the $13 million cash portion of the
settlement on November 30, 2001, all of which is held in an escrow
account maintained by a settlement agent appointed by the Court. Of the
$13 million funded cash portion of the settlement, $7.3 million was
provided under the Company's preexisting insurance coverage.  The
Company has no access to the cash portion of the settlement being held
by the settlement agent.

As such, the cash maintained by the settlement agent has been
classified as restricted cash and an offsetting liability due to the
class members is included as a part of accounts payable and other
accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

The restricted cash asset and offsetting settlement liability will be
eliminated when the cash is distributed from the escrow account to the
settlement class members, which the Company expects to occur in late
2002 or early 2003.  Of the 240,000 shares of Class A common stock to
be issued under the settlement, 60,000 shares were issued in June 2002
and the remaining 180,000 shares are expected to be issued in late 2002
or early 2003.


DOUBLECLICK INC.: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DoubleClick, Inc. faces a consolidated amended securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's follow-on offerings.  The suit also names
as defendants some of the Company's officers and directors and certain
underwriters of the Company's follow-on offerings.

In October 2002, the action was dismissed against the named officers
and directors without prejudice.  However, claims against the Company
remain.  The Company intends to dispute these allegations.


DOUBLECLICK INC.: IL Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Consumer Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court for Cook County, Illinois dismissed with prejudice the
class action brought by the Illinois State Attorney against
Doubleclick, Inc., pursuant to a settlement agreement between the
parties.  The suit concerns Internet user privacy and data collection
and other business practices.

Under the agreement, the online-advertising technology company agreed
to continue to post a privacy policy that discloses its data-collection
practices and will work to make sure its Web sites comply with its
privacy policies.  The Company will retain a third-party firm to
conduct compliance reviews.  Also, the Company, New York, agreed to
develop a tool, called a "cookie viewer," to help consumers track how
ads are served to them, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter
story.

The Company said the settlement, which did not constitute an admission
of wrongdoing, resolves all state investigations outstanding into its
consumer-privacy policies.  The company previously, in March, had
settled a series of class actions with plaintiffs whose Web surfing
habits were being collected, as well as settling in the same month, a
Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against the Company.


DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates Suits For Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated the securities class actions pending against DOV
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, certain of the Company's officers and directors
and certain of the underwriters in the Company's April 25,2002 initial
public offering of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock.

From April 29, 2002, a number of class action lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaints that have been served allege violations of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as 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, based upon the
Company's alleged failure to disclose the filing of a revised
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering reflecting changes to the 1999 financial statements of
the Company's joint venture with Elan Corporation, plc, DOV (Bermuda),
Ltd.  These class actions were brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering and sought money damages or rescission.

On July 29, 2002, Judge Robert W. Sweet consolidated before him the
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York and appointed lead
plaintiffs and approved the selection of counsel for the lead
plaintiffs.  On August 16, 2002 Judge Sweet consolidated before him the
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
Court of New Jersey with the lawsuits filed in the Southern District.

The deadline for the filing of a consolidated complaint has not yet
expired.  Defendants' time to respond has been extended pending the
filing of a consolidated complaint.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged in the class actions and intends to vigorously defend against
the claims.  However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot give assurances as to the ultimate outcome or effect of
these actions.  If the plaintiffs in these actions were to prevail,
such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.


EBAY INC.: Merger With PayPal Reaps Rash of CA, DE, NY Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. faces several class action complaints filed following
announcement of the Company's merger with PayPal, Inc.  Three were
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County, while two were commenced in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, by alleged PayPal
stockholders. The Company believes that each of the lawsuits is without
merit.

These complaints name the Company, PayPal and each member of Paypal's
board of directors, alleging, among other things, that the Company
controlled PayPal prior to the execution of their merger agreement.
The defendants allegedly breached fiduciary duties they owed to
PayPal's stockholders in connection with PayPal entering into the
merger agreement and the exchange ratio in the merger is unfair and
inadequate.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages.



INDIAN FUNDS: Bush Government Wants High Court To Limit Rights To Sue
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Administration has asked the US Supreme Court to limit
lawsuits filed by American Indian tribes contending the Interior
Department failed to protect tribal resources, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Otherwise, the government, which manages 56 million acres of land for
the benefit of the tribes, could be subject to a mountain of lawsuits,
argued assistant solicitor Gregory G. Garre.  "That would be an
enormous potential liability that there is no indication Congress ever
intended to assume," he said.  Specifically, Mr. Garre said the court
should reverse two appeals court rulings that found the government
liable for damages for violating implied responsibilities to the
tribes.

In one, the Navajo Nation alleges a former Interior secretary colluded
with a coal company to deny the tribe tens of millions of dollars in
royalties from coal mined from Navajo land.  In the other, the White
Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona contends that the Interior Department
should pay to repair historic buildings Congress allowed the government
to use on condition that they be given to the tribe when the government
does not need them.

Appeals courts have said the government was liable for damages as high
as $600 million in the Navajo case and $14 million in the White
Mountain case.

