CAR_Public/021210.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Tuesday, December 10, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 244

                             Headlines                            

724 SOLUTIONS: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
ALIEN TORTS: Business Groups Oppose Use of Torts Act For Rights Suits
ANTIGENICS INC.: NY Court Dismisses Chairman From Securities Fraud Suit
AOL TIME: Seeking Consolidation of 27 Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: NY Court Dismisses Directors From Securities Lawsuit
BONZI SOFTWARE: Faces Suit For Deceptive Advertising in WA State Court
BOSTON ARCHIDIOCESE: Gets Local Approval For Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Filing
CENTRA SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Fraud Suit
DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Hears Arguments For Securities Suit Dismissal

EXPEDIA INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC.: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Proposed USA Merger
iMANAGE INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
INDIANA: Judge Approves Settlement of Inmates Suit V. Floyd County Jail
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement For Lawsuit Over Overcharges

MATTEL INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suits For $122 Million
MINNESOTA: Temporary Order Helps 8 Somali Refugees Escape Deportation
MTI TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in CA
NASH FINCH: Investors Commence Suit For Securities Act Violations in MN
NORTHWEST AREA: WA Workers Lodge Suit Over Pull Out Of Antipoverty Plan

OKLAHOMA: Tulsa, Black Police Officers Settle Race Discrimination Suit
OPENTV CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
RARE MEDIUM: DE Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement
ROCKFORD HEALTH: Settling Over-billing Suit With 10,000 Patients
SONICWALL INC.: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Lawsuit

SPANISH BROADCASTING: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VIANET.WORKS INC.: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

*Consumer Advocate Groups Say Predatory Lending Instances On the Rise

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in E.D. VA
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in CT Court

ANSWERTHINK INC.: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
COMERICA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in W.D. KY
NASH FINCH: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
NASH FINCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court

NASH FINCH: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
NASH FINCH: Reinhardt & Anderson Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN Court
OM GROUP: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
RETEK INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
SEARS ROEBUCK: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

SMARTFORCE PLC: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in NH Court

                            *********

724 SOLUTIONS: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed 724 Solutions, Inc.'s officers and directors from the
consolidated securities class action pending against them, the Company
and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

In general, the amended complaint alleges that the underwriter
defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange for
         which these customers agreed to pay the underwriter defendants
         extra commissions on transactions in other securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public offering to
         certain of the Underwriter Defendants' customers, in exchange
         for which the customers agreed to purchase additional common
         shares of the Company in the after-market at certain pre-
         determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges the Company and the individual
defendants failed to disclose these facts and that the Company and the
individual defendants were aware of, or disregarded, the underwriter
defendants' conduct.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the IPO
Litigation is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot accurately
predict the ultimate outcome of the IPO Allocation Litigation.


ALIEN TORTS: Business Groups Oppose Use of Torts Act For Rights Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) urged the US government to
stop the growing use of a 1789 law to sue US and foreign firms for
alleged violations of human rights outside this country, according to a
report by Agence France-Presse.

The Paris-based business group, which has thousands of member companies
worldwide, described the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act in such cases
as "an unacceptable extension of US jurisdiction."  Use of the
legislation threatens to chill US investment abroad as well as foreign
investment in the United States, the ICC said.

"ICC urges the US government and Congress to take steps to curb the
misuse of this long-standing statute against private companies, whether
US or from other countries," the group said in a statement.  "We appeal
to other governments to raise the issue with the US government.  Other
governments should also guard against any tendency to use new or
existing laws to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction."

US lawyers who have championed the use of the statute in human rights
cases against corporations denounced the ICC position as an attempt to
shield companies from accountability.  "It shocks the conscience that
these companies are seeking to immunize themselves from human rights
violations," said Terry Collingsworth, a lawyer with the International
Labor Rights Fund, who represents plaintiffs in several high-profile
Alien Tort cases.

Only a handful of lawsuits have been filed in the United States against
corporation in the last decade under the act, which allows non-US
citizens to file civil suits in US courts for alleged violations of
international law committed abroad.  ExxonMobil, Rio Tinto, Royal
Dutch/Shell, Chevron Texaco, Coca-Cola, The Gap and Unocal are among
the defendants in pending cases.

Indonesian villagers are suing oil giant ExxonMobil under the law for
the torture and murder they allegedly suffered at the hands of
Indonesian security forces protecting the Exxon gas plant in Aceh,
Indonesia, where a separatist rebellion has been simmering for more
than two decades.

Ethnic Ogoni villagers from Nigeria are suing Royal Dutch/Shell under
the statute for allegedly lending support to Nigerian government forces
that conducted a brutal crackdown against opponents to Shell's
operations in Ogoniland province.  The suit claims 750 Ogoni villagers
were killed in the operation.

A class action seeking reparations for Holocaust victims from German
and Swiss banks was also filed under the Alien Torts Act, but the cases
were settled out of court for $2.3 billion.  A similar class action,
filed this summer, appears to have spurred the ICC to take a stand
against the use of the act.  The suit accuses over 1,000 companies that
did business in South Africa during apartheid of "vicarious liability"
for the abuse blacks suffered.

"The net is being cast ever wider and the sky is the limit," Thomas
Niles, president of the ICC's US affiliate, the US Council for
International Business, told the AFX Global Ethics Monitor, a
subsidiary of AP.


ANTIGENICS INC.: NY Court Dismisses Chairman From Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Antigenics, Inc's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Garo
Armen from the consolidated securities class action pending against
him, the Company and two investment banking firms that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of
Company stock in the offering.

The suit also alleges that shares of the Company's stock were allocated
to certain of the investment banking firms' customers based upon an
agreement by such customers to purchase additional shares of the
Company's stock in the secondary market.

The complaint alleges that the Company is liable under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Dr.
Armen is liable under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act because
the Company's registration statement did not disclose these alleged
practices.

The suit further alleges that the Company and Dr. Armen violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10(b)-5 by
making false and misleading statements and/or omissions in order to
inflate the Company's stock price and conceal the investment banking
firms' alleged secret arrangements.  The amended complaint further
alleges that Dr. Armen, as a "control person" of Antigenics, violated
Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act.

Virtually identical complaints were filed against 300 other issuers,
their underwriters, and their directors and officers.  These cases have
been coordinated under the caption "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."

On July 15, 2002, the Company and Dr. Armen joined the Issuer
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated suit.  By order of the
Court, this motion set forth all "common issues" i.e., all grounds for
dismissal common to all or a significant number of Issuer Defendants.

The claims against Dr. Armen, in his individual capacity, have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The hearing on the Issuer Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  The Company intends to
defend against these claims vigorously.


AOL TIME: Seeking Consolidation of 27 Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. is working for the consolidation of twenty-seven
putative class actions alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against it, certain current and former Company executives and, in
three instances, America Online.  Twenty-two of these are pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
four are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia and one in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of
the Company and allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose the Company's
declining advertising revenues and that the Company and America Online
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of
transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the
individual defendants and other insiders at the Company improperly sold
their personal holdings of AOL Time Warner stock.  Certain of the
lawsuits, in addition to the above allegations, allege that the Company
failed to disclose that the Merger was not generating the synergies
anticipated at the time of the announcement of the Merger and, further,
that the Company inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50
billion of goodwill.

