CAR_Public/021206.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, December 6, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 242

                              Headlines                            

21ST CENTURY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
AVENUE A: Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Consumer Suit Settlement
AVENUE A: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
BLUE MARTINI: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit

CROSS MEDIA: NY Court Orders Consolidated of Securities Fraud Lawsuits
FLORIDA: Taxpayer Files Suit Over Illegally Collected Tax, Seeks Refund
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Trial in DE Employees' Injury Lawsuit Set March 2003
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Court Refuses Certification To Employee Injury Suit
GENTEK INC.: Faces Suit Over May 2001 Chemicals Release at CA Facility

HMO LITIGATION: Lawyers Accuse Cigna Of Corruption In Suit Settlement
IDAHO: Plaintiffs Seek Punitive Damages In Grass Field Burning Lawsuit
KERN RIVER: Measurement Techniques Allegedly Allow Royalty Underpayment  
LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
MARKETWATCH.COM: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Lawsuit

MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Firm Gives Landmark Settlement Funds To Charities
MEEMIC HOLDINGS: MI Court Agrees To Dismiss Suit V. ProAssurance Merger
NETSOLVE INC.: TX Court Approves $2.75M Securities Lawsuit Settlement
NETSOLVE INC.: Negotiating Settlement of Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
PENNSYLVANIA: Bucks County Plans Jail Annex In Obedience To Court Order

PRICELINE.COM: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
RAZORFISH INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
REDBACK NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
SEQUENOM INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
ST. CLOUD UNIVERSITY: Reaches Agreement To Settle Anti-Semitism Lawsuit

THESTREET.COM: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in N.D. OK
   
                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Damage Awards Come from Workers' Wages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alliance to Push for Changes in Litigation System
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Environmental Health Institute
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Settlements Help Grace's Reorganization
ASBESTOS ALERT: American Standard Faces Several Asbestos Related Suits

ASBESTOS ALERT: Ampco-Pittsburgh, Subsidiaries Face Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: AutoZone Named as Defendant in Several Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Brunswick, Former Subsidiary Carry Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntsman Polymers Battles Asbestos Related Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: IDEX Corporation Faces Asbestos Suits in Various States
ASBESTOS ALERT: Quaker Chem's Subsidiary Faces Asbestos-Related Cases

ASBESTOS ALERT: Rohm & Haas Subsidiary Face Asbestos Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Sealed Air Agrees To Pay $500M For Asbestos Claims  
ASBESTOS ALERT: UAI Facing 28 Asbestos-Related Suits

                      New Security Fraud Cases
                           
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
BROADWING INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
MORGAN STANLEY: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in NE Court

                            *********

21ST CENTURY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss the securities class action pending against 21st
Century Holding Co. and its directors and executive officers, on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 5, 1998
and August 13, 1999.

The suit alleges that the Company's amended registration statement
dated November 4, 1998 was inaccurate and misleading concerning the
manner in which the Company recognized ceded insurance commission
income, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit.  The Company's
answer to the court's ruling is due on December 9, 2002.

         
AVENUE A: Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Consumer Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a consolidated
consumer class action pending against Avenue A, Inc., concerning its
collection and use of Internet user information.

The consolidated consumer suit contains these purported claims:

     (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq. (the
         Wiretap/Interception section of the Electronic Communications
         Privacy Act),

     (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2701 et seq. (the Access to
         Stored Information section of the Electronic Communications
         Privacy Act),

     (3) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1030 et seq. (the Computer
         Fraud and Abuse Act),

     (4) violation of RCW section 9.73.030 et seq. (the Washington
         State Wiretap/Interception statute),

     (5) common law trespass to personal property and conversion,

     (6) common law invasion of privacy,

     (7) unjust enrichment,

     (8) violation of state consumer protection and deceptive
         practices statutes, and

     (9) declaratory judgment

The Company moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in
September 2001.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling.  On October 17,
2002, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of a
nationwide class action settlement of this action, and ordered that
notice to the class be provided, and scheduled a final approval hearing
on March 6, 2003. Two suits pending against the Company are also
subject to the nationwide class action settlement.

The first suit was filed in the District Court of Cameron County,
Texas, alleging claims relating to the Company's collection and use of
Internet user information, namely claims under common law invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment.

In February 2002, the Company filed a notice of removal in federal
district court, removing the case to federal court.  In July 2002, the
federal district court remanded the case to state court.  This case is
subject to the nationwide class action settlement, which, if approved
and subject to potential appeal, would resolve this action.

The other suit is pending in the Superior Court for San Bernardino
County, California, alleging claims relating to the Company's
collection and use of Internet user information:

     (i) invasion of privacy in violation of article I, section 1 of
         the California Constitution,

    (ii) common law invasion of privacy,

   (iii) violation of California Penal Code 167 631 et seq. (the
         California wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes),

    (iv) violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 et
         seq. (the California unfair competition statute), and

     (v) unjust enrichment

This case is also subject to the nationwide class action settlement,
which, if approved and subject to potential appeal, would resolve this
action.


AVENUE A: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Avenue A, Inc.'s officers and directors as defendants in the
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from February 28,2000 and December 6,2000, pursuant or
traceable to the Company's prospectus dated February 28,2000.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC,

     (4) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (5) Brian P. McAndrews, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (6) Nicolas Hanauer, Chairman of the Board and

     (7) Robert Littauer, former Chief Financial Officer

The complaint contains the following purported claims against all
defendants:

     (i) violation of 15 U.S.C. section 77k (section 11 of the
         Securities Act of 1933), and

    (ii) violation of 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b) (section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and 17 C.F.R. section
         240.10b-5 (Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5).

The complaint contains the following purported claims against the
individual defendants alone:

     (a) violation of 15 U.S.C. section 77o (section 15 of the
         Securities Act of 1933), and

     (b) violation of 15 U.S.C. section 78t(a) (section 20(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures contained in the Company's prospectus dated
February 28, 2000, for the initial public offering of common stock.  
The complaint alleges incorrect disclosure or omissions in the
prospectus relating generally to commissions to be earned by the
underwriters and certain allegedly improper agreements between the
underwriters and certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.

It also alleges that the Securities and Exchange Commission and/or
other regulatory authorities are investigating underwriting practices
similar to those alleged in the complaint.  The Company has no
knowledge as to whether it or its initial public offering is the
subject of any such investigation.

This consolidated complaint is among over 300 similar consolidated
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against underwriters and other issuers of
stock in initial public offerings.  The court has coordinated the cases
under a single case number for pretrial proceedings.

On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants as a group filed a motion to
dismiss the claims alleged in the consolidated complaints.  On October
8, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, all
of the claims against Mr. McAndrews, Mr. Hanauer, and Mr. Littauer in
the lawsuit pursuant to an agreement between plaintiffs and the named
defendants.


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Backweb Technologies, Inc.'s officers and directors as
defendants in the securities class action filed against them, the
Company and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit asserts that the prospectus from the Company's June 8, 1999
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged improper
actions by the underwriters for the offering, including the receipt of
excessive brokerage commissions and agreements with customers regarding
aftermarket purchases of shares of the Company's stock.

The complaint alleges claims against the Company and its officers and
directors under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the 1933 Act) and alleges claims against the officers and directors
under Section 15 of the 1933 Act and pursuant to Rule 10b-5 and
Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated
litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of which the Company and
its named officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings
issues.  That motion hearing was held November 1, 2002.

The court entered and ordered the Stipulation of Dismissal of the
plaintiffs and the six individual defendants, which dismissed all six
individual defendants from the litigation without prejudice.

The Company believes the allegations against it are without merit.  
However, the results of any litigation are inherently uncertain and can
require significant management attention.


BLUE MARTINI: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Blue Martini Software, Inc.'s officers and directors as
defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed against
them, the Company and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO).

The defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws because
Blue Martini's IPO registration statement and prospectus allegedly
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.

The suit is similar to hundreds of complaints were filed in the same
court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  In August 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 in the IPO lawsuits to respond to any
complaint be postponed until further order of the court.  Thus, the
Company Martini has not been required to answer any of the complaints,
and no discovery has been served on it.

In accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders at further status
conferences in March and April 2002, the appointed lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed amended, consolidated complaints in the IPO lawsuits on
April 19, 2002.

Defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits on July
15, 2002, as to which the Company does not expect a decision until late
2002.  The Company's directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and tolling agreement
between the plaintiffs and certain individual defendants.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.  The Company believes that the ultimate
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial position and results of operations.


CROSS MEDIA: NY Court Orders Consolidated of Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered consolidated four securities class actions pending against
Cross Media Marketing Corporation and Mr. Ronald Altbach, on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's shares from November 5, 2001
through July 11, 2002.

The complaints generally allege that the Company violated Section 10(b)
and Mr. Altbach violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
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, including press releases that allegedly
overstated the Company's business prospects and allegedly
mischaracterized the status of the FTC proceedings brought against the
Company and others.

On October 16,2002, the court ordered the plaintiffs to serve a
consolidated amended suit within 60 days thereof and providing for a
briefing schedule with respect to any motion to dismiss the
consolidated suit.

In September 2002, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors alleging
substantially the same claims made in the class actions.  

The Company and Mr. Altbach dispute these claims and intend to
vigorously defend this matter.  Because this lawsuit is still in the
early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the
effect it may have on its operating results, financial condition or
stock price.


FLORIDA: Taxpayer Files Suit Over Illegally Collected Tax, Seeks Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade County in Florida failed to bill an estimated $2.5 million
in occupational license fees from commercial landlords when the county
began imposing the new tax in 2000, The Miami Herald reports.

That failure was exposed in a lawsuit recently filed in Miami-Dade
Circuit Court by attorney Darin DiBello on behalf of his client Kenneth
Rosen, who is the owner of a Coral Gables office building.  The lawsuit
seeks a refund for Mr. Rosen and hundreds of other commercial
landlords, who each paid the $345 fee.  The lawsuit further alleges
that Miami-Dade County taxed the plaintiffs unfairly, because it failed
to bill every Miami-Dade commercial property owner, in year 2000, for
his $345 share of the occupational license fees.

While Marlen Preston, the county's spokeswoman, would not comment on
the lawsuit, she did say that while the county has the authority to go
back and collect the fees from the commercial landlords not previously
billed, "it was not going to do it."  However, "the county has compiled
a more complete list of commercial landlords during the past fiscal
year so it could collect the tax more thoroughly."

That approach does not satisfy Mr. Rosen, who wants a refund of the
occupational fees he paid in year 2000, because the tax was unlawful,
since it was not uniformly billed and collected.  Ms. Preston replies
that the county's law office authorized sending out bills to a partial
list of commercial landlords the first year.  

However, Mr. Rosen continues to contend, as does his class action, that
the county's 657 commercial landlords who paid their occupational tax
bill should receive a total refund of $280,429 for that year because
officials violated the Florida Constitution.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Trial in DE Employees' Injury Lawsuit Set March 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuits filed against The General Chemical Group, Inc. is
set to commenced March 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware
County, Pennsylvania.

Approximately 40 Company employees and their spouses initiated the suit
in April 1998 alleging that sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide releases
from the Company's Delaware Valley facility caused various respiratory
and pulmonary injuries.  Unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 for
each plaintiff are sought.

As a result of pretrial proceedings, there are presently only 36
employees who are pursuing individual personal injury claims and 29
spouses claiming loss of consortium.

The Company has denied all material allegations of the complaints and
will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.  Management
further believes that current accruals and available insurance should
provide adequate coverage in the event of an adverse result in this
matter and that, based on currently available information, this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Court Refuses Certification To Employee Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania refused to
grant class certification to the lawsuit filed against The General
Chemical Group, Inc. on behalf of more than 1,000 current and former
employees of the Sunoco Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania refinery located
immediately adjacent to the Company's Delaware Valley facility.

The complaint alleges that unspecified releases of sulfur dioxide and
sulfur trioxide over unspecified timeframes caused injuries to the
plaintiffs, and seeks, among other things, to establish a "trust fund"
for medical monitoring for the plaintiffs.

In May 2002, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the
case to proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs have appealed that
decision.

The Company believes this claim is without merit.  Management further
believes that the Company's current accruals and available insurance
should provide adequate coverage in the event of an adverse result in
this matter, and that, based on currently available information, this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations or financial condition.


GENTEK INC.: Faces Suit Over May 2001 Chemicals Release at CA Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentek, Inc. faces a class action filed on behalf of approximately
18,000 persons living in the Contra Costa, San Francisco and Alameda
counties in California State court, making claims against the Company
and a third party arising out of a May 1, 2001 release of sulfur
dioxide and sulfur trioxide from the Company's Richmond, California
sulfuric acid facility.

The release was caused when the third party's truck hit a power pole
and damaged an electrical substation owned by the local utility,
thereby knocking out electrical power to a number of users, including
the Company.  This resulted in a loss of vacuum pressure at the
Company's facility, which led to the release.

The lawsuits claim various damages for alleged injuries, including,
without limitation, claims for:

     (1) personal injury,

     (2) emotional distress,

     (3) medical monitoring,

     (4) nuisance,

     (5) loss of consortium and

     (6) punitive damages

The Company believes it has sufficient insurance coverage in the event
of an adverse result in these lawsuits and does not believe that this
matter will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition
or results of operations.


HMO LITIGATION: Lawyers Accuse Cigna Of Corruption In Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the nation's doctors accused Cigna Corp. of corruption
and collusion in reaching a "sweetheart" settlement of racketeering in
Illinois with another set of lawyers, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

US District Judge Federico Moreno, who is handling all similar federal
class actions by doctors against the managed care industry, promised to
decide by December 13, whether to interject himself in the settlement.

"I am not suggesting anything is wrong with what has occurred," the
judge said during a hearing on a request for an injunction against
Cigna.  However, he added, "From a practical standpoint, isn't this
going to be chaotic?"

Judge Moreno was concerned about timing because a settlement notice is
due out by December 20, in the Illinois case.  He also said he was
afraid of having contradictory orders from the two courts on lawsuits
alleging doctors are routinely underpaid on claims to boost corporate
profits.  Judge Moreno said he spoke with the Illinois judge, who has
given preliminary approval to the settlement filed last week.

"What he said is, 'Use your judgment,'" Judge Moreno said.  He joked
that he suggested US District Judge G. Patrick Murphy, in East St.
Louis, Ill., should take over the whole case, which pits 700,000
doctors against the industry.

Medical societies already are lining up on both sides of the agreement:
20 against and four in favor.  Attorneys for doctors in the batch of
cases before Judge Moreno claimed both judges have been "snookered" and
say doctors have been "sold to the lowest bidder" by lawyers pursuing a
$36 million settlement fee.

However, Cigna attorney John Harkins told Judge Moreno, "This was not
some grand plot."  Mr. Harkins denied doing anything underhanded to get
the settlement and said the Miami lawyers were aware of a draft
settlement package in the Illinois case since August.

Health insurers have been fighting to kill or whittle down the batch of
doctors' lawsuits, and they have appeals pending before the US Supreme
Court and a federal appeals court in Atlanta.  Then, Cigna moved the
Madison County, Illinois, lawsuit from state to federal court and filed
the settlement within five days.  The Company said the agreement would
remove it from the Miami case.

Doctors' attorneys in Miami have called the agreement "woefully
inadequate" and want Cigna to be held in contempt and fined.  No dollar
figure was suggested.  "Cigna's purpose was to achieve a sweetheart
settlement without the scrutiny of this court," doctors" attorneys said
in court documents. They claimed Cigna was "making an end run around"
the Miami umbrella case.

Cigna spokesman Wendell Potter said before Tuesday's hearing that the
Company's goal was to spend more time cooperating with doctors and
other providers "rather than devoting more time and resources to
litigation."

In the Miami case, doctors claim they are routinely shortchanged in a
profit-driven system that makes it costly and time-consuming for them
to object when their claims are underpaid.


IDAHO: Plaintiffs Seek Punitive Damages In Grass Field Burning Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho residents trying to end grass field burning are asking for
punitive damages in their class-action lawsuit against farmers,
dramatically raising the stakes in the legal battle, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Idaho law allows punitive damages only with a judge's approval.  If
that approval is granted, it would allow a jury to decide the amount of
punitive damages against the grass farmers.