The government's responsibility to act as a trustee and protect the
interests of American Indian tribes is a cornerstone of Indian law
based on treaties with tribes and recognized by Congress and courts for
170 years.

That could be redefined by the current cases, said David Getches, a
professor specializing in Indian law at the University of Colorado.
Professor Getches said Indian tribes prevail in the current Supreme
Court about one-fifth of the time, less than any other group.

The cases could also affect other breach of trust cases, including a
class action filed in Washington, D.C., alleging that the government
squandered tens of billions of dollars in royalties from land owned by
350,000 American Indians nationwide.

In the Navajo case, the tribe had sought in 1984 to renegotiate a 20-
year-old coal lease with Peabody Energy, raising the royalty from less
than one percent to 20 percent of proceeds.  Interior Department
studies said the increase was appropriate.

An assistant secretary was about to set the royalties at 20 percent,
but then-Interior Secretary Donald Hodel blocked the adjustment after
meeting with a friend who had been hired by Peabody as a lobbyist.  The
tribe later settled for a 12.5 percent royalty.

Navajo attorney Paul E. Frye said Mr. Hodel "colluded with Peabody to
swindle the Navajo Nation, "a violation of his trust obligation."
However, Justice Antonin Scalia said the secretary is only obliged to
make sure the royalty rate is higher than the minimum set by law.

Justice Scalia also seemed equally unswayed by the White Mountain
arguments that the Interior Department should be responsible for upkeep
on the old Fort Apache buildings that Congress had arranged to be given
to the tribe once the government was through with its use of them.

Millions have been spent repairing the buildings, but an estimate $8
million in work remains, including fixing basketball-sized holes in the
ceilin of one building, said White Montain Apache attorney Robert C.
Brauchli.

Mr. Garre argued for the government that Congress did not direct the
government to maintain the buildings.  But Justices Sandra Day O'Connor
and John Paul Stevens questioned if that meant the government could
destroy them without consequences.

"I would have thought there might well be a duty for the United States
government here acting as a trustee not to lay waste to the property,"
said Justice O'Connor, an Arizona native.

Mr. Garre replied that if the buildings were destroyed, the tribe could
sue, but could not claim damages because the government failed to meet
its trust duties.


INFOSPACE INC.: JPMDL Orders Transfer of Securities Lawsuit To NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidated
securities class action pending against Infospace, Inc. to be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The first suit was commenced in June 2001 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging that the Company
and its chief executive officer made false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects during the period between
January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and does not specify the
amount of damages sought.  Subsequently, other similar complaints were
filed, and these suits were later consolidated.

In April 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  On April 11, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave of the Court to amend the consolidated complaint to add
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and one of its analysts as defendants, which
the court granted.  The amended complaint was filed on May 9, 2002.

On July 2, 2002, the Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Merrill Lynch and its analyst
moved for transfer of this case to the Southern District of New York to
be consolidated with the various cases pending against them.  The
Company opposed that motion and sought, with Merrill Lynch's support, a
severance and transfer of only plaintiff's claims against Merrill Lynch
to New York.  Plaintiffs sought to have the case (including the claims
against Merrill Lynch) remain in the Western District of Washington.

On October 11, 2002, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an order
transferring the case to the Southern District of New York for pre-
trial proceedings to be consolidated with the other various claims
pending against Merrill Lynch.

The Company's management believes the Company has meritorious defenses
to plaintiffs' claims against the Company and its management, but
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company may not prevail in
this matter.


INFOSPACE INC.: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infospace, Inc. asked the Superior Court of Washington for King County
to dismiss the shareholder derivative complaint pending against certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors of the
Company and entities related to several of the individual defendants.
The Company is named as a "nominal defendant."

The complaint alleges that certain defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company and were unjustly enriched by engaging in insider
trading, and also alleges that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Go2Net and Prio mergers and
that one defendant converted the Company's assets to his personal use.

Various equitable remedies are requested in the complaint, including
disgorgement, restitution, accounting and imposition of a constructive
trust, and the complaint also seeks monetary damages. As stated, the
complaint is derivative in nature and does not seek monetary damages
from, or the imposition of equitable remedies on, the Company.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements in the ordinary
course of business with officers and directors and may be obligated
throughout the pendency of this action to advance payment of legal fees
and costs incurred by the defendant officers and directors pursuant to
the Company's obligations under the indemnification agreements and
applicable Delaware law.

The special litigation committee of the Company's Board of Directors
(SLC), with the assistance of independent legal counsel, has
investigated the complaint, and on March 22, 2002 filed a motion to
terminate this derivative action.

Plaintiff took discovery with respect to that motion.  The motion has
been fully briefed by both the SLC and the plaintiff, and a hearing on
that motion is presently scheduled for November 15, 2002.


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice Integrated Information, Inc.'s current and
former officers and defendants as defendants in the consolidated
securities class action pending against them, the Company and the
members of the underwriting syndicate involved in the Company's initial
public offering.