On August 29, 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all federal lawsuits within the
AOL Time Warner Shareholder Litigation to the Southern District of New
York for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.  That
motion was heard on November 21, 2002.

In addition, all AOL Time Warner Shareholder Litigation now pending and
to be filed in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated
into one action for all purposes.  Nine parties are seeking "lead
plaintiff" status in the AOL Time Warner Shareholder Litigation.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the cases or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apropos Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court in
Chicago to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending
against it, certain of its current and former directors and officers,
and the underwriters of its initial public offering. The suit asserts
the Company violated the federal securities laws by making
misstatements and omissions in its Registration Statement and
Prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public offering in
February 2000.

The Company has moved to dismiss that complaint in its entirety on
various legal grounds, and its motion is currently pending.  Although
legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the
allegations are without merit.


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: NY Court Dismisses Directors From Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc.'s directors from the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of the Company between March 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.  
The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of the underwriters
of its initial public offering (IPO) and:

     (1) Louis Lau, Chairman of the Board,

     (2) James Ding, President and Chief Executive Officer and

     (3) Ying Han, Chief Financial Officer

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors at the time of the IPO violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling the Company's common stock pursuant to the IPO
without disclosing to investors that several of the underwriters of the
IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain, management believes
that the Company has meritorious defenses to the suit.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed without prejudice all claims
against the individual defendants in the litigation.  The dismissals
were based on stipulations signed by those defendants and the
plaintiffs' representatives.  The case remains pending against the
Company.


BONZI SOFTWARE: Faces Suit For Deceptive Advertising in WA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonzi Software, one of the most prolific banner advertisers on the
Internet, has been hit with a lawsuit alleging the company has engaged
in a "diabolical scheme" of deceptive advertising.  The class action
was filed in Washington State Superior Court on behalf of "all persons
residing in the United States who have, while operating a computer,
encountered an advertising banner" placed by Bonzi.

Philip Carstens, a Spokane, Wash. resident and Internet user, is named
as the plaintiff and representative of the class.  The firm working
with the plaintiff, Lukins & Annis, said it has filed a motion to have
the class certified by the court early next year.

The suit alleges the Company's advertising banners, which mimic dialog
boxes that feature "message alert," security alert," or "warning,"
trick Internet users into clicking through to the Company's site, where
it sells software.  The suit asks the Company to pay $500 for each
Internet user who has encountered one of the ads and $5 per impression
served. Besides naming the Company as a defendant, it also names its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer.  

Lukins & Annis, the Spokane, Wash., law firm filing the suit, estimates
the Company has served more than 300 million impressions of these
banners.  "The Internet has unfortunately become a cornucopia for
deceptive business practices," said Darrell Scott, the Lukins lawyer
handling the complaint.  "Deceptive practices that would quickly put a
local corner businessman out of business have unfortunately become
routine and profitable tools of the trade when business is conducted
over the Internet."

A representative for San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based Bonzi Software said
he was unaware of the lawsuit.  The suit alleges Bonzi's advertising
methods are part of a "conspiratorial enterprise" that tricks Internet
users into visiting its Web site, Bonzi.com, which functions as a
portal and a promotional vehicle for its software products.  Bonzi
sells a number of software products, including a voice e-mail program
and BonziBUDDY, a purple gorilla that accompanies users around the Net
and suggests sites to visit.

The class action centers on the appearance and text of Bonzi's
advertisements.  According to Lukins, the ads are intentionally similar
to system warnings issued by Windows, in shape, color and layout.  The
result of these ad efforts, the suit alleges, is to rank Bonzi.com as
the third highest-trafficked software site on the Internet.  In
October, the site garnered just over 2 million unique visitors,
according to Nielsen//NetRatings.

Nielsen//NetRatings' AdRelevance unit ranked Bonzi as the top software
advertiser in October, serving more than 743,000 impressions, more than
double that of the No. 2 software advertiser, Expertcity.

The allegations of deceptive advertising practices follow on the many
legal troubles faced by another software maker, Gator, which is under
fire from publishers who claim that Gator deceives users into
downloading its ad-serving OfferCompanion software.  Gator has
responded that its users know they are downloading ad-supported
software.

"I think that the business practices of some businesses on the Internet
are ripe for litigation," Mr. Scott said. "I think litigation will be
one tool that will elevate the legitimacy and prestige of Internet
advertising."


BOSTON ARCHIDIOCESE: Gets Local Approval For Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Finance Council of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston (RCAB)
voted this week to allow the RCAB to pursue reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, if the RCAB ultimately deems
such action necessary to ensure an expeditious and equitable global
settlement for the victims of sexual abuse by priests of the
Archdiocese.  

In addition to the approval by the Finance Council, the RCAB would also
require other approvals before it could file a Chapter 11 case.  The
RCAB must also seek approval from the Vatican.  No final determination
to file Chapter 11 has been made at this time.

The Archdiocese of Boston is named as a defendant in scores of lawsuits
alleging sexual abuse by clergy members.  Rumors about the Archdiocese
seeking Chapter 11 protection as a way to manage large judgments on
account of more than 400 known claims have swirled for months.

Earlier this year, attorneys for the Archdiocese turned to Daniel M.
Glosband, Esq., at Goodwin Procter, for bankruptcy counseling.  On the
business side, contributions to the church have fallen sharply this
year.

An involuntary petition brought against the church is impossible,
because 11 U.S.C., Sec. 303 (a) prohibits that.  As in all mass tort
cases, the Bankruptcy Court can't liquidate individual tort claims.  11
U.S.C.  Sec. 1112 prohibits:

     (1) conversion of the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation, unless the
         debtor makes the request; and

     (2) having the words church, sex and bankruptcy appear on the
         front page of the newspaper has to be the ultimate PR
         nightmare;

Lawyers will be scrambling to figure-out:

    (i) what, exactly, a "corporation sole" is  (Black's Law Dictionary
        defines it as a continuous legal personality attributed to
        successive holders of ecclesiastical positions, like bishops);
        how it functions and what import the term has in the bankruptcy
        context;

    (ii) how would the Archdiocese fund a Chapter 11 plan?  By selling
         assets (Boston land and tax records indicate the church owns
         249 pieces of real estate assessed at $220 million), or by
         asking for donations?

   (iii) what role would the Holy See and the Holy Father play if the
         Archdiocese sought protection from creditors?  

According to the new "Fundamental Law of the State of Vatican City"
signed by Pope John Paul II, on November 26, 2000, he possesses the
abundance of the legislative, implementing and judicial power as head
of the Vatican State.  Would any judgment against the Vatican from any
US court ever be enforceable?