"The court has stated in its rulings that there is little doubt the
archaic practice of field burning is having a devastating impact on
these people," said Steve Berman, a Seattle lawyer who represents
people who filed the lawsuit.  Punitive damages are necessary to ensure
an end to grass field burning, he said.

The lawsuit was filed in June, in Idaho District Court, and seeks to
end the practice of burning the stubble off grass seed fields after
harvest.  The lawsuit named the state of Idaho and 79 grass farmers and
seed companies as defendants, and contends that the smoke produced by
annual grass fires causes serious health risks, especially to those
with respiratory conditions including asthma and cystic fibrosis.

In addition to asking the court for a complete ban on field burning,
the lawsuit seeks a medical monitoring program for those affected by
the smoke, as well as monetary damages.

If the court grants the lawsuit class action status, the suit would
then cover residents with medical conditions aggravated by the smoke in
four Idaho counties, as well as in other areas.


KERN RIVER: Measurement Techniques Allegedly Allow Royalty Underpayment  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Kern River Gas Transmission Company and Northern Natural Gas faces,
along with a number of interstate pipeline companies, a nationwide
class action lawsuit pending in the 26th Judicial District, District
Court, Stevens County Kansas, Civil Department.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have engaged in measurement
techniques that distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting
in an alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer
plaintiffs.

In November 2001, Kern River and Northern Natural Gas, along with the
coordinating defendants, filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 9B and
12B of the Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure.  In January 2002, Kern
River and Northern Natural Gas and most of the coordinating defendants
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court
has yet to rule on these motions.  The plaintiffs filed for
certification of the plaintiff class on September 16, 2002.

The Company and Northern Natural Gas believe that this claim is without
merit and that Kern River's and Northern Natural Gas' gas measurement
techniques have been in accordance with industry standards and its
tariff.


LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Latitude Communication, Inc.'s officers and directors as
defendants from the securities class action filed against them, the
Company and certain underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares in violation of
the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased Company stock during the period from May 6, 1999
to December 6, 2000.

In October 2002, the Company's officers and directors who were
defendants were dismissed from the action without prejudice.  The
Company remains a defendant in the action.

The Company along with other issuer defendants, have filed a motion,
which is currently pending before the court, to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims against it and will defend itself vigorously.  
In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel and
based on currently available information, the ultimate disposition of
these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.


MARKETWATCH.COM: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Marketwatch.com, Inc.'s current and former officers and
directors as defendants from the securities class action filed against
them, the Company, and a number of investment banks, including some of
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
during the period January 15, 1999 through December 6, 2000, allege
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the 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 registration statement and 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 suit is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July 15,
2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the
individual defendants, but the court has not ruled on this motion.  

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.

The Company and its current and former officers and directors
vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend the actions.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.  Any unfavorable outcome of this litigation could have an
adverse impact on its business, financial condition, and results of
operations.


MASSACHUSETTS: Boston Firm Gives Landmark Settlement Funds To Charities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston law firm of Ellis & Rapacki is donating the funds from a
landmark settlement, about $19.6 million, made in a vitamin price-
fixing class-action lawsuit, to around 350 Bay State charities, the
Boston Herald reports.

Ellis & Rapacki and other law firms sued 42 bulk vitamin makers in
1999, in Middlesex Superior Court, on behalf of consumers throughout
the state.  Six of the vitamin makers originally sued agreed to settle
the case in September after a long and drawn-out battle.  They are:

     (1) Aventis Animal Nutrition,

     (2) ASF Corp.,

     (3) Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co.,

     (4) Eisai Co.,

     (5) Hoffman-La Roche and

     (6) Takeda Chemical Industries

If the class action settlement proceeds were distributed to everyone
affected by the alleged price fixing, each individual would receive
just $3, so the lawyers came up with a better way to use the money, Mr.
Ellis said.

They set up an advisory panel of community leaders to sift through
hundreds of requests from needy charities before whittling the list
down to the final 350.  The lawyers deliberately chose charities from
all corners of Massachusetts, because the litigation was intended to
benefit consumers all across the state.


MEEMIC HOLDINGS: MI Court Agrees To Dismiss Suit V. ProAssurance Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan agreed to dismiss
the class action pending against MEEMIC Holdings, Inc., its directors
and ProAssurance Corporation, its new parent company.

The suit was commenced when Professionals Group, Inc. and Medical
Assurance, Inc. formed ProAssurance Corporation, that owns all of the
stock of Medical Assurance, Inc. and Professionals Group, Inc.  Medical
Assurance, Inc., ProNational and the Company continue to serve
policyholders under the umbrella of the new ProAssurance holding
company.

The suit, filed on behalf of the minority shareholders, alleged, among
other things that the transaction has been timed to freeze out the
minority shareholders, that the proposed transaction is unfair and that
ProAssurance and the directors have violated their fiduciary duties.  

On September 10, 2002, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and
the court approved the dismissal with prejudice on September 11, 2002.  
No payments of any kind were made by the Company, ProAssurance or the
directors to plaintiff or his counsel to obtain the dismissal of the
case.


NETSOLVE INC.: TX Court Approves $2.75M Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division approved the US$2.75 million settlement proposed by
Netsolve, Inc. for the consolidated securities class action pending
against it and certain of its officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common
stock between April 18, 2000 and August 18, 2000, allege that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme by issuing false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
during the class period.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint in March 2001 for failing to
state a claim under which relief could be granted and for failing to
comply with the pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C.  In August 2001, the court
granted this motion in part and denied it in part.  

The court dismissed claims against one officer of the Company and
dismissed certain of the theories under which plaintiffs alleged
liability against the Company.  However, the court let stand certain of
the stated claims against the Company and certain of its officers.

In December 2001, the Company and individual defendants reached a
settlement of this action.  The plaintiff class will receive $2,750,000
in connection with the settlement, all of which will be funded by the
Company's insurance carrier.  


NETSOLVE INC.: Negotiating Settlement of Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, Inc. is engaging in preliminary settlement discussions with
the plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and its underwriters in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, allege that the
defendants failed to properly disclose certain commissions, discounts
and purported tie-in arrangements related to the Company's initial
public offering.

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act against the Company, and the plaintiffs allege claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, against the Company's underwriters.

This case has been coordinated for pretrial purposes with over 300
other cases alleging similar claims against other underwriters and
companies.

Preliminary settlement proposals have been offered by representatives
of both the underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs.  The proposals
are being analyzed by the various issuer defendants.  It is not
feasible to predict or determine the final outcome of this proceeding,
and if the outcome were to be unfavorable, the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flow and results of operations could be
materially adversely affected.


PENNSYLVANIA: Bucks County Plans Jail Annex In Obedience To Court Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County, Pennsylvania's preliminary budget for 2003 contains a
line item designating $3.5 million to build a wing onto the maximum-
security prison in Doylestown Township in order to house female inmates
who must be segregated from the general prison population, either
because of mental illness or other behavior problems, the Allentown
Morning Call reports.

The expenditure for such an addition to the prison was prompted by a
court order signed in August, ordering the commissioners to build the
wing as part of a settlement to a class action brought against the
county by female inmates who claimed mentally ill female inmates are
housed in the general population because they have no other place to
go.  The lawsuit produced an in-depth examination of how the prison is
operated, as well as a shakeup in prison management.

As part of the settlement, the commissioners agreed to impanel a task
force to study the status of women at the jail.  The commissioners
agreed to adopt the recommendations of the task force.

The task force issued its report a year ago, confirming the charge that
mentally ill women are housed in the general population.  Many of the
jailed female inmates who spoke to task force members said they feared
for their safety because they are housed with unstable cellmates.

US Magistrate Diane Devlin Welsh, who monitored the settlement
negotiations, signed an order in August in which the commissioners
agreed to build the wing.  The structure, as planned, will include
separate facilities for women with mental and physical illnesses, as
well as a new "restrictive housing unit," which will hold inmates with
behavior problems.