The suit has been transferred to Judge Shira Scheindlin for
coordination with more than 300 similar cases.  The suit generally
alleges that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the Company's
         initial public offering to their customers in exchange for
         higher than standard commissions on transactions in other
         securities;

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the Company's
         initial public offering to their customers in exchange for the
         customers' agreement to purchase additional shares of the
         Company's common stock in the after-market at pre-determined
         prices;

     (3) the Company and the Individual Defendants violated section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 11
         of the Securities Act of 1933; and

     (4) the Individual Defendants violated section 20 of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 15 of the
         Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2002, the Company, as part of the group of issuers of shares
named in the consolidated litigation and the individual defendants,
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints.  The
underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss as well.

Also in July 2002, the plaintiffs offered to dismiss the individual
defendants, without prejudice, in exchange for a Reservation of Rights
and Tolling Agreement from each individual defendant.  All of the
individual defendants in the lawsuit have entered into such an
agreement.

On November 1, 2002, Judge Scheindlin heard oral arguments on the
motions to dismiss.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation
and because the litigation is at a preliminary stage, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the motions or the
hearing on the motions.

The Company believes that the claims against it are unfounded and
without merit.


ITXC CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed ITXC Corporation's officers and directors from the
consolidated securities class action pending against them and the
Company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that, in connection with the
Company's public offerings of securities, its Prospectus did not
disclose certain alleged practices involving its underwriters and their
customers.

The Company is one of hundreds of companies named in substantially
identical lawsuits.  All of these cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Southern
District of New York.  Motions to dismiss the cases are now pending.
All of the individual defendants who had been named as defendants in
the Company's case have now been dismissed from the proceeding without
prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation with the plaintiffs.

These actions are in the early stages and the Company has not yet
determined if there is any potential material impact on its financial
position or operations.  Management believes that the Company and its
officers/directors did not engage in any improper or illegal conduct
and intends to defend these actions vigorously.


MASSACHUSETTS: Auto Buyer Files Suit V. Dealer Over Glass-Etching Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Horowitz of Taunton bought a new Kia Sephia from dealer Ernie
Boch and claims his salesman insisted on including a $145 glass-etching
fee in the price of the car, The Boston Globe reports.

The fee, in fact, was preprinted on the purchase and sale agreement.
It covered the cost of etching a vehicle identification number on each
window, a practice that deters thieves and qualified Mr. Horowitz for a
15 percent discount on his comprehensive auto insurance coverage.  The
fee also enrolled the vehicle in a five-year warranty program that
would pay Mr. Horowitz $2,500 if his car was stolen and not recovered.
"Essentially, I was told it was a mandatory fee whether I wanted it or
not." said Mr. Horowitz.

Mr. Horowitz contacted a Boston law firm, and although the class action
has been dragging on, some interesting numbers turned up in court
documents.  The dealership sold 495 cars from mid-1998 to mid-1999, and
87 percent of those deals included the glass-etching service.

The records also indicate that the Boch dealership kept $120.50 from
the $145, with $18.50 going to a company for the warranty, $6 to the
salesman for commission.  Boch's share for the glass-etching is
uncommonly high, given that the Massachusetts Auto Theft Strike Force
has been etching windows as a public service for years for $10.

Gary Klein, an attorney with the law firm of Grant & Roddy, which
represents Mr. Horowitz, is seeking class action status for Mr.
Horowitz's lawsuit, from the Norfolk Superior Court.

However, Boch officials and attorney say the lawsuit has no merit.
They acknowledge the glass-etching service and fee were preprinted on
the purchase and sale agreements, but they say the service was
negotiable like other aspects of the car deal.

"It's all negotiation," said Howard Cooper, an attorney with Todd &
Weld, who is representing Mr. Boch.  "It (the glass etching) was being
given away in an overwhelming number of cases."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Battles Various Antitrust Claims In MD Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation have converged on the United States
District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.  Having recently won court
endorsement of an antitrust settlement with the federal government and
a group of states, lawyers for Microsoft are due to present arguments
before US District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, in a battle
against an antitrust lawsuit filed by rival Sun Microsystems Inc.
(Sun), Reuters English News Service reports.

Sun has asked Judge Motz to order Microsoft to include Sun's Java
programming language in the Windows XP operating system.  Judge Motz
also is overseeing a number of other actions against Microsoft, class-
action attorneys are suing on behalf of customers.  Sun's antitrust
lawsuit is one of several filed by AOL Time Warner unit, Netscape
Communications, Be Inc. and Burst.com.  The private antitrust
lawsuits were filed in the wake of Microsoft's long-running antitrust
fight with the federal government.

Sun filed its antitrust lawsuit in March, after a federal appeals court
upheld a lower court ruling that Microsoft had broken US antitrust laws
and illegally maintained its monopoly over personal computer operating
systems.

Santa Clara, California-based Sun is seeking more than $1 billion in
damages, claiming Microsoft impeded the use of its Java software
platform.  Sun's Java software is a computer language designed to run
on different operating systems, not just on Microsoft's dominant
Windows platform.  Java is generally considered a competitor with
Microsoft's .NET Internet services strategy.