Jeffrey A. Newman, Esq., and Roderick MacLeish Jr., Esq., at Greenberg
Traurig, represent more than 200 alleged victims.  They have told
Boston newspaper reporters that they see no reason for a bankruptcy
filing any time soon.  Aetna and Kemper, the church's major insurers,
can provide $100 million of coverage to the Archdiocese, and Mr. Newman
and Mr. MacLeish think a comprehensive settlement is in the works.

The RCAB reaffirmed this week that it is seeking to establish a global
settlement with all abuse victims, including those who already have
filed claims against it and those that may have claims have not yet
been asserted.  A global settlement would serve as an alternative to
resolving each case by separate litigation or negotiation --an approach
that would take many, many years to complete and would likely produce
very inconsistent results for the victims.

A global settlement, the church said in a prepared statement, would
provide the opportunity to achieve an expeditious result for all
parties, that maximizes the recoveries legally available to all parties
and that assures that all claimants receive equal treatment based on
the harm they have suffered.  In its initial approach to achieving this
goal, the Archdiocese and a mediator have begun meeting with the group
of lawyers representing the many victims who have filed claims.

"Our goal is to achieve a global settlement for all the victims, which
is fair, equitable and satisfactory to claimants.  In addition, we
would like to ensure that all cases are resolved expeditiously and that
the funds available will go to the victim-survivors instead of into
litigation costs," said Donna M. Morrissey, spokesperson for the RCAB.

"We believe a mediated resolution would be preferable to seeking
Chapter 11 protection and remain hopeful that this process, currently
underway, will be successful.  We feel, however, that it also is
necessary to consider carefully the alternative or complementary
approach of a Chapter 11 reorganization," he added.

In seeking a global settlement, the Archdiocese went on to say, the
RCAB wants to mitigate these awful events and provide consistent,
equitable and expeditious compensation to the victims of this abuse.  
In addition to a financial settlement, RCAB has provided the Office for
Assistance and Healing Ministry, led by Barbara Thorp to listen and
respond to the needs of victim-survivors, who are facing the terrible
pain of the consequences of past sexual abuse, through counseling and
other means of support.

The RCAB, eleven months ago, implemented a comprehensive new policy
that does not allow any priest of whom we are aware, who has a single
credible allegation of abuse of a minor made against him, to serve in
ministry.  The policy also requires that all parish staff, clergy,
employees and volunteers, particularly those who have custodial
responsibility of children, be mandated reporters, so that suspected
instances of abuse of children, learned outside of the sacrament of
confession, are reported immediately to the appropriate legal and
social service authorities.

The RCAB is currently in the process of training 200,000 adults and
children, in parishes and schools, as part of a comprehensive
educational and abuse prevention program.

Wilson Rogers, Esq., at the Rogers Law Fir, P.C. serves as General
Counsel to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston.  J. Owen Todd,
Esq., at Todd & Weld LLP, and President of the Massachusetts Trial
Lawyers Association, also represents the Archdiocese.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Centra Software, Inc.'s 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.

The suit, filed on behalf of the class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
asserts claims under 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 complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in February 2000, the underwriters received undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for allocating shares to
them and also agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in
exchange for the agreement of those customers to purchase additional
shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaint asserts that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering were materially false and misleading due to
their failure to disclose these alleged arrangements.  

The Company believes the allegations lack merit.  The underwriter
defendants and the company defendants joined in motions to dismiss the
suit on July 3 and July 15, 2002, respectively.  Reponses to the
motions to dismiss are expected from plaintiffs, but to date no
response has been filed and no action has been taken by the court.


DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Hears Arguments For Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
heard oral arguments on Digital Impact, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it, certain of its
officers and directors and certain investment bank underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices concerning the
allocation of the Company's IPO shares, in violation of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's stock during the period from November 22, 1999
to December 6, 2000.  The court has appointed a lead plaintiff for
the consolidated suit.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the
IPOs of more than 300 other companies.  All of these lawsuits have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation.

Defendants in these cases filed omnibus motions to dismiss on common
pleading issues.  Oral argument on these motions to dismiss was held on
November 1, 2002.  The Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against
it.  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 its business, financial condition or results of operations,
and hence no amounts have been accrued for these cases.
                     

EXPEDIA INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action pending against it, certain of its officers and directors and
certain underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The suit further alleges that the Company's prospectus was false
or misleading in that it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain customers in return for receiving
         shares in the IPO; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly agreed
         to purchase additional shares of the Company in the
         aftermarket in return for an allocation of shares in the IPO.

The complaint further alleges an agreement by the underwriters with the
Company to provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company
after the IPO that had the effect of manipulating the market for the
Company's stock.

Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged omissions from the
prospectus and alleged market manipulation through the use of analysts,
the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated between
November 9, 1999, and December 6, 2000, and that the defendants are
liable for unspecified damages to those persons who purchased stock
during that period.

On August 9, 2001, the suit was consolidated before a single judge
along with cases brought against numerous other issuers and their
underwriters that make similar allegations involving the IPOs of those
issuers.  The consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and
discovery only.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants, along with
the other issuers and their related officer and director defendants,
filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues.  Arguments for
and against the motion to dismiss were presented to the court on
November 1, 2002.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.


EXPEDIA INC.: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Proposed USA Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. asked the Superior Court of the State of Washington for
King County to dismiss the consolidated class action pending against it
relating to statements made by USA Interactive, Inc. regarding its
intent to acquire the remaining shares in the Company by commencing an
exchange offer.

Eight class actions were filed in early June 2002, alleging, in
essence, that the price that USA stated it intended to offer was too
low and that approval of the offer by the Company's board would
constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.

On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs in each of the eight lawsuits filed a
joint motion to consolidate the cases into one case, and on July 17,
2002, the court issued an order consolidating the eight lawsuits.

On October 10, 2002, USA announced that it was ending the ongoing
process to acquire all of the publicly held shares of the Company.  In
light of this announcement, the Company is seeking dismissal of this
litigation.


iMANAGE INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice iManage, Inc.'s officers and directors from
the consolidated securities class action pending against them, the
Company and the the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000, alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offering did not
disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the offering in exchange for excess
         commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined
         prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits challenging over 300 other public offerings conducted in 1999,
2000 and 2001.  All of these cases have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before a judge in the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and its related individual defendants (as
well as the other issuers named as defendants) filed a motion to
dismiss the suit.  Subsequently, the individual defendants stipulated
with plaintiffs to dismiss from the case without prejudice, subject to
a tolling agreement.

While the Company believes that the allegations against it and its
officers/directors are without merit, there can be no assurance that
this matter will be resolved without costly litigation or in a manner
that is not adverse to the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


INDIANA: Judge Approves Settlement of Inmates Suit V. Floyd County Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved the settlement of a class action against
the Floyd County Jail for illegal strip searches conducted from early
1997 through early 1999, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The settlement agreement includes payments of $1,000 each to 619
plaintiffs.  US District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, who recently
approved the settlement, ruled in October 2001, that the county's
strip-search policy violated inmates' constitutional rights.

Bart Betteau of New Albany, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, estimated
that more than 2,000 men and women jailed for minor, non-violent
offenses were illegally required to remove their clothes for a visual
inspection and delousing during the period covered by the lawsuit.