Anita F. Alberts, a Doylestown attorney, who represents female inmates
at the jail, said she is not yet ready to believe the commissioners
intend to build the wing.  Ms. Alberts pointed out that the
commissioners have delayed or resisted continually following the
recommendations of the task force since they were released a year ago.  
Ms. Alberts said the commissioners hired an architect in May to prepare
plans for an interim women's mental-health unit, but have taken no
action to build it.

"I won't believe it until I see the bricks and mortar," Ms. Alberts
said.

E. Ronald Watson, communications director for the county, said there
are plans to build the interim unit.  He said engineering work is being
done.  As for the permanent wing, Mr. Watson said the $3.5 million
placed in the budget is a working number.  Estimates are that the new
wing could cost as little as $900,000 or as much as $5 million, he
said.


PRICELINE.COM: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it and:

     (1) Richard S. Braddock,

     (2) Jay S. Walker,

     (3) Paul E. Francis,

     (4) Nancy B. Peretsman,

     (5) Timothy G. Brier,

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

     (7) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (8) Merrill Lynch,

     (9) Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

    (10) Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

    (11) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (as successor-in-interest to
         Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.),

    (12) Allen & Co., Inc., and

    (13) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
individual defendants named in the complaints violated the federal
4securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock in
the Company's March 1999 initial public offering without disclosing to
investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the
lead underwriters, had allegedly solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The suit was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with hundreds of other
cases, which contain allegations concerning the allocation of shares in
the initial public offerings of companies other than the Company.

The defendants together with other issuer defendants in the
consolidated litigation, filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 15,
2002.  That motion is now fully briefed, and oral argument occurred on
November 1, 2002.  The Court's decision was reserved.


RAZORFISH INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Razorfish, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, certain of its present and former officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (3) BT Alex. Brown Inc.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (5) Jeffrey Dachis,

     (6) Craig M. Kanarick,

     (7) Per I.G. Bystedt,

     (8) Jonas S.A. Svensson,

     (9) Susan Black,

    (10) Carter F. Bales,

    (11) Kjell A. Nordstrom, and

    (12) John Wren

The suit alleges that the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering engaged in improper compensation practices that were not
disclosed in the offering's prospectus, among other things.  The
improper compensation practices allegedly include charging third-party
clients of the underwriters excess commissions in exchange for
allocations of IPO shares or engaging in certain undisclosed market
stabilization practices in order to artificially inflate the price of
the stock in the after-market.

The amended complaint includes claims against the Company and the
individual defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The amended complaint also contains claims against the
individual defendants under Section 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Similar allegations have been made against more than 300 other issuers
and their underwriters.  No specific amount of damages is claimed.  The
Company intends to defend these cases vigorously but cannot currently
predict the outcome.

The defendants and the Company, along with other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, moved to dismiss the litigation.  
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.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs file an amended securities class action against Redback
Networks, Inc. and its former officers in the Untied States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts, among other claims, violations of the federal
securities laws relating to how the Company's underwriters of the
initial public offering allegedly allocated IPO shares to the
underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the court entered an order approving the joint request
of the plaintiffs and the Company to dismiss the claims without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs then filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the Company and its current and former
officers and directors, as well as certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering.

Although the outcome of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with
certainty, management does not believe that it will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.  Were an
unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a material
impact on business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flow.


SEQUENOM INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District Court of New
York dismissed Sequenom, Inc.'s current and former officers and
directors as defendants in the consolidated securities class action
pending against them, the Company and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and its IPO underwriters 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.

The Company has not been required to answer the complaint, and no
discovery has been served on the Company.  . Similar complaints were
filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies that
conducted initial public offerings, or IPOs, of their common stock in
the late 1990s and early 2000.

In July 2002, the issuers, directors and officers named as defendants
in the suit filed a motion to dismiss all such cases for failure to
state a claim against the issuers, directors or officers.  The court
heard oral argument on the motion on November 1, 2002.

In October 2002, the claims against the named officers and directors
were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation providing
for a tolling of the statute of limitations against those defendants.

The Company denies all material allegations and intends to defend the
action vigorously.


ST. CLOUD UNIVERSITY: Reaches Agreement To Settle Anti-Semitism Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Cloud State University will pay about $1 million over the next five
years to settle a class action that alleged anti-semitism among
administrators and professors at the central Minnesota school, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

When the lawsuit was filed, St. Cloud had 20 Jewish faculty members out
of 700, and just 12 students out of more than 17,000, who identified
themselves as Jewish, according to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Under terms announced recently, three faculty members who filed the
lawsuit a year ago will receive $314,678, while other faculty members
who filed discrimination or retaliation complaints alleging anti-
Semitism will share in a $50,000 fund.

As part of the proposed settlement, which still requires approval from
a federal judge, the university also agreed to create a new Jewish
Studies and Resources Center and hire a coordinator who will also teach
classes.  The center will be funded for at least five years at about
$125,000 a year.

"The most important thing is that this is a moral victory, a
vindication," said Arie Zmora, a former history professor at St. Cloud
State, who is now a part-time history professor at the University of
Minnesota.

Roy Saigo, president of St. Cloud State University, said that the
school deeply regrets any acts of anti-Semitism that may have occurred
on the University campus or in the community.  Mr. Saigo also said that
the school and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system
"strongly oppose anti-Semitism and any other form of discrimination."

Among the allegations in the lawsuit were that department
administrators disparaged classes taught by Jewish professors in
attempts to persuade students not to take the courses.  The lawsuit
also alleged that Jewish faculty were paid less, were denied promotions
and were not given full credit for their former teaching experience.

A University-funded study, conducted by the behavioral science firm
Nicholas and Associates Inc., in Washington, concluded that "University
leadership is ill-equipped and insensitive to handle or support the
specific needs of faculty or staff of color, indicating that the
university had problems as well in the area of race."


THESTREET.COM: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed TheStreet.com, Inc.'s officers and directors as defendants in
the securities class action pending against them, the Company and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Chase H&Q,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and

     (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement.

The Company and certain of its former officers and directors and a
current director are named in the complaint pursuant to Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other issuers that
have had initial public offerings since 1998 and all such actions have
been included in a single coordinated proceeding.  Pursuant to a Court
Order dated October 9, 2002, each of the individual defendants to the
action has been dismissed without prejudice.  

The Company remains a party to the action and intends to defend itself
vigorously.  However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.  Any unfavorable outcome of this litigation could have an
adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition and
results of operations.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in N.D. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the numerous securities class actions pending against
Williams Companies, Inc. and Williams Communications Group (WCG) in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
filed amended consolidated suits.

The majority of the suits allege that the Company, WCG and certain
corporate officers, have acted jointly and separately to inflate the
stock price of both companies.  Other suits allege similar causes of
action related to a public offering in early January 2002, known as the
FELINE PACS offering.

These cases were filed against the Company, certain corporate officers,
all members of the Company's board of directors and all of the
offerings' underwriters.  These cases have all been consolidated and an
order has been issued requiring separate amended consolidated
complaints by the Company and Williams Communications equity holders.

The amended complaint of the WCG securities holders was filed on
September 27, 2002, and the amended complaint of the WMB securities
holders was filed on October 7, 2002.  The Company will be filing
separate responsive pleadings in each proceeding.

In addition, four class action complaints have been filed against the
Company and the members of its board of directors under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by participants in its 401(k) plan.  A
motion to consolidate these suits has been approved.

The Company also faces several shareholder derivative suits filed in
Oklahoma State Court.  On August 1, 2002, a motion to consolidate and a
motion to stay these suits pending action by the federal court in the
shareholder suits was approved.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suits, but cannot
give any assurance of decisions being made in their favor.

   
                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Damage Awards Come from Workers' Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A large chunk of the money paid to asbestos claimants comes at the
expense of US workers in the firms being sued, a new study co-authored
by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

The study urged re-examining the lawsuit system used to compensate
asbestos claimants, saying it appears to unfairly penalize workers.  
They each lose tens of thousands of dollars in wages and pensions as
their companies are driven into bankruptcy by the claims, it said.

The paper seemed certain to be seized by the US business community as
more evidence of the need for a legislative solution to the ever-
growing number of lawsuits by people who claim they were injured by the
fire-retardant mineral.