Microsoft has argued that it was forced to drop Java because of legal
problems stemming from another lawsuit that Sun had filed against the
company.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: West Virginia To Join Antitrust Settlement Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia's attorney general said recently that the state will join
Massachusetts in appealing a judge's decision to endorse a settlement
of the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case, according to a report by Reuters
English News Service.

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw filed a notice, on
Monday, in federal court in Washington, that the state will challege
the decision by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to approve the
settlement.

In a statement, Attorney General McGraw said the state will join the
appeal because the settlement, negotiated between Microsoft and the US
Justice Department last year, does not go far enough to end all of
Microsoft's illegal practices.  "No reputable government should plead
poverty and allow an adjudicated lawbreaker to retain its ill-gotten
gains," Mr. McGraw said.

Massachusetts filed notice Friday that it would appeal the decision.
The District of Columbia and seven other states, California,
Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota and Utah, said they would
not appeal.  Instead, these jurisdictions said they will focus on
ensuring that Microsoft complies with the November 1 ruling by Judge
Kollar-Kotelly.

Microsoft is still defending itself against dozens of class action
lawsuits around the country that were filed in the wake of the
government antitrust lawsuit.  The company also faces civil antitrust
suits filed by rivals such as Sun Microsystems Inc. and AOL Time Warner
unit Netscape Communications.

Federal Judge Frederick Motz in Baltimore is scheduled to hear opening
arguments in the Sun lawsuit, which seeks to force Microsoft to include
Sun's Java programming language in Windows XP.

The settlement approved by Judge Kollar-Kotelly includes giving
computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on their
machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows
desktop.

The appeals court ruled in June 2001, that Microsoft had illegally
maintained the Windows operating system monopoly, but rejected the
trial court's proposal to break the company into two parts.  The case
was then referred to Judge Kollar-Kotelly to determine the appropriate
remedies in the case.  She heard 32 days of testimony to determine what
sanctions should be imposed on Microsoft.

During the remedy hearings, the attorneys for the states argued that
the antitrust sanctions should be designed to stop the company from
using Windows to crush competition in the markets for emerging
technologies, such as server software and handheld computers.

In her November 1 ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected nearly all the
demands for stronger sanctions.


OCEANIC USA: Recalls 24T Stage Regulators For Drowning, Accident Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanic USA is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety by
voluntarily is recalling about 24,700 Oceanic CDX first stage
regulators used for scuba diving.  Extreme vibration can occur within
these CDX regulators, which can cause an air leakage underwater.
Divers could run out of air and drown. The Company has received six
reports of noise or vibration accompanied by air leakage.  No injuries
have been reported.

Oceanic CDX first stage regulators subject to the recall have serial
numbers 9200001 to 9205622, 9800013 to 9801711, 0200001 to 0213294,
0D0001 to 0D3046, or 9D0001 to 9D3273.  The serial number is stamped
into the side of the body of the regulator.  The regulators have the
name "OCEANIC" written on the rubber boot of the first stage.  These
CDX regulators were sold with the second stage regulators named Alpha
7, Delta 3, Gamma 2, and Zeta.

Authorized Oceanic dealers sold these regulator sets worldwide
from May 1999 through October 2002 for between $330 to $640, depending
on the second stage.

For more information, contact the Company by Mail: 2002 Davis St., San
Leandro, CA 94577 by Phone: (866) 723-2642 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT
Monday through Friday by E-mail: service@oceanicusa.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.OceanicWorldWide.com


PAYPAL INC.: Faces Two Lawsuits Over Anti-Fraud Program in CA Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal, Inc. faces two class actions in California state and federal
court relating to its practice of restricting customer accounts.

The first suit, commenced in February 2002 in California state court,
alleges that its restriction of customer accounts and failure to
promptly unrestrict legitimate accounts violates state consumer
protection law and is an unfair business practice and a breach
of PayPal's User Agreement.  This action was re-filed with a different
named plaintiff on June 6, 2002.

On March 12, 2002, the Company was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit alleges that
its restrictions of customer accounts and failure to promptly
unrestrict legitimate accounts violates federal and state consumer
protection and unfair business practice law.  The court has denied the
Company's motion to compel individual arbitration as required by the
PayPal User Agreement and has invalidated that provision of the User
Agreement.

The Company is defending itself vigorously, but if it is unable to
prevail in these lawsuits, it may have to change its anti-fraud
operations in a manner that will harm its business and pay substantial
damages.  Even if its defense is successful, the litigation could
damage PayPal's reputation, could require significant management time,
will be costly and could require changes to its customer service and
operations that could increase its costs and decrease the effectiveness
of its anti-fraud program.


PDI INC.: To Ask NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action pending against it, its chief executive officer, and its chief
financial officer.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between May 22, 2001 and November 12, 2001.