Fewer than a third of those who underwent the illegal treatment chose
to take part in the lawsuit, which named the county, the jail and the
sheriff as defendants.


MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement For Lawsuit Over Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Electric Co. will refund $2.63 million in overcharges to
17,333 residential customers to settle a class action company officials
said, according to Associated Press Newswires.  Superior Court Judge
Bertha Josephson approved the settlement.

People who have been continuous customers of the same utility since the
state's utility deregulation took effect in March 1998, qualify for the
lower standard class rates.  The confusion seems to have stemmed from
the fact that the standard and default classifications were initially
similar, and default customers did not start paying substantially more
until last year.

Average refunds to customers who were erroneously placed in the higher-
priced "default" category, range from $137 to $195, said spokeswoman
for the utility Deborah Drew.


MATTEL INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suits For $122 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Three years after Mattel Inc.'s acquisition of the Learning Co., the
toy company has agreed to pay shareholder lawsuits alleging
mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty by Mattel's directors and
former executives involved in the deal, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

Shareholder suits filed in 1999 and 2000 alleged that former executives
and some directors made false statements about the proposed Learning
Co. acquisition that persuaded the Company's shareholders to approve
the acquisition and artificially inflated Company's stock price.  

The acquisition, which proved disastrous, resulted in the resignation
of then Chief Executive Jill Barad, under whom the acquisition was
executed, in the spring of 1999, for $3.5 billion in stock.  After
Mattel's board paid Ms. Barad a severance package valued at nearly $50
million, other shareholder suits were filed, alleging breach of
fiduciary duties, mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.  By
October of 1999, the new division was hemorrhaging money, and Mattel's
stock plunged from more than $45 in 1998 to below $10 by early 2000.


The many plaintiffs, represented by class action attorney William
Lerach and other lawyers, are also negotiating with Mattel to tighten
corporate governance procedures in the future, the company said.  The
introduction of improved corporate governance into negotiations of
securities lawsuits has become a matter of importance and principle to
Mr. Lerach, and the corporation is discussing possible changes with the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

Mattel said its own legal costs of $13.5 million will bring the toal
cost of the settlement to $135.5 million.

The Learning Co. was sold to corporate turnaround firm Gores Technology
Group for no cash and a share of any future profits.  Mattel took a
$430 million after-tax loss related to the disposition and agreed to
pay off $500 million in debt.


MINNESOTA: Temporary Order Helps 8 Somali Refugees Escape Deportation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At least eight Somalis from Minnesota awaiting deportation to their
war-torn homeland have won temporary orders blocking their removal, the
St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) reports.  Additionally, Seattle advocates
have filed a class action to bar all Somali deportations nationwide.

Lawyers for the Somalis, meanwhile, contend that deporting them to a
country without a functioning government would violate US law.  Family
members and advocates argue that the consequences would be far worse.  
"They look at deportation as a death sentence, because they are being
thrown into a place where there is lawlessness, chaos and anarchy,"
said Omar Jamal, executive director of the Twin Cities-based Somali
Justice Advocacy Center, which is acting on their behalf.

The eight Somalis are presently in Louisiana, in the custody of the US
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  All are subject to final
orders of removal for having felony convictions or failing to receive
asylum.  Most were arrested last month and were in detention in
Minnesota, until last week, when authorities flew them to Louisiana.

The detainees told lawyers that they were to leave late Tuesday, last
week, until weather concerns grounded the flight.  Lawyers scrambled to
file papers seeking to block the removal.  Mr. Jamal said he has heard
from relatives who know of 20 from Minnesota, who apparently are in
Louisiana awaiting removal.

In St. Paul, US District Judge Donovan Frank issued a stay barring
deportation of one Somali pending a hearing.  A federal judge in
Louisiana issued a temporary restraining order keeping the others in
the country at least until a hearing early this week.

The recent deportation plans have revived fears among Somalis in the
Twin Cities, home to one of the country's largest concentrations of
refugees from the East African nation torn apart by civil war.  In
February, the INS deported 10 Somalis from Minnesota, along with 20
from elsewhere in the United States and Canada.  While authorities said
law abiding refugees had no reason to worry, some Somalis expressed the
fear that the government was singling out Muslims for arbitrary
reprisals in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The current deportation plans are troubling, Somali community leaders
said, because the action comes despite an order last March from US
District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis, who ruled that sending
Somali native Keyse G. Jama, convicted of assault in Hennepin County,
to a country with no functioning government was illegal.  That ruling,
however, applies only to the case of  Mr. Jama, and the government has
appealed Judge Tunheim's order.

"I really think they should stop and they should not do this unless the
rules are clear," said Osman Sahardeed, assistant executive director of
the Somali community of Minneapolis, a non-profit assistance agency.  

In Seattle, lawyers citing Judge Tunheim's rulin won an order blocking
deportation of five Somalis.


MTI TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MTI Technology Corp. (Nasdaq:MTIC) signed an agreement for the
settlement and release of all claims against it and certain officers in
the consolidated amended class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  

Several suits were filed against the Company and its officers from July
through September 2000, alleging that the Company was aware of adverse
information that it failed to disclose primarily during fiscal year
2000 and, hence, that it violated specified provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated thereunder.  

The suits were later consolidated, with the consolidated complaint
alleging a class period from July 22, 1999 to July 27, 2000 and alleges
that the defendants were aware of certain adverse information that they
failed to disclose during that period.  

The Company's insurers will cover all but $125,000 of the total
settlement amount.  The settlement is subject to final approval by the
court.


NASH FINCH: Investors Commence Suit For Securities Act Violations in MN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of investors filed a class action against food retailer and
distributor Nash Finch Co., alleging the Edina, Minnesota-based Company
violated securities regulations, according to an Associated Press
Newswires report.  The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in
Minnesota, seeks to recover damages.

According to the complaint, the Company issued false statements in
order to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt.  Last month,
the Company twice postponed its third-quarter earnings release, citing
an internal review by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
relating to some promotional allowances.  

Food manufacturers usually pay grocers allowances called "slotting
fees" to make sure their products are given attractive shelf space.  
The Company said it was reviewing its procedures related to the
allowances.  Following the announcement, the company's stock lost
nearly a third of its value.

The Company owns and operates 112 grocery stores in the Upper Midwest
under the names Buy 'N Save, Econofoods, Sun Mart, Family Thrift Center
and Avanza.  The Company also distributes groceries to independent
retailers and military commissaries.


NORTHWEST AREA: WA Workers Lodge Suit Over Pull Out Of Antipoverty Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of citizen volunteers in central Washington's Yakima Valley,
who worked with the Northwest Area Foundation of St. Paul and claims to
have put in hundreds of hours helping plan a multimillion-dollar
antipoverty program has filed suit against the foundation. The group
says the foundation breached a "unilateral" contract when it ended
project planning, the Star Tribune, newspaper of the Twin Cities,
reports.