"A large component of the payments made to asbestos claimants involves
transfers from workers at the defendant firms," said the study by
Stiglitz, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under former
President Bill Clinton, and was a co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in
Economic Sciences.

"The purpose of this paper is not to suggest that impaired claimants
are unworthy of assistance, but rather to highlight the fact that
payments to any claimants are not free," the study said.

Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the
1970s, when scientists concluded that inhaled fibers could be linked to
cancer and other diseases.  An avalanche of asbestos personal injury
claims has cost more than $54 billion in settlements so far and driven
more than 60 US companies into bankruptcy.

These bankruptcies have led to a loss of 52,000 to 60,000 jobs,
according to the study, which Mr. Stiglitz wrote along with Jonathan
Orszag and Peter Orszag of Sebago Associates Inc., an economic policy
consulting firm.  

"The costs imposed on these displaced workers amount to between $1.4
billion and $3 billion in present value, or roughly $25,000 to $50,000
per displaced worker," it said.  Further, it noted that workers at many
firms are also shareholders, since they hold company stock in their
defined contribution pensions.

"The average worker at a bankrupted firm with a 401 (k) plan suffered
roughly $8,300 in losses," the study said.  

While citizens who have suffered from asbestos-related illnesses
deserve appropriate compensation, the study questioned the fairness of
the liability lawsuit approach to paying their claims.  "Since many of
these firms were not asbestos manufacturers, the costs imposed on
workers may seem unfair and inefficient from an economic perspective,"
the study said.  "In light of these costs, re-examining the system used
to compensate those with illnesses associated with asbestos exposure
seems worthwhile."

With many asbestos manufacturers already bankrupt, lawsuits are naming
companies that used it in products they sold, and a recent study said
these companies spanned 85 percent of the US economy.

The study was commissioned by the American Insurance Association as an
independent analysis of the costs borne by workers of firms filing for
bankruptcies due to asbestos liabilities.  Even before it appeared, the
business community was hoping the new Republican-majority Congress,
which will take office in January, will move to limit asbestos
litigation.

Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who will be the new chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in January, says Congress should resolve the issue
before it further hurts the US economy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alliance to Push for Changes in Litigation System
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress needs to pass legislation allowing courts to distinguish
between the sick and non-sick when rendering decisions in the growing
asbestos-litigation crisis, said the director of the Asbestos Alliance.

Formed about 18 months ago, the Asbestos Alliance is a coalition of
companies and trade groups led by the National Association of
Manufacturers and the American Insurance Association.  Its goal is to
get Congress to pass legislation to solve this crisis by changing the
parts of the legal system that pertain to asbestos litigation.

"If you establish medical criteria in the law, you limit the circle of
plaintiffs," said Michael Baroody, executive vice president of the
National Association of Manufacturers and chairman of the Asbestos
Alliance.  "It's now long past time for Congress to step in, as the
Supreme Court has asked it to do more than once, and fix this problem."

Mr. Baroody described the situation as a "scandal" rather than a
crisis, while speaking at a press conference to release the findings of
an AIA-commissioned study on the asbestos-litigation crisis, which
found these lawsuits and the company bankruptcies that resulted have
cost the American economy tens of thousands of jobs and have reduced
pension wealth for employees at bankrupt firms by an average of 25%.

The study estimates that 61 companies have gone bankrupt as a direct
result of asbestos liabilities.  The authors noted that many of the
workers at those companies are also shareholders and that the bankrupt
companies had a relatively high unionization rate.  In addition, the
study points out that asbestos claims are skyrocketing even though the
number of seriously ill plaintiffs has remained roughly the same for a
decade.

The study, authored by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
and two of his colleagues, Jonathan Orszag and Peter Orszag, who both
served in the Clinton administration, shows that about $54 billion has
been paid so far in asbestos settlements.  That figure could rise as
high as $275 billion, based on actuarial projections, said Jonathan
Orszag.

In 1983, some 300 firms were defendants in asbestos lawsuits.  The
number is now about 6,000, Mr. Stiglitz said.  During the first 10
months of 2002, 15 companies facing significant asbestos-related
liabilities filed for bankruptcy, more than the total bankruptcies in
any five-year period before 1999.  Payments to lawyers and accountants
associated with asbestos litigation eat up about half of the money that
would otherwise go to victims, according to the study.

The primary focus of the study was to identify the "hidden" victims of
these lawsuits.  Not only are the truly sick receiving a fraction of
the compensation in these lawsuits, but thousands of workers and their
families are hurt by jobs lost when a company goes bankrupt, according
to the study.  Many of those workers have 401(k) or retirement savings
invested in the company, and those pension plans lose about 25% of
their value.

Small companies that serve as vendors to the large firms that go
bankrupt suffer as well.  "The study does support the theory that these
lawsuits are hurting otherwise strong companies," said Leigh Ann Pusey,
AIA's senior vice president for federal affairs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Environmental Health Institute
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found at the home of the federal agency that helped
educate the world to the dangers of the fibrous mineral.  Officials of
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences say there is no
evidence that any of its workers have suffered because of the asbestos.

The institute was cited in October by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) for failing to warn workers at its
headquarters in Research Triangle Park of the presence of asbestos in
the heating plant. OSHA required the institute, a part of the National
Institutes of Health, to post a notice of "unsafe or unhealthful
working conditions."

The institute's campus was built in the early 1980s, a time when
awareness was spreading about the dangers of asbestos, thanks in part
to research conducted or sponsored by the agency.  Officials of the
institute say asbestos was supposed to have been excluded from its
buildings.  However, in 1999 contractors found asbestos in the
insulation around some pipes and valves, which were being worked on to
accommodate facilities being built nearby for the Environmental
Protection Agency.

Scott E. Merkle, chief of the institute's health and safety branch,
said NIEHS officials were unable to determine how the asbestos got
there.

OSHA did not cite the institute for any violations in 1999, but noted
that the institute was developing procedures for informing employees
about the presence of asbestos.  This year, OSHA received a complaint,
and on Oct. 30 it cited the institute for failing to post warning
labels or signs to alert employees to the presence of asbestos, The
News & Observer of Raleigh reports.

Mr. Merkle said the institute got caught while it was trying to address
the problem. He said a contractor had been preparing to remove the
asbestos and that was why there were no warning labels.  He said the
institute plans to hire another contractor to do an exhaustive survey
for asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Settlements Help Grace's Reorganization
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WR Grace & Co.(NYSE:GRA) said on Monday that both Sealed Air Corp.
(NYSE:SEE) and Fresenius Medical Care AG's (FMEG.DE)(NYSE:FMS)
settlement of asbestos-related claims removes a major obstacle in the
development of the company's reorganization plan.  The Company, which
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2001, said it was
not part of either agreement.

"These settlements would stop the need for a costly and time-consuming
trial and would remove a significant hurdle that was blocking us from
making progress in the development of a plan of reorganization," said
Chief Executive Paul Norris.

Sealed Air, the maker of bubble wrap, on Friday said it agreed to
resolve all asbestos-related claims for about $853 million, raising
hopes that the wave of asbestos suits that has crippled many of the
biggest names in US manufacturing may be coming to an end.

Sealed Air's agreement would settle all current and future asbestos-
related claims and pending fraudulent transfer claims made in
connection with its 1998 acquisition of the Cryovac packaging business
from the Company.  Sealed Air will not seek indemnity from the Company
for payments made under this agreement.

The cash and stock agreement comes on the heels of an out-of-court
asbestos-related settlement earlier on Friday by German firm Fresenius
Medical Care, which had bought a dialysis unit from Grace.

An avalanche of asbestos personal injury claims has cost more than $54
billion in settlements so far and driven more than 60 US companies into
bankruptcy.  Asbestos litigation could cost US companies more than $200
billion, several research firms have estimated.  Asbestos was widely
used as insulation and as a fire retardant, but scientists found in the
1960s and 1970s that the inhalation of its fibers could cause lung
cancer and other diseases.


ASBESTOS ALERT: American Standard Faces Several Asbestos Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc. has been named as a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injury
claims arising primarily from sales of low-risk-profile products, such
as boilers and brake shoes, over the years.  