The essence of the allegations in the first consolidated suit is that
the defendants intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading
public statements and omissions concerning the Company's financial
condition and prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin in
connection with the October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, as
well as its marketing of Lotensin in connection with the May 2001
distribution agreement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

On October 31, 2002, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second consolidated and amended complaint, which would supersede
the first consolidated suit.  The proposed second consolidated amended
complaint names the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief
financial officer as defendants, purports to state claims against them
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002 and seeks money damages in
unspecified amounts and litigation expenses including attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The essence of the allegations in the proposed second consolidated and
amended complaint is that the defendants intentionally or recklessly
made false or misleading public statements and omissions concerning the
Company's financial condition and prospects with respect to its
marketing of Ceftin in connection with the October 2000 distribution
agreement with GSK, its marketing of Lotensin in connection with the
May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., as
well as its marketing of Evista in connection with the October 2001
distribution agreement with Eli Lilly.

The Company believes that it is likely that the court will grant the
motion for leave to file a second amended and consolidated complaint
and, if granted, intends to file a motion to dismiss under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Discovery has not yet commenced
in the consolidated action.

The Company believes that the allegations in this securities class
action are without merit.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Sagent Technology, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Several suits were commenced from October 20, 2000 to November 27,
2000, on behalf of the individual investors who purchased Company
common stock between October 21, 1999 and April 18, 2000.  The claims
allege that the Company misrepresented its prospects for 1999 and the
first quarter of 2000.  Thereafter, the court consolidated the
complaints and selected a lead plaintiff and counsel.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, which the court granted.  However, the court gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.  In December 2001, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The Company then filed a
motion to dismiss that complaint on February 15, 2002.

The hearing on the motion was held on June 3, 2002.  On June 5, 2002,
the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  Thereafter,
the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

The Company has moved to strike certain portions of that complaint on
the grounds that those particular allegations were dismissed by the
court from the prior complaint.  On August 26, 2002, the court
sustained the Company's motion to strike certain portions of the
complaint.  Because certain claims survived the motion to dismiss the
prior complaint, and the discovery stay is no longer in effect for
those allegations, the parties are engaging in discovery.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA State Court Upholds Dismissal of Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo sustained
the dismissal of the shareholder derivative lawsuit against Sagent
Technology, Inc. and its present and former officers and directors.

On November 17, 2000, the first derivative lawsuit, labeled the
"Fanucci Complaint" was filed by a purported Company shareholder in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.  On February
9, 2001, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Clara (the "Hu Complaint").

The complaints name certain of the Company's present and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The Hu Complaint also names an
investment bank retained by the Company and an employee of that
investment bank as defendants.  The Company has also been named as a
nominal defendant in each complaint.

The principal allegation of the complaints is that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company through the
dissemination of allegedly misleading and inaccurate information and
other allegations.  In July 2001, the two cases were coordinated for
pretrial purposes in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Clara.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Fanucci suit, on the grounds
that, among other things, the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the board of directors as required by Delaware law.  The
officer and director defendants joined in that motion, and also moved
to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege the
asserted causes of action against the individual defendants. Similar
motions were filed concerning the Hu Complaint.

The parties agreed to stay the Hu Complaint indefinitely, pending the
outcome of the Fanucci matter, and the court entered an order staying
the Hu Complaint on January 11, 2002.  Thereafter, on January 16, 2002,
the Fanucci plaintiff filed a motion to transfer and/or remand that
case back to the Superior Court for San Mateo County where it was
originally filed.

The court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Fanucci Complaint, and the plaintiffs' transfer motion on January 28,
2002.  On March 1, 2002, the court issued an order sustaining the
Company's motion to dismiss, granting the plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint, denying the plaintiff's motion to transfer and/or remand the
Fanucci case to San Mateo County, and ordering the Company to produce a
limited quantity of documents to the plaintiff.

The Fanucci plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2002.  The
Company and the individual defendants each filed a motion to dismiss to
that complaint.  The Court heard oral argument on July 9, 2002 and
thereafter sustained the motions to dismiss, holding that the nominal
plaintiff did not have standing to litigate the complaint where he had
failed to make a pre-suit demand on the Company's Board of Directors as
required by Delaware law.  The plaintiffs have not filed an amended
complaint to date.


SUPREME COURT: Agrees To Consider Limits On Inmate Visitation Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide if inmates have
constitutional rights to jailhouse visits from young relatives and
others, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for prisons
around the country, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The class action is significant in its impact because there are 1.4
million inmates in state and federal prisons.  The High Court over the
years has upheld restrictions on books, packages and visitors at
prisons.

Justices will consider whether Michigan went too far in banning visits
by some children and former prisoners, and stripping visitation
privileges from drug-using inmates.  An appeals court sided with
inmates, ruling, among other things, earlier this year, that
imprisonment does not erase a person's First Amendment right to
associate with others.

Michigan and 11 other states argued that the rules should be
reinstated.  States and the federal government have varying regulations
for inmate visits, so the court's ultimate decision will clarify what
the law allows nationwide.

The lawyer for the Michigan inmates argued that Michigan had the
harshest visitation rules in the country, allowing someone to
permanently lose the right to see family members or friends after two
drug or alcohol infractions.