Angered by the foundation's decision to cease its efforts in the Yakima
Valley, Julio Romero, an agricultural worker, filed a class action on
behalf of himself and more than 300 other volunteers, in Yakima County
Superior Court.  The lawsuit asks that the foundation be required to
give community groups the $1.25 million it "promised" to support the
planning process to its completion, as well as triple damages for
unfair and deceptive acts under the state Consumer Protection Act, plus
attorney fees.

The foundation, which works in eight states once served by the Great
Northern Railway, has embarked on a plan to pump $150 million into
about 16 communities to fight poverty during the next decade.  The idea
is to demonstrate what concentrated resources can do in a few
communities of great need to build a long-term sustainable future.

Northwest Area already has formed partnerships in rural South Dakota,
central Oregon and with the Indian Land Tenure Foundation.  It has
engaged in a planning process in north Minneapolis.  However, Northwest
Area ended the same sort of planning in the Yakima Valley recently,
saying the three parts of the valley seemed unwilling to work toward
the regional approach the foundation wanted.  Some volunteers denied
that statement.  The volunteers, perceiving "an unprecedented
opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their children,"
put in thousands of hours, sometimes taking time off from work for
daylong meetings, traveling 40 miles or more and paying for child care,
the lawsuit said.

Ellery July, the foundation's director of community activities and
learning, said recently that "we don't make promises" like those
suggested in the lawsuit, and did not authorize anyone else to make
such promises, and sees no basis for the lawsuit.  The foundation did
spend more than $750,000 for consultants, translators and childcare
during more than two years of planning, Mr. July said.

After planning ended, the Associated Press reported that David Silva, a
Yakima Valley consultant hired by Northwest Area, acknowledged that
there was some divisiveness among established social-service agencies
over the regional concept, but said the proposal had a lot of support
from low-income Hispanics and American Indians.


OKLAHOMA: Tulsa, Black Police Officers Settle Race Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After nearly nine years of federal court litigation, the city of Tulsa
and a group of black police officers, claiming racial discrimination,
have reached an agreement, according to a report by The Daily
Oklahoman.  Mayor William LaFortune announced the agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement, in which the city admits no
wrongdoing, all recruiting, promotions and specialty assignments will
be given on merit.  The agreement also contains an explicit prohibition
of racial bias.  It also calls for an independent auditor to monitor
compliance and provides for dispute resolution by a committee composed
of members from all parties to the lawsuit.

The consent decree requires court approval, and is under the
jurisdiction of US District Judge Sven Erik Holmes, with participation
from US District Judge Claire V. Eagan, both of the Northern District
of Oklahoma.  US District Judge Lee West of the Western District, based
in Oklahoma City, also participated in the negotiations.

The Fraternal Order of Police did not join in the consent decree, as it
did not seek permission to enter the class action until May.  It was
the second consent decree in the case that has involved two mayors and
two chiefs of police.  The first decree was accepted by Mayor Susan
Savage as she was leaving office, but it was rejected by incoming Mayor
LaFortune.

It will cost the city about $6 million to implement the decree,
compared with an estimated $40 million under earlier plans.  Not
included in this cost is the payment the city will have to make to the
attorney for the four officers named in the lawsuit.  The court will
determine the amount according to established procedures, Mayor
LaFortune said.

The Black Officers Coalition filed a class action in 1994, alleging
blacks face a segregated work environment, are discriminated against in
hiring and promotions, get no help when calling for backup and face
retaliation if they complain about discrimination.

The hallmark of the proposed 36-page settlement "is its fairness to all
parties,"achieved by "addressing the questions" raised by the black
officers, the Fraternal Order of Police as well as the city, its
citizens and the police department, said Mayor LaFortune.

At the end of October, Mayor LaFortune proposed a settlement in hopes
of restarting negotiations that had ended bitterly after he rejected
the earlier agreement entered into by his predecessor.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


OPENTV CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice OpenTV Corporation's officers and directors
from the consolidated securities class action pending against them, the
Company and certain investment banks which acted as underwriters for
the Company's initial public offering.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices concerning the
allocation of the Company's initial public offering shares, in
violation of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified damages
on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Class A Ordinary
Shares during the period from November 23, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated
cases.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the
initial public offerings of more than 300 other companies.  All of
these lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-
92.

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  Oral arguments on these omnibus motions to
dismiss were held on November 1, 2002.  

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
claims.  


RARE MEDIUM: DE Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement proposed by Rare
Medium Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: RRRR) that was entered into by the Company
and announced in April 2002 relating to the securities class action
pending against it.

In connection with the settlement agreement, the Company effectuated a
one for ten reverse stock split and completed a rights offering in
July, 2002, and the Company's preferred stockholders completed a
limited tender offer in May, 2002, among other things.

With court approval of the settlement agreement, warrants held by the
preferred stockholders to purchase 275,245 shares of our common stock
will be cancelled, and the dividends on the preferred stock will
continue to be paid in the form of additional shares of preferred stock
in lieu of cash through September 30, 2004.

Such dividends would have otherwise become payable in cash at the
option of the preferred stockholders beginning with the quarter ended
September 30, 2002.  As part of the settlement approved by the court,
the Company and other defendants received a release from members of the
class, and the Company will pay $100,000 cash and issue 357,143 shares
of its common stock to plaintiffs' counsel, including lead counsel
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, in payment of fees and
expenses.

Despite the settlement, the Company and the other defendants denied all
allegations made by the plaintiffs.


ROCKFORD HEALTH: Settling Over-billing Suit With 10,000 Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockford Health System plans to settle a class action involving up to
10,000 patients who were billed for services that already had been
paid, according to court documents, Associated Press Newswires reports.

None of the claims is expected to exceed $500, according to Rockford
Health System's chief executive, Gary Katz.   A judge is expected to
approve the settlement February 25, 2003.

David Danielson of Woodstock filed the class action in the 17th District
Court in Illinois, alleging that he had been billed for services in
1999, that he already had paid.  The lawsuit further accused the owners
of Rockford Memorial Hospital and Rockford Clinic of failing to return
excess payments or to tell patients about errors.

Rockford Health System outsourced billing to Health Care Billing
Services in 1999.  Court documents stated it was unclear whether the
HMO had been paid for certain services when records were transferred.
Health Care Billing Service then attempted to collect on more than
100,000 bills.  Rockford Health System now handles its own billing.


SONICWALL INC.: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed SonicWALL, Inc.'s officers and directors from the
consolidated securities class actions pending against them, the Company
and certain of the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering in November 1999 and its follow-on offering in March 2000.

The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages or
rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the prospectuses
relating to, among other things, the alleged receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock in the Company's public offerings.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous public
companies that conducted initial public offerings (IPOs) of their
common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for
failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On October 8,
2002, the court entered an order of dismissal as to all of the
individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO litigation, without
prejudice.

While the Company believes that the claims against it and its officers
and directors are without merit, the litigation could result in
substantial costs and divert the Company's attention and resources,
which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
operating results, liquidity and financial condition.


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish Broadcasting Systems, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers who acquired
shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus relating to its initial public
offering which closed on November 2, 1999.