The Company has ample insurance coverage and has never received an
unfavorable court judgment.


COMPANY PROFILE

American Standard Companies Inc. (NYSE: ASD)
1 Centennial Ave.
Piscataway, NJ 08855-6820    
Phone: 732-980-6000
Fax: 732-980-3340
http://www.americanstandard.com

Employees               : 60,000
Revenue                 : $7,465,300,000
Net Income              : $295,000,000
Assets                  : $4,831,400,000
Liabilities             : $4,921,500,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: American Standard is a leading maker of air-conditioning
systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking systems. Its air-
conditioning unit makes products under the Trane and American Standard
brand names. American Standard sells its plumbing fixtures under the
American Standard, Ideal Standard, and Porcher brand names, among
others. Through its WABCO subsidiary, American Standard also makes
vehicle-braking systems, which it sells mainly to OEMs such as
DaimlerChrysler, Volvo, and Scania, as well as to the aftermarket.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ampco-Pittsburgh, Subsidiaries Face Asbestos Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP) and its subsidiaries are
involved in various claims and lawsuits incidental to their businesses.  
In addition, claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Corporation's subsidiaries.  

As of September 30, 2002, those subsidiaries, and in some cases, the
Corporation, were defendants (among a number of defendants, typically
over 50 and often over 100)in cases filed in various state and federal
courts involving around  6,500 claimants (including derivative spousal
claims).  

Most of the claims were made in a small number of lawsuits filed in
Mississippi in 2002.  The filings do not typically identify specific
products as a source of asbestos exposure.  The Corporation's aggregate
gross settlement costs, including defense costs, in the first nine
months of 2002 were $416,507, substantially all of which was paid by
insurance.  In addition, five cases have been dismissed in 2002 without
any payment.

Based on the Corporation's claims experience to date, insurance
coverage and the identity of the subsidiaries that are named in the
cases, the Corporation believes that the pending legal proceedings will
not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition or liquidity.  The outcome of any of the particular lawsuits,
however, could be material to the consolidated results of operations of
the period in which the costs, if any, are recognized.

There can be no assurance that the Corporation or certain of its
subsidiaries will not be subjected to significant additional claims in
the future or that the Corporation's or its subsidiaries' ultimate
liability with respect to these claims will not present significantly
greater and longer lasting financial exposure than presently
contemplated.  Therefore, although it is probable that future costs
will be incurred, the amounts cannot reasonably be estimated.  
Accordingly, the Corporation has not made an accrual for such costs in
its financial statements.

In addition, the Corporation has recently retained a law firm to advise
it on all matters pertaining to these asbestos cases.  As a result, the
Corporation will be incurring future uninsured legal costs in
connection with this advice.


COMPANY PROFILE

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP)
600 Grant St., Ste. 4600
Pittsburgh, PA 15219    
Phone: 412-456-4400
Fax: 412-456-4404

Employees                : 1,618
Revenue                  : $219,200,000
Net Income               : $(1,000,000)  
Assets                   : $241,600,000
Liabilities              : $84,200,000  

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Ampco-Pittsburgh's subsidiaries, operating in three
business units, make a variety of metal products. Its forged steel
rolls unit (Union Electric Steel, Davy Roll Co.) makes forged hardened-
steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid
processing segment (Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling) makes
centrifugal pumps for refrigeration and power generation, finned-tube
heat-exchange coils, and air-handling systems. The plastics processing
machinery unit (New Castle Industries, F. R. Gross Co.) makes feed
screws, chill rolls, barrels for plastics processors, and heat-transfer
rolls. Ampco-Pittsburgh has operations in Europe and the US. Chairman
Louis Berkman owns 28% of the company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: AutoZone Named as Defendant in Several Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AutoZone Inc. (NYSE:AZO), the largest US automotive parts retailer,
said it has been named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits involving
the sale of brake parts.  The Memphis, Tennessee Csaid it was named as
a defendant along with numerous others in an "insignificant" number of
lawsuits.

The retailer said it has never manufactured nor installed brake
products and does not believe it has material liability in the cases.  
The Company, which sells vehicle parts, chemicals and accessories
through more than 3,000 stores, said it will vigorously defend each
case.


COMPANY PROFILE

AutoZone Inc. (NYSE:AZO)
123 S. Front St.
Memphis, TN 38103    
Phone: 901-495-6500
Fax: 901-495-8300
http://www.autozone.com

Employees               : 44,179
Revenue                 : $5,325,500,000
Net Income              : $428,100,000
Assets                  : $3,477,800,000
Liabilities             : $2,788,600,000

Description: AutoZone is the US's #1 auto parts chain. (It also
operates about 40 stores in Mexico.) AutoZone stores sell hard parts
(alternators, engines, batteries), maintenance items (oil, antifreeze),
accessories (car stereos, floor mats), and other merchandise under
brand names as well as under private labels, including Duralast and
Valucraft. More than two-thirds of AutoZone's stores serve professional
auto repair shops. Director Edward Lampert owns more than 26% of the
company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Brunswick, Former Subsidiary Carry Asbestos Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation (NYSE: BC) has been named in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, the majority of which involve Vapor
Corporation, a former subsidiary that the Company divested in 1990.

Virtually all of the asbestos suits against the Company involve
numerous other defendants.  The claims against the Company generally
allege that it sold products that contained components, such as
gaskets, that included asbestos.  Neither the Company nor Vapor is
alleged to have manufactured asbestos.  The Company's insurers have
settled a number of asbestos claims for nominal amounts, while a number
of other claims have been dismissed.  No suit has yet gone to trial.

The Company does not believe that the resolution of these lawsuits will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.

The Company accrues for litigation exposures based upon its assessment,
made in consultation with outside counsel, of the likely range of
exposure stemming from the claim.  In light of existing reserves, the
Company's litigation claims, when finally resolved, will not, in the
opinion of management, have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position.

If current estimates for the cost of resolving these claims are later
determined to be inadequate, results of operations could be adversely
affected in the period in which additional provisions are required.


COMPANY PROFILE

Brunswick Corporation (NYSE: BC)
1 N. Field Ct.
Lake Forest, IL 60045-4811    
Phone: 847-735-4700
Fax: 847-735-4765
http://www.brunswickcorp.com

Employees                 : 20,700
Revenue                   : $3,370,800,000
Net Income                : $81,800,000
Assets                    : $3,157,500,000
Liabilities               : $2,046,600,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: A global leader in the leisure products industry,
Brunswick's marine goods include Sea Ray and Bayliner boats and Mercury
and Mariner engines. It also makes Brunswick bowling and billiards
products, as well as fitness equipment (Life Fitness, ParaBody, and
Hammer Strength). The company has sold an array of outdoor businesses,
including units that make camping, fishing (Zebco reels and rods),
hunting (Hoppe's), and bicycle equipment. Brunswick also owns or
franchises about 140 fun centers that feature billiards, restaurants,
bowling, and "Cosmic (glow-in-the-dark) Bowling."
  

ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntsman Polymers Battles Asbestos Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Polymers Corporation has been named as a defendant in a number
of asbestos exposure lawsuits.  These suits often involve multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, and, generally, the complaint in
the action does not indicate which plaintiffs are making claims against
a specific defendant, where the alleged injuries were incurred or what
injuries each plaintiff claims.

These facts must be learned through discovery.  The Company currently
has eighteen asbestos exposure cases pending against it.  Among all the
plaintiffs in those cases, 65 have, through the discovery process,
claimed exposure to asbestos at the Company's facilities.

Among the cases currently filed, the Company is aware of two claims of
mesothelioma, one claim of colon cancer and one claim of melanoma.  The
rest of the claims that the Company is aware of are for asbestosis.

The Company does not have sufficient information at the present time to
estimate any liability in these cases.  Although the Company cannot
provide specific assurances, based on the Company's understanding of
similar cases, management believes that the Company's ultimate
liability in these eighteen cases will not be material to the Company's
financial position or results of operations.