"This unique and extraordinarily harsh punishment has a devastating
effect on prisoners and their families," attorney Deborah LaBelle told
justices in a filing.  Justices must weigh Michigan authorities'
ability to control their prisons against the rights of inmates.  States
usually win in such cases.

Michigan's rules ban visits from prisoners' minor relatives, like
brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews.  Children and
grandchildren are allowed to come to the prison, unless parental rights
have been terminated.  Michigan Attorney General Jennifer Granholm told
the court that the rules were changed because of many visitation
problems, including the molestation of a child during a visit.

Michigan's rules were imposed in 1995 and challenged by a group of
inmates.  The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found,
when the case reached its forum, that the ban on visitors is cruel and
unusual punishment.  The Court said, "Under our Constitution, even
those lawfully imprisoned for serious crimes retain some basic
constitutional rights.  In the present case, the regulations fall below
minimum standards of decency owed by a civilized society to those it
has incarcerated."

During argument before the High Court, Colorado Attorney General Ken
Salazar, in support of the state of Michigan's position, told the Court
that the appeals court decision "is potentially disruptive to prison
management across the country."  He said limits on visitation are
needed to encourage good behavior and control contraband, which can be
brought in by visitors.

Michigan rules also prohibit former prisoners who are not immediate
family from visiting.  Prisoners who violate the department's drug
abuse policies twice may be visited only by attorneys and clergy.
The class action did not challenge other visitation rules, including a
limit on monthly visits, regulations on times and dates of visits.


UNITED STATES: Justice Dept, Workers' Union Agree On Special-Rate Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The special-rate back pay class action, which gives new meaning to the
term 'long-running,' has taken a big step forward, The Washington Post
reports.  However, the finish line still remains far ahead.

"This case has been a marathon," said general counsel Gregory O'Duden,
of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), to Judge Nancy B.
Firestone of the US Court of Federal Claims, during a recent hearing
on a proposed settlement in the lawsuit.

The class action dates to a 1982 policy, affecting employees receiving
special-rate pay, which is the higher pay provided employees in certain
hard-to-fill positions.  The union and the government battled through
three rounds in federal district court and two in federal appeals
court.  The union prevailed and now the two are in the claims court.

NTEU and the Justice Department asked the court to approve the proposed
settlement, in which the government agreed to pay more than $173
million to cover back pay, interest and lost retirement benefits.  "We
were able to achieve a settlement and create a structure to give
class members what they deserve," Justice Department attorney Judry
Subar told the court.

About 212,000 employees were in the special-rate category from 1982
through 1988, but the back pay would go only to those whose raises were
improperly capped during that time.  According to NTEU, that should be
about 129,000 individuals.   Many of them have left the government,
retired or died.  The typical award to the special-raters or their
estates, would range from $1,000 to $3,000, but in some circumstances,
much larger awards would be made.  NTEU estimates that 50 people stand
to receive more than $50,000.

Judge Firestone said, "My hope and desire is to conclude . before
the Christmas holiday.  People have waited a great deal of time to
learn whether they are going to be compensated."

If Judge Firestone approves the settlement, the government would have
60 days after her order becomes final to pay the money into the
settlement fund.  Letters would then go to class members stating the
amounts they would receive.

Nine months after the final approval, special-raters would start
receiving their payments.  That means checks would start going out in
late 2003.  In some cases, it might take longer.  Some class members
could challenge certain information used to calculate their payments.
Disputes also could arise over membership in the class, ownership of
money due to deceased beneficiaries and other administrative issues.


UNITED STATES: Court To Decide on Limits for Reservation Site Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court has agreed to decide whether police officers can, under
the law, search tribal businesses for evidence of criminal activities
off the reservation, according to a report by the Associated Press
Newswires.

The issue is significant for a number of reasons, among them being that
a forced search for evidence under such circumstances could be the
source for many class actions for wrongful search.

The case was brought by Inyo County, California, and a dozen other
states, after the Bishop Paiute Tribe resisted search warrants for
records of three casino employees, who the county said were falsely
claiming welfare benefits.  The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals
agreed with the tribe.

In June 2001, the Supreme Court said state authorities may enter an
Indian reservation to investigate or prosecute off-reservation
violations of state law.  The case is Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone
Indians, 02-281.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Vitria Technology, Inc.'s officers and directors from the
consolidated securities class action filed against them, the Company
and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in January
2001 against numerous public companies that first sold their common
stock publicly since the mid-1990s.  The Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

On August 8, 2001, all of these IPO-related lawsuits were consolidated
for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.  Judge Scheindlin held an initial
case management conference on September 7, 2001, at which time she
ordered, among other things, that the time for all defendants to
respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the court.
Thus, neither the Company nor any of its officers or directors has been
required to answer the complaint, and no discovery has been served on
them.

In July 2002, defendants then filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-
related lawsuits.  Subsequent settlement discussions between the
parties have resulted in an agreement by the plaintiffs to dismiss the
named individual officers and directors of the Company who were named
as defendants in the IPO-related lawsuit.