The lawsuit was filed against the Company, eight underwriters of the
IPO and/or their successors-in-interest, two members of its senior
management team, one of which is the Company's Chairman of the Board of
Directors, and an additional director.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, specifically that the prospectus contained materially false and
misleading statements based on alleged misstatements and/or omissions
of material facts relating to underwriting commissions.

The complaint also alleges Rule 10b-5 violations by the underwriters
and the Company, but not by the individuals.  In addition, the
complaint alleges violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Individuals.

The claims being made under the complaint are similar to claims
currently being made in over 300 class action suits filed against
companies with recent initial public offerings and their underwriters.  
All of these suits, including the one involving the Company, have been
assigned for consolidated pretrial purposes to one judge.

Motions to dismiss the complaints covering issues common among all
issuer defendants in the consolidated cases and issues common among all
underwriter defendants in the consolidated cases have been fully
briefed and were argued on November 1, 2002.  Discovery has been stayed
pending decision on the motions to dismiss.


VIANET.WORKS INC.: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
VIANET.WORKS, 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 officers and certain of
the underwriters who supported the Company's initial public offering
(IPO),

The suit alleges that the prospectus the Company filed with its
registration statement in connection with its IPO was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the named underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
         for the right to purchase large blocks of VIA IPO shares; and

     (2) the named Underwriters had entered into agreements with
         certain of their customers to allocate VIA IPO shares in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         VIA shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices,
         thereby artificially inflating the Company's stock price.

The suit further alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising out of the
alleged failure to disclose and the alleged materially misleading
disclosures made with respect to the commissions and the Tie-in
Arrangements in the prospectus.

This suit is one of over 300 similar suits filed to date against
underwriters, issuers and their officers alleging similar activities,
known as "laddering," all of which are included in a single coordinated
proceeding in the Southern District of New York.

The Company believes that any allegations in the suit of wrongdoing on
its part or its officers are without legal merit.  The Company has
retained legal counsel and intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations.


WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Wink
Communications, Inc. filed a consolidated amended suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from August 19,1999 through
December 6,2000.

The suit, which names as defendants the Company, two of the Company's
officers and directors, and certain investment bank underwriters for
the Company's initial public offering, asserts claims under Section 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the
SEC thereunder against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The Company described the suit as a "laddering" case, similar to
hundreds of other laddering cases filed against other newly public
companies by other class action defendants in the same Court, according
to an earlier Class Action Reporter story.  

The suit is among the lawsuits that have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 21-MC-92.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the claims brought against it.


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action pending against it, certain of its current and former
directors and officers and firms engaged in the underwriting of the
Company's initial public offering of stock (IPO).

The suit is based on the allegations that the Company's registration
statement on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with the IPO, contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state facts necessary to
make the statements made not misleading by failing to disclose that the
underwriters had received additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions from, and had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated shares in
the IPO.

The plaintiffs in the suit assert claims against the Company and the
individual defendants pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert claims against the individual
defendants pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder.

The lawsuit, along with approximately 310 other similar lawsuits filed
against other issuers arising out of initial public offering
allocations, have been assigned to a judge in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York for pretrial
coordination.  

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss all claims.  The court has not ruled on this motion.  Discovery
is stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


*Consumer Advocate Groups Say Predatory Lending Instances On the Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer advocates locally and across the nation report a rise in
predatory lending practices, all of which can lead to foreclosure for
the homeowner who has resorted to this kind of home loan, according to
a report by the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA).

The practices span the spectrum, but all make a home loan available at
so exorbitant a rate that the homeowner quickly falls behind, and may
have to give up the collateral - his home - to cover the debt.  The
goal of the predatory lender "is to exploit a vulnerable person and
put him in a worse position than he was before," said David Carducci,
managing attorney of Bay Area Legal Aid.  "Rather than give the
(debtor) a loan that would get him out of debt, the lender gives the
debtor a loan that gets him even further in debt."

The elderly and minorities are much more likely to be targeted,
according to a new study by the Washington, D.C.-based Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, entitled "Separate
and Unequal:  Predatory Lending In America."

Some of the common practices include:

     (1) High Fees:  Some lenders tuck excessive fees into loans, such
         as paperwork fees of up to eight percent, compared to the one
         to two percent most banks charge;

     (2) Balloon Payments:  The report also shows an increase in loans
         that include balloon payments, in which a series of mortgage
         payments at a low rate are followed by a disproportionately
         large lump sum.  Then the homeowner must borrow from his
         lender to pay off the balloon, usually at a high rate.

     (3) Loan Flipping:  Homeowners are often encouraged to continue
         refinancing at a higher rate and with higher accompanying
         fees.  ACORN presents the case of a 72-year-old woman whose
         loan was flipped seven times in five years.  She lost her home
         in a subsequent foreclosure.

"Borrowers who are not in a position to qualify for an 'A' loan, are
also routinely overcharged in  the subprime market, with rates and fees
that reflect what a lender or broker thinks he can get away with,
rather than any assessment of the actual credit risk," the ACORN report
says.

The loans are particularly insidious since "they specifically target
members of our society who can least afford to be stripped of their
equity or life savings, and have the fewest resources to fight back
when they have been cheated," says the ACORN report.

In recent months, two major subprime mortgage lenders, Household
International and The Associates, the latter of which is now owned by
Citigroup, announced settlements of $485 million and $240 million for
indulging in predatory practices.  ACORN has characterized such
"second-tier" lenders as institutional loan sharks.

However, financial predators run the gamut from major institutions to
door-to-door sellers to family members.  "A woman calls because she is
being evicted and she doesn't know why," said Linda Anderson, division
manager for Adult Protective Services of Contra Costa County.  "Her
house is being foreclosed and she cannot understand it.  We look into
it and discover it has been refinanced several times by a son or
daughter."

According to Dana Filkowski, Contra Costa deputy district attorney in
charge of elder abuse, the elderly person often has no idea what the
terms of the loan are." Before settling on a loan, advises Ms.
Filkowski, get the terms of the loan in writing, then show them to a
lawyer or an adviser at a senior services agency.

Mr. Carducci, the managing attorney of Bay Area Legal Aid, is
representing a woman who was targeted for a predatory loan after she
had had several strokes.  "The company did research on her house, sent
a slick-talking person to her door saying the company he represents
could help her,"  He said. "It's a classic example."

That company was Congress Mortgage, which is still settling with
victims after being sued by a class action alleging predatory lending,
according to the Contra Costa Times.  Mr. Carducci wants the consumer
to remember that "lending brokers have a fiduciary duty not to take
advantage of their clients."

                       New Securities Fraud Cases

AES CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired AES Corporation (NYSE:
AES) common stock (the "Class") between April 26, 2001 and February 14,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
defendants issued numerous statements highlighting the Company's strong
financial performance, specifically its business operations in the
United Kingdom.

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

     (1) that the United Kingdom adopted a new framework for the
         pricing of energy that undermined the Company's ability to
         achieve profitability in its United Kingdom activities, and as
         a result, the Company would experience a rapid decline in its
         UK financial operations;

     (2) the adoption of NETA (New Energy Arrangements) in the United
         Kingdom caused the Company's Fifoots utility operations to
         operate at a loss, as expected; defendants, however,
         continuously touted AES's United Kingdom operations as
         profitable;

     (3) that in the first quarter of 2001, Fifoots had an after-tax
         loss of $11 million; and

     (4) that the Company's United Kingdom operations were severely
         impaired as a result of new pricing arrangements adopted there
         and that the Company lacked adequate long-term contracts to
         avoid a rapid decline in its United Kingdom operations as a
         result of the new pricing arrangements.

On February 14, 2002, AES shocked the market by announcing that it had
ceased operations at its Fifoots Point power station in the United
Kingdom because of "sliding wholesale electricity prices."  The price
of the Company's stock dropped precipitously in inordinate trading
volume when the Company, for the first time, announced that it was
experiencing problems in its Fifoots Point power plant in the United
Kingdom and as a result the plant would be closed.

In response to the news, AES plummeted over 25% on February 15, 2002
after the truth concerning AES's Fifoots Point plant and future
prospects were finally revealed. Prices dropped from $9.50 per share on
February 14, 2002, to $7.00 per share on February 15, 2002, on enormous
trading volumes of 29,962,400, far greater than the Company's average
trading volume of 3.3 million shares.

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


ANNUITY AND LIFE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE:
ANR) publicly traded securities during the period between February 12,
2001 and November 19, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealing material adverse facts throughout the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.  
Throughout the class period, the Company reported strong revenue growth
and stable projected earnings.

The complaint alleges, however, that defendants failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had failed to properly account for embedded
         derivatives contained in its annuity reinsurance contracts in
         2001;

     (2) that, since at least 2001, the Company had understated a
         portion of its liabilities and expenses;

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

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

On November 19, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial results for 2000,
2001 and the first and second quarters of 2002 due to the Company
having improperly accounted for embedded derivatives contained in its
annuity reinsurance contracts during those years.  The Company's stock
plummeted 44% upon this revelation.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com

       
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Annuity and Life Re
(Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE:ANR) between February 12, 2001 and November 19,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, against the Company and:

    (1) Frederick S. Hammer,

    (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

    (3) John F. Burke

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company had failed to properly account for embedded
         derivatives contained in certain of its annuity reinsurance
         contracts in 2001;

    (ii) that, since at least 2001, the Company had understated a
         portion of its liabilities and expenses;

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

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

On November 19, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would restate its financial results for years 2000,
2001 and the first and second quarters of 2002, the period ending June
30, 2002. As detailed in the announcement, the restatement was
necessary because the Company had failed to properly account for
embedded derivatives contained in certain of its annuity reinsurance
contracts in 2001, and, that since at least 2001, the Company had
understated a portion of its liabilities and expenses.

Following this disclosure, shares of Annuity and Life fell as much as
44%, culminating a 91% decline in the price of the Company's common
stock in the prior twelve months.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, N.Y. 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: AnnuityandLifecase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


ANNUITY AND LIFE: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE: ANR)
during the period from February 12, 2001 through November 19, 2002,
inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) Frederick S. Hammer,

     (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

     (3) John F. Burke

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealing material adverse facts throughout the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.

Throughout the class period, the Company reported strong revenue growth
and stable projected earnings.  The suit alleges, however, that
defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company had failed to properly account for embedded
         derivatives contained in its annuity reinsurance contracts in
         2001;

    (ii) that, since at least 2001, the Company had understated a
         portion of its liabilities and expenses;

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

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

On November 19, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial results for 2000,
2001 and the first and second quarters of 2002 due to the Company
having improperly accounted for embedded derivatives contained in its
annuity reinsurance contracts during those years.  The Company's stock
plummeted 44% upon this revelation.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by Phone:
1-800-404-7770 by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com.  


ANNUITY AND LIFE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings),
Ltd. (NYSE:ANR) between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company and:

    (1) Frederick S. Hammer,

    (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

    (3) John F. Burke

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
including false financial information to the market throughout the
class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's securities and required the Company
to restate its financial results for years 2000, 2001 and the first and
second quarters of 2002.

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


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.c. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Answerthink, Inc. (NYSE:ANSR)
between October 17, 2000 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names
as defendants the Company and:

     (1) John F. Brennan,

     (2) Ted A. Fernandez,

     (3) Allan R. Frank,

     (4) Edmund R. Miller,

     (5) William Kessinger and

     (6) Bruce Rauner

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
As alleged in the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements announcing "record"
financial results.  

In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the
complaint alleges, defendants failed to disclose that the "record"
results included revenues recognized from transactions with related
parties who were near-bankruptcy and lacked the financial means to
finalize the sales.

Specifically, in order to boost reported revenues and earnings during
the third and fourth quarters of 2000, the Company recognized
approximately $16.7 million of revenue in connection with various
transactions with related parties who were either facing imminent
bankruptcy or were otherwise unable to survive as a going concern and
remit the full $16.7 million as promised.

As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants were able to report
artificially inflated results which permitted defendants Fernandez and
Frank to receive performance-based bonuses and allowed certain of the
defendants to sell stock at inflated prices.  Ultimately, more than $6
million of receivables and worthless stock in one of the related party
companies, which was received as partial payment, was written off
through a charge to earnings.

On February 7, 2002, when defendants were no longer able to include
these illusory revenues in their financial results, the Company
reported a huge drop in revenues.  As a result, Answerthink investors
who purchased stock in reliance on the integrity of defendants'
statements and publicly-filed financial reports have sustained
tremendous losses.  Answerthink stock, which traded at $18 per share on
October 17, 2000, dramatically declined and traded at only $1.98 per
share on November 13, 2002.

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


COMERICA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Comerica,
Inc. (NYSE: CMA) common stock (the "Class") between July 17, 2002 and
October 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive officers
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its net income by
         approximately $23 million in the second quarter of 2002;

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

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

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


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in W.D. KY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Kindred
Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: KIND) common stock between August 14, 2001
and October 10, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants made numerous materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's reserves for claims with
respect to professional liability insurance.  Specifically, the suit
alleges that defendants failed to maintain adequate reserves for
Kindred's professional liability insurance claims after the State of
Florida's May, 2001 enactment of tort-reform legislation (the "Florida
Act") capping punitive damage awards on such claims.

The Florida Act contained an October 2001 filing deadline for certain
claims, causing a one-time surge in lawsuits.  Unlike its competitors,
who took costly charges in preparation for the increased lawsuits
resulting from the Florida Act, defendants failed to maintain adequate
reserves as was revealed by the Company on October 10, 2002 when it
announced that Kindred would record approximately $55 million of
additional costs for professional liability claims for 2001 and 2002,
two-thirds of which concerned the Company's Florida operations.

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


NASH FINCH: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Nash Finch Company (NASDAQ:NAFC;
NAFCE) common stock during the period between July 15, 2002 and
November 8, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a food distribution and retail company in the United States.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company issued
false statements, including false financial results in which the
Company included income from vendor promotions to which the Company was
not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt.  
As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock traded
at artificially inflated levels, permitting the Company to maintain
credit ratings on its $400 million in debt.

Then, on November 8, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Nash Finch Explains Postponement of Earnings Release" which disclosed
an SEC inquiry into its accounting practices.  Once this news was
revealed, Nash Finch's stock collapsed to $7.60 before closing at
$8.18, some 70% below the class period high of $28.85.

It was also noted in November 2002, that Nash Finch's former CFO had
sued the Company claiming he was fired in 2000 for refusing to
manipulate Nash Finch's reported financial results.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-
mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


NASH FINCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of Nash Finch Company (Nasdaq: NAFCE) common stock
during the period between July 15, 2002 and November 8, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Nash
Finch is a food distribution and retail company in the United States.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company issued
false statements, including false financial results in which the
Company included income from vendor promotions to which Nash Finch was
not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt.
As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock traded
at artificially inflated levels, permitting Nash Finch to maintain
credit ratings on its $400 million in debt.

Then, on November 8, 2002, Nash Finch issued a press release entitled
"Nash Finch Explains Postponement of Earnings Release" which disclosed
an SEC inquiry into its accounting practices.  Once this news was
revealed, Nash Finch's stock collapsed to $7.60 before closing at
$8.18, some 70% below the class period high of $28.85.  It was also
noted in November 2002, that Nash Finch's former CFO had sued the
Company claiming he was fired in 2000 for refusing to manipulate Nash
Finch's reported financial results.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Phone: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com



NASH FINCH: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Nash Finch Company
(Nasdaq:NAFCE) (Nasdaq:NAFC) between July 15, 2002 and November 8,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota against the Company and

     (1) Ron Marshall and

     (2) Robert Dimond

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
including false financial information to the market throughout the
class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's securities and resulted in the
Company postponing the release of its earnings and in an SEC inquiry
into the Company's accounting practices.

For more details, contact Charles Piven 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


NASH FINCH: Reinhardt & Anderson Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court of Minnesota on behalf of investors who acquired
shares of Nash Finch Company (Nasdaq:NAFC; NAFCE) between July 15, 2002
and November 8, 2002 against individual directors and officers of the
Company.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nash
Finch is a food distribution and retail company in the United States.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, Nash Finch issued
false statements, including false financial results in which the
Company included income from vendor promotions to which Nash Finch was
not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt.
As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock traded
at artificially inflated levels, permitting Nash Finch to maintain
credit ratings on its $400 million in debt.

Then, on November 8, 2002, Nash Finch issued a press release entitled
"Nash Finch Explains Postponement of Earnings Release" which disclosed
an SEC inquiry into its accounting practices. Once this news was
revealed, Nash Finch's stock collapsed to $7.60 before closing at
$8.18, some 70% below the class period high of $28.85. It was also
noted in November 2002, that Nash Finch's former CFO had sued the
Company claiming he was fired in 2000 for refusing to manipulate Nash
Finch's reported financial results.


For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield by Phone: 888-253-5139
or 651-227-9990 by Fax: 651-297-6543 by E-mail:
g.blanchfield@ralawfirm.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ralawfirm.com.  


OM GROUP: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of
purchasers of OM Group Inc. (NYSE:OMG) publicly traded securities
during the period between July 30, 2002 and Oct. 30, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. OM
Group produces and markets metal-based specialty chemicals and related
materials.  Certain of the Company's products are value-added and some
are commodity.

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

On September 19,2002, the Company warned the 3rdQ 02 results would be
slightly lower than prior statements, but that results would still be
significantly higher than in the prior year.  Then, on October 29,2002,
the Company announced a huge loss, an inventory write-down and a future
restructuring.  Company stock dropped to as low as $8.60 per share on
volume of $22 million shares.

Later, on October 31,2002, it was disclosed that OM Group's Chief
Executive Officer had sold all his holdings to cover a margin call on
some 710,000 shares on OM Group stock which he had used as collateral
for a huge loan.  On this news, the stock dropped even further to as
low as $6.12 per share.

For more details, contact David R. Scott by Phone: 800/404-7770 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.scott-scott.com


RETEK INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Retek Inc. (Nasdaq: RETK)
securities during the period between October 17, 2001 and July 8, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a leading provider of software solutions and services to the
retail industry.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact William Lerach, or Darren Robbins by Phone:
1-800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com/cases/retekinc
                  

SEARS ROEBUCK: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Sears, Roebuck & Co. [NYSE: S] between January 17, 2002 and October
17, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

During the class period, the defendants materially mislead the
investing public, thereby inflating the price of the Company's common
stock, by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting
to disclose material facts necessary to make the defendants statements
not false and misleading.

The defendants statements were false and misleading by overstating the
profitability of the Company credit business, by:

     (1) under-reserving for uncollectible accounts;

     (2) falsely stating the allowance for uncollectible debts was
         adequate;

     (3) falsely describing the strength and future prospects of growth
         of its credit business;

     (4) falsely stating the risk of the credit business, including the
         delinquency rate;

     (5) falsely stating the reasons for and circumstances of Kevin
         Keleghan's firing; and

     (6) making false statements to hide the deterioration of credit
         risk during the class period.

In response to the revelations in a press release and a subsequent
meeting with analysts, the price of Company stock plummeted, falling
from a close of $33.95 per share on October 16, 2002 to close at $23.15
on October 17, 2002, on more than 36 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, Gregory
Nespole, David L. Wales, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or
by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to Sears.


SMARTFORCE PLC: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in NH Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action filed against Smartforce PLC d.b.a. Skillsoft PLC
(Nasdaq:SKIL), accusing the educational software company of defrauding
shareholders, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from
January 18, 2000 through November 18, 2002 including:

     (1) all purchasers of the Company's American Depository Shares
         (ADS) from January 18, 2000, through September 6, 2002,
         trading under the Nasdaq ticker symbol SMTF;

     (2) all persons who acquired Smartforce PLC's ADSs as part of the
         merger between Smartforce PLC and Skillsoft Corporation
         completed on or around September 6, 2002; and

     (3) all purchasers of Smartforce PLC's ADSs after September 6,
         2002, when the company began doing business as "Skillsoft" and
         trading under the Nasdaq ticker symbols SKILD or SKIL.

The lawsuit claims that the Company issued false and misleading
financial statements about it based on accounting gimmickry that
improperly inflated the company's reported revenues and earnings.

On November 19, 2002, two months after completing its merger with
Smartforce, Skillsoft stunned investors by revealing that the company
intended to delay its third quarter report for 2002 and restate its
financial statements for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and for the first
half of 2002.

According to the complaint, both the delay and the restatements were
prompted by Skillsoft's discovery of numerous accounting improprieties
that had occurred at its merger partner Smartforce.  The irregularities
include the premature recognition of revenue and failure to properly
account for bad debt.  On the day of these disclosures, Skillsoft stock
dropped 33% to $1.57 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Patrick T. Egan or Bryan A. Wood by Mail: One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or
(617) 542-8300 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.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  * * *