COMPANY PROFILE

Huntsman Polymers Corporation
500 Huntsman Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84108    
Phone: 801-584-5700
Fax: 801-584-5781
Toll Free: 800-421-2411
http://www.huntsman.com/polymers

Employees               : 520
Revenue                 : $490,100,000
Net Income              : $(593,700,000)
Assets                  : $507,400,000
Liabilities             : $647,400,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: A subsidiary of the world's largest privately held
chemical firm, Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman Polymers produces
commodity and performance polymers. Its amorphous polymers are used in
adhesives, sealants, and wire. The company also makes polyethylene and
polypropylene, used in a wide variety of applications. In addition,
it's a top maker of expandable polystyrene resins, produced as small
beads and used in drinking cups, packaging, and insulation.  
  

ASBESTOS ALERT: IDEX Corporation Faces Asbestos Suits in Various States
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.  IDEX does not
believe that its subsidiaries manufactured any such components, which
were acquired from third party suppliers.

To date, all of the IDEX Corp's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, and insurance investigation,
have been covered in full by insurance.  However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover such settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may
respond to claims that are tendered to them.

Claims have been filed in California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  A few claims have been
settled for minimal amounts and some have been dismissed without
payment.  None have been tried.

No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company,
and IDEX does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or financial
position.  The outcome of asbestos claims, however, is inherently
uncertain and always difficult to predict.  Consequently, IDEX cannot
give any assurance that the resolution of such claims will not be
significant in the future.


COMPANY PROFILE

IDEX Corporation (NYSE: IEX)
630 Dundee Rd.
Northbrook, IL 60062    
Phone: 847-498-7070
Fax: 847-498-3940
http://www.idexcorp.com

Employees                : 3,900
Revenue                  : $726,900,000
Net Income               : $32,700,000
Assets                   : $838,800,000
Liabilities              : $437,700,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: IDEX is a leading manufacturer of pump products,
dispensing equipment, and other engineered products. Its pumps segment
includes industrial pumps and controls that move chemicals, fuels, and
similar fluids. The company's dispensing-equipment products feature
equipment for dispensing, metering, and mixing dyes, inks, and paints.
IDEX's engineering-equipment segment manufactures banding and clamping
equipment, fire-fighting pumps, and rescue tools, including the Jaws of
Life. IDEX operates manufacturing plants in Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, the UK, and the US. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. owns 28%
of IDEX.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Quaker Chem's Subsidiary Faces Asbestos-Related Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A non-operating subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation (NYSE: KWR)
acquired in 1978 had sold certain asbestos containing products.  This
subsidiary is a co-defendant in claims filed by multiple claimants
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

Effective October 31, 1997, the subsidiary's insurance carriers have
agreed to be responsible for all damages and costs (including
attorneys' fees) arising out of all existing and future asbestos claims
up to applicable policy limits.

Although there can be no assurance regarding the potential liabilities
associated with the existing claims proceedings, the subsidiary
believes that it has adequate primary and excess insurance coverage for
its potential liabilities related to claims of which it is aware.  If
the subsidiary insurance coverage were to be ever exhausted, the
Company is not required to and will not fund the subsidiary's
liabilities in excess of coverage.

In the absence of insurance at the subsidiary level, asbestos claimants
might pursue derivative or other claims against the Company in an
effort to hold it liable for the acts and/or omissions, if any, of the
subsidiary.  The Company believes, although it can give no assurances,
that it would be successful defending any such claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Quaker Chemical Corporation (NYSE: KWR)
1 Quaker Park, 901 Hector St.
Conshohocken, PA 19428-0809    
Phone: 610-832-4000
Fax: 610-832-8682
http://www.quakerchem.com

Employees                  : 955
Revenue                    : $251,100,000
Net Income                 : $7,700,000
Assets                     : $178,800,000
Liabilities                : $97,900,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Quaker Chemical -- rolls out industrial specialty
chemicals for industrial and manufacturing processes. It produces
rolling lubricants used in making aluminum products and hot- and cold-
rolled steel products. Quaker Chemical also makes corrosion
preventives, metal finishing compounds, machining and grinding
compounds, and hydraulic fluids. Other products and services include
milling compounds for the aerospace sector and chemical management
services. Quaker Chemical's subsidiaries and joint ventures operate
worldwide, although it sells primarily to the steel, auto, and
appliance industries in the US and Europe.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Rohm & Haas Subsidiary Face Asbestos Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, Rohm and Haas Company (NYSE: ROH)
commissioned medical studies to estimate possible future asbestos
claims and recorded accruals based on the results.  Morton has also
been sued in connection with the former Friction Division of the former
Thiokol Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982.

There are pending lawsuits filed against Morton related to employee
exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island,
Louisiana with additional lawsuits expected.  The Company expects that
most of these cases will be dismissed because they are barred under
worker's compensation laws; however, cases involving asbestos-caused
malignancies may not be barred under Louisiana law.

Settlements to date total $383,000 and many cases have closed with no
payment.  These cases are fully insured.  In addition, like most
manufacturing companies, the Company has been sued, generally as one of
many defendants, by non-employees who allege exposure to asbestos on
the Company premises.  The Company does not believe that it is
reasonably possible that a material loss will be incurred in excess of
the amounts recorded for all pending cases.


COMPANY PROFILE

Rohm and Haas Company (NYSE: ROH)
100 Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399    
Phone: 215-592-3000
Fax: 215-592-3377
http://www.rohmhaas.com

Employees                : 18,210
Revenue                  : $5,666,000,000
Net Income               : $395,000,000
Assets                   : $10,350,000
Liabilities              : $6,535,000,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Rohm and Haas Company has reorganized itself into four
groups. Its performance polymers are used in acrylic paints (mostly for
paints bought by do-it-yourselfers), adhesive tapes, and plastics
additives. Its specialty chemicals unit produces biocides, detergents,
and agricultural chemicals. The electronic materials division makes
liquid photoresists and developers and, through Shipley Ronal,
materials for making printed wiring boards. Rohm and Haas' salt group
markets salt for road ice control, table salt (Morton Salt), food
processing, and water softening. The Haas family controls about 30% of
the company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Sealed Air Agrees To Pay $500M For Asbestos Claims  
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. said it agreed to pay more than $500 million to settle
asbestos-related claims stemming from the company's 1998 acquisition of
WR Grace & Co.'s Cryovac packaging business.  The amount was less than
expected, and shares of the Saddle Brook-based Company jumped on the
news.

Other companies that face asbestos claims also rose.  Shares of oil-
services company Halliburton ended at $21, up $1.81, or 9.4 percent,
while Georgia-Pacific Corp., the maker of paper and building products,
gained up $3.16, or 18 percent, to close at $20.73.  

Asbestos claimants have claimed Grace transferred assets to the Company
to place some businesses beyond their reach.  The agreement provides
for all asbestos-related claims against the Company to be channeled to
a trust that will make payments to claimants on Grace's behalf.

The Company will pay $512.5 million in cash and 9 million shares.  It
will pay interest on the cash amount until Grace's reorganization plan
goes into effect.  "The amount of the settlement . is well below our
expectation and positive," Salomon Smith Barney analyst George Staphos
said in a research note.  He doesn't own any Company shares, but
Salomon Smith Barney expects to receive or seek investment banking fees
from the Company.

In a written statement, Company President and Chief Executive William
V. Hickey said the agreement "provides Sealed Air with finality and
certainty as we put the Grace-related issues behind us."  In addition
to Cryovac food-packaging products, the Company makes packaging
materials such as Bubble Wrap air-cellular cushioning and Jiffy
protective mailers.

German kidney dialysis company Fresenius Medical Care also reached a
preliminary settlement over asbestos claims tied to Grace.  FMC was
formed when Grace's dialysis services unit, National Medical Care,
merged with Fresenius AG's dialysis products business in 1996.  People
seeking asbestos damages against Grace subsequently filed a class
action suit against FMC.  Fresenius Medical Care agreed to pay $15
million to Grace's bankruptcy estate to settle claims.

US shares of the company closed at $15.05 on the New York Stock
Exchange, up $3.84, or 34 percent, on heavy volume.

Grace filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001, after receiving more
than 325,000 asbestos personal-injury claims.  The Columbia, Md.-based
company makes products including chemical catalysts, silica items, and
specialty construction chemicals.


COMPANY PROFILE

Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE)
Park 80 East
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663-5291    
Phone: 201-791-7600
Fax: 201-703-4205
http://www.sealedaircorp.com

Employees                : 17,700
Revenue                  : $3,067,500,000
Net Income               : $156,700,000
Assets                   : $3,907,900,000
Liabilities              : $3,057,800,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Sealed Air's largest product segment, food packaging,
produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by
food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its
protective and specialty packaging segments produce Bubble Wrap,
Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Rapid Fill inflatable packaging
systems. Its non-packaging products include adhesive tape, solar pool
covers, and recycled kraft paper. Sealed Air's products reach about 80%
of the world's population.  


ASBESTOS ALERT: UAI Facing 28 Asbestos-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Universal Automotive Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ (SC): UVSL) has been
named, along with numerous other defendants (typically, 100 or more),
in a total of 28 lawsuits in Madison County, Illinois. The lawsuits
name most of the major domestic manufacturers and distributors of brake
parts, among others.  The counts allege negligence (Count I) and
willful and wanton conduct (Count II) regarding asbestos exposure over
extended periods of time.

UAI referred these cases to experienced asbestos toxic tort counsel.  
Its current liability insurance policy does not cover asbestos related
claims.  It has not yet established a reserve against potential
liability with respect to these lawsuits.


COMPANY PROFILE

Universal Automative Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ (SC): UVSL)
11859 S. Central Ave.
Alsip, IL 60803    
Phone: 708-293-4050
Fax: 708-489-1544

Employees               : 403
Revenue                 : $71,800,000
Net Income              : $(3,000,000)
Assets                  : $40,000,000
Liabilities             : $36,500,000

(As of December 31, 2001)

Universal Automotive Industries, Inc. makes and distributes aftermarket
brake products, including drums, rotors, disc pads, relined brake
shoes, and hoses. Universal Automotive sells its value-line brake parts
under the Universal Brake Parts (UBP) brand and private labels; it
sells premium products under the Ultimate name. Products are sold to
national retailers and warehouse and specialty distributors in North
America. The firm's eParts eXchange (EPX) subsidiary operates a B2B
Internet platform for buyers and sellers of automotive aftermarket
parts. Executives Arvin Scott, Yehuda Tzur, and Sami Israel own about
28% of the company.
  
                      New Security Fraud Cases
                           
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc.
(NYSE:AYE) between April 23, 2001 to November 4, 2002 inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Alan J. Noia (CEO, President and Chairman),

     (2) Bruce Walenczyk (CFO and Executive VP) and

     (3) T.J. Kloc (Chief Accounting Officer)

The suit alleges 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 materially false and misleading statements to
the market between April 23, 2001 to November 4, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company securities.

For example, throughout the class period, the Company issued numerous
quarterly press releases reporting supposedly "record" results of
operations and representing that it expects to earn $2.50 to $2.70 per
share in 2002 despite the downturn in the economy and energy markets in
particular.  In addition, the Company filed detailed financial reports
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) throughout the class
period.

According to the complaint, these representations were materially false
and misleading because the Company was improperly recognizing revenue
from "round trip" energy transactions with Enron Corp.  According to
the complaint, such transactions, which were undertaken by a subsidiary
of the Company purchased from Merrill Lynch Capital Services, are
"wash" transactions involving the simultaneous purchase and sales of
energy at the same quantity and price between the same parties and
serve only to artificially inflate revenues for the parties involved.

In addition, according to the complaint, certain of the Company's
financial reports contained errors and did not accurately reflect the
Company's performance and financial position.  On September 25, 2002,
Allegheny Energy issued a press release announcing that it had filed a
complaint against Merrill Lynch alleging that Merrill Lynch concealed
that the subsidiary purchased by the Company had artificially inflated
its revenues through sham transactions.

In response to the revelation that the Company's reported revenues were
artificially inflated, Moody's Investor Services lowered Allegheny
Energy's unsecured credit rating two notches to "Ba1", a "junk" rating.  
In response, the Company issued a press release stating that the credit
downgrade did not trigger any defaults or repayment obligations and
that the Company expects its liquidity to remain unaffected.

On October 8, 2002, Allegheny Energy issued a press release announcing
that it had defaulted on its principal credit agreements after lenders
demanded additional collateral in response to the downgrade.  In
response, the price of Allegheny Energy's common stock plummeted by
49%, falling from an October 7, 2002 close of $7.52 per share to close
at $3.80 per share on October 8.

Then, on November 4, 2002, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it would delay the release of its third quarter of 2002
financials because it had uncovered "miscalculations" in its second
quarter financial report filed with the SEC and prior periods.  That
day, the price of Allegheny Energy common stock closed at $5.78 per
share -- 89% below the Class Period high of $54.79 per share, reached
on May 23, 2001.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates by Phone: 800/391-5164 or
412/391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


BROADWING INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of Broadwing, Inc.
(NYSE: BRW) between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division against the Company, Richard G. Ellenberger, and Kevin
W. Mooney.

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

Specifically, the suit alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants represented the Company was achieving strong financial
results.  Defendants stated that the Company's goodwill asset was
valued at $2.2 billion and touted year-over-year revenue increases
throughout most of 2001.  However, Broadwing was severely
undercapitalized as Broadwing acquired massive amounts of debt and was
not able to service it.

Defendants concealed this fact by inflating revenue through the use of
undisclosed indefeasible right of use sales, sham swap transactions,
and by failing to write-down goodwill recorded in connection with the
acquisition of Broadwing Communications (f.k.a. IXC Communications).
This scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding Broadwing's business,
         operations and management and the intrinsic value of Broadwing
         securities;

     (2) enabled the Individual Defendants to sell substantial amounts
         of shares of Broadwing securities for their personal gain at
         artificially inflated prices; and

     (3) caused the class to purchase Broadwing securities at
         artificially inflated prices.

On May 20, 2002, the truth emerged that a material portion of
Broadwing's revenue was derived from one-time-transactions with its
competitors.  Broadwing's share price plummeted 30% on these reports
and related concerns about the quality of Broadwing's revenue reporting
and liquidity.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased shares in any of four classes of Morgan
Stanley Information Fund (formerly Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Information Fund) (Amex: IFOAX, IFOBX, IFOCX, IFODX) from October 25,
1999 through October 25, 2002, inclusive.

Each share of Morgan Stanley's Information Fund represents ownership in
stock of companies in the information and communications sector.  The
suit alleges that, in connection with the issuance of shares in the
Fund, Morgan Stanley made materially false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus.

Specifically, Morgan Stanley failed to disclose that it had and was
continuing to seek investment banking relationships with a number of
the companies whose securities were part of the Fund's portfolio.  
Defendants also omitted to disclose that they had served as
underwriters for certain of the companies in the Fund's portfolio.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, Morgan Stanley's recommendations
and investments in companies in the Fund's portfolio were influenced by
its efforts to attract lucrative investment banking business from those
same companies.

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


SALOMON SMITH: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of XO Communications,
Inc., formerly Nextlink Communications, Inc. (formerly NASDAQ: XOXO;
currently OTC: XOXOQ) from October 11, 1997 through November 1, 2001,
inclusive.  Also included are those who acquired XO's shares through
the acquisitions of WNP Communications, Inc., Internext LLC and
Concentric Network Corporation.

The suit alleges that Salomon Smith Barney and its well-known
telecommunications stock analyst Jack Grubman violated the federal
securities laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading analyst
reports regarding XO during the class period.

The suit alleges that Salomon failed to disclose a significant conflict
of interest between its investment banking and research departments.  
Specifically, Jack Grubman and other Salomon Smith Barney analysts
issued very favorable analyst reports regarding XO to the public when
they allegedly knew that the positive recommendations were unwarranted.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, Salomon Smith Barney's buy
recommendations and price targets for XO were influenced by its efforts
to be retained as a financial advisor for XO and other
telecommunications companies.  Such lucrative investment banking
engagements were worth millions of dollars in fees to Salomon.

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


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in NE Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc. (Nasdaq:TSAIE) between January 21, 1999 and November 18, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.pivenlaw.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  * * *