Judge Scheindlin entered a court order detailing this dismissal on
October 9, 2002.  Oral arguments on issuers' motion to dismiss the
complaints were held on November 1, 2002.  As of the date of this
filing, the court has not yet ruled on this motion.


VODAFONE PLC: UK, US Law Firms To Commence Suit In US For UK Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Law, the high-profile UK legal firm, has joined forces with
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach of the United States to bring a
lawsuit against Vodafone PLC on behalf of UK investors, The Times of
London reports.  The cases comes as suing companies on behalf of
aggrieved UK investors is becoming big business.

That said, the United States is still the preferred venue for bringing
such actions because the legal system tends to favor litigants.  So,
UK firms such as Class Law are teaming up with their American
counterparts such as Milberg Weiss to enable UK investors to launch
suits on the American side of the Atlantic.

Class Law says it so far has taken on 20 British Vodafone shareholders,
who will join the US action that alleges that the mobile telephone
company issued "material misrepresentations" to investors between March
7, 2001 and May 28, 2002.  Investors allege that Vodafone was
"improperly delaying goodwill writedowns" and overpaid for
acquisitions.  The Company pledges to fight the case.

Although the introduction of the Group Litigation Order in 2000,
clarified the operation of class action, or group, lawsuits in Britain,
it is still much more difficult to bring successful actions in the UK.
In the UK, litigants must sign up to an action, through a Group
Litigation Order, before it is set in motion.  In the UK, cases are
heard before a judge.  Judges tend to be more conservative than the US
juries, which hear equivalent actions and have more sympathy with the
plaintiffs.

Costs are also an issue for UK solicitors.  For example, an attempt by
the law firm Leigh Day & Co., to take on big tobacco companies on
behalf of former smokers in the UK floundered because of the risk of
losing and having to pay the companies' costs.  The firm sought GBP10
million of insurance cover, but the cheapest quote for a premium was
GBP4 million.  Given that the costs already had mushroomed to GBP15
million, the firm was forced to call off the action.

This is not a problem in the United States.  If the people bringing the
suit win, their lawyers are paid by taking a substantial cut of the
damages, which helps them to build fighting funds for future cases.  If
they lose, however, they do not have to meet the costs of the company
they are suing, unlike in the UK where the winner takes all.

British lawyers attribute the rise in class action in the UK to the
increased publicity given to financial scandals and a growing appetite
among investors to fight for compensation.


*Prominent Lawyer Melvyn Weiss Evaluates Legal Achievements, Exploits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For 37 years Melvyn Weiss of top law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach has ruled the class action courtroom.  His name alone casts
uneasiness into the hearts of the sternest executives and investment
bankers, The Times of London reports.  In the past two years alone his
reputation has served him well, bringing his firm the lion's share of
the surge in class actions.

His victories are fabled.  He won $800 million for investors who lost
their shirts in Michael Milken's junk bond scandal, more than $2
billion for policyholders in Prudential Insurance of the United States
and $775 million for investors in Washington Public Power Supply
Systems.

Mr. Weiss even claimed the first securities fraud victory against a big
accountancy firm when he defeated Touche Ross in 1972 and won $2
million for the plaintiffs.  "That was an awful lot of money in those
days," the quietly spoken New Yorker remembers with a grin.  In 2001, a
record-breaking year for fraud class actions, the firm was involved in
as many as 70 percent of all cases.

Mr. Weiss loathes the Wall Street culture that seeks to divert
shareholders' funds to executive directors by way of options and
bonuses.  In fact, he blames that very culture for the explosion of the
fraud cases.  He expounds a convincing theory about the circumstances
that led to corporate America's decline into a seemingly endless spiral
of fraud.

"Historically, there were two types of corporate leader.  The first
type were the entrepreneurs, the founders, and because they were
founders they had big blocks of stock and became mega-rich," Mr. Weiss
says.  "Then you have the second type, whom I characterize as the
interim caretakers of other people's money.  These people traditionally
paid well, but not nearly as well as the entrepreneurs."

Then along came the merger and acquisition era, which Mr. Weiss
believes was permitted as a result of Mr. Milken's transformation of
junk bonds into a commodity.  "Wall Street taught some of these interim
caretakers how to also become mega rich with golden parachutes and the
like," Mr. Weiss says.  "But when that whole industry collapsed because
of accounting frauds, Wall Street had to find new ways to keep its
engines going, so to speak.  And other corporate managers who missed
the gravy train were saying, 'How can I cash in?'  So they came up with
the creation of the stock option."

Mr. Weiss believes that corporate executives colluded with bankers and
accountants and lawyers to create layers of illusion surrounding
companies and their financial results to make sure that the bottom line
kept growing and the options kept paying.

Then in 1995, Congress changed the law to make it more difficult to
bring securities fraud litigation, with an added clause to protect Wall
Street advisers.  "The CEO needs someone to protect him from himself
and the outside directors need someone to protect them from the CEO,"
Mr. Weiss says.  "So you have watchdogs -- the accountants, the
lawyers, the bankers.  But if they don't feel threatened that they can
be held accountable, then the CEO has the upper hand and they become
weaker."

The Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995, reversed a law of more
than 60 years' standing to rule that so-called aiders and abetters of
wrongdoing in a securities fraud case could not be held liable under
federal law.  "So when you take all this together you have a recipe for
disaster," Mr. Weiss concludes with a sigh of resignation.

However, he believes that some of the actions of the investment bankers
accused of IPO spinning, and of the auditors in the big corporate
bankruptcies, were terrible enough to make them into prime suspects,
rather than the aiders and abetters that they claim to be.

Investors affected by the likes of Enron and WorldCom could have a
long time to wait for a settlement.  "Look at Exxon Valdez:  that has
been 12 years.  Lawyers have retired, even died, without seeing a
result," Mr. Weiss says.  "Enron should be a little quicker; at least I
hope so."


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CREDIT SUISSE: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Agilent
Technologies, Inc. securities (NYSE:A) between December 13, 1999 and
September 9, 2002, inclusive.  Named as defendants are Credit Suisse
First Boston (CSFB) and Elliot Rogers, the analyst responsible for
covering Agilent.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the price
of Agilent stock.

The complaint alleges that CSFB issued analyst reports regarding
Agilent that recommended the purchase of the Company's common stock.
However, such analyst reports were false and misleading because they
conflicted with defendants' internally expressed negative opinions
regarding Agilent and failed to disclose that CSFB's coverage and
ratings of Agilent were not independent and objective, but instead were
a biased marketing tool for CSFB to maintain and enhance its investment
banking business with Agilent.

Throughout the class period, CSFB, maintained "Buy" or "Hold"
recommendations on Agilent in order to obtain and support lucrative
financial deals for CSFB.  Indeed, defendants' conduct was so brazen
that this system of false ratings was internally dubbed the "Agilent
Two-Step" at CSFB.

As a result of CSFB's false and misleading conduct, Agilent common
stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the class period.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, David C. Katz, and/or James
E. Tullman by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 16000,
New York, NY 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-
mail: info@wynyc.com


FOOTSTAR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Footstar, Inc.
(NYSE:FTS) between February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports and
an annual report with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
revenues and financial performance.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that, since at least 2001, the Company had cumulatively
         understated its accounts payable by approximately $35 million;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's balance sheet and
         financial results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On November 13, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it had "discovered discrepancies in the reporting of its account
payable balances," following management's review of the account
reconciliation processes of its accounts payable balances.

Specifically, defendants had cumulatively understated the Company's
accounts payable balances in its athletic segment by approximately $35
million.  As a result, the Company announced that it will likely be
restating its financial statements for the first nine months of 2002
and prior periods, with a significant portion of the discrepancies
affecting fiscal year 2001 and earlier. Following this announcement,
shares of the Company fell $1.25, or almost 20%, to close at $5.05,
after hitting an intraday low of $3.30, on volume of 2,137,700 shares
traded, or almost six times Footstar's average daily trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


TRANSACTION SYSTEM: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in NE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc. (Nasdaq:TSAIE) between January 21, 1999 and November 18, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges that during the class period, Transaction Systems
Architects and certain of its officers and directors issued and/or
failed to correct false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and
earnings directed to the investing public. Specifically:

     (1) the Company's software license revenues and net income for
         1999, 2000, 2001 and for the ninth-month period ended June 30,
         2002 have been seriously overstated;

     (2) the Company lacked sufficient internal controls and therefore
         was unable to understand its true financial standing;

     (3) because of these problems, the value of the Company's balance
         sheet and income statement were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 14, 2002, the Company shocked the market and revealed that
management was reviewing several transactions involving the Company's
customers that occurred during fiscal 1999 and 2000, to determine
whether they had been accounted for appropriately.

The Company announced that it would conduct a re-audit of the financial
statements for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001.  In response to the
news, the Company's shares plummeted more than 20%, falling $2.22 per
share (from the previous day's closing price of $10.72 per share), to
$8.50 per share on August 15, 2002.

On November 19, 2002, the Company confirmed that in the course of the
review of its financial statements, the Company identified certain
accounting adjustments that will result in the restatements of the
Company's financial statements for fiscal 1999, 2000 and 2001, as well
as the restatements of previously announced 2002 quarterly results
because it improperly recognized revenue in conjunction with its
software licensing arrangements.

As a result, previously reported Company's software license revenues
and net income will decrease substantially in fiscal 1999, 2000 and
2001. The Company said that these adjustments may be material. Further,
the Company announced that as a result of these adjustments, it is not
possible to complete the re-audit prior to the November 29, 2002,
deadline allowed by NASDAQ. The Company requested an extension from
NASDAQ until December 31, 2002 to complete the re-audit process.

After the market digested the November 19, 2002 announcement, TSA's
shares fell to a low of $ 6.50, closing on November 20th at $7.35.

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

                              *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *