CAR_Public/021211.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Wednesday, December 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 245

                           Headlines                            

AVANTGO INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask TX State Court To Certify Lawsuit
CANADA: Ontario Judge Okays Lawsuit By Gays Seeking Pension Benefits
COLUMBIA ENERGY: Class Certification Discovery Starts in Royalties Suit
CROWLEY MARITIME: Reaches Settlement in Securities Lawsuit in CA Court

FLUOR CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
FANNIE MAE: Suit Asserts Underwriting System Biased Against Minorities
GEORGIA: Remains In Grave Desecration Case Both Human, Legal Concern
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Share Rights Plan
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: NV Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Distributors' Lawsuit
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lawsuits May Expose Firm's Internal Strife
MASTERCARD INC.: Trial in Retailer Antitrust Suit Set April 2003 in NY
NAHC INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit

PHOENIX HOME: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Suit V. Reorganization

                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AES CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in Ohio
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CAPRIUS INC.: Lowenstein Sandler Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CIGNA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA

COLE NATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in Ohio
COLE NATIONAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
CREDIT SUISSE: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
FOOTSTAR INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
H&R BLOCK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

OM GROUP: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
RETEK INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Goodkind Labaton Seeks Lead Plaintiff Position in Suit
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Suit in CA

UNAPIX ENTERTAINMENT: Katzman Wasserman Launches Securities Suit in FL

                           *********

AVANTGO INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Avantgo, Inc.'s officers and directors as defendants from the
consolidated securities class action pending on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from September 27,2000 to December 6,2000.

The suit initially named as defendants the Company, certain of the
Company's officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.  The complaint alleges that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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

Over 300 companies involved in an initial public offering have been
named as defendants in nearly identical lawsuits filed by some of the
same plaintiffs' law firms.  A motion to dismiss addressing issues
common to the companies and individuals who have been sued in these
actions was filed on July 15, 2002.  The court has not yet ruled on
this motion.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants from
the case without prejudice based upon stipulations of dismissal filed
by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.  The Company believes
it has meritorious defenses against these allegations. However, due to
inherent uncertainties in litigation, management cannot predict
accurately the ultimate outcome of the litigation.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask TX State Court To Certify Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the state class action filed against Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company asked the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th
Judicial District) to certify the suit as a class action.  

The suit was filed with respect to a special dividend was paid in 1988
by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor, Santa
Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP) and alleges breach of contract,
negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint alleges that SFSP erroneously informed shareholders as to
the tax treatment of the dividend specifically, the apportionment of
the dividend as either a distribution of earnings and profits or a
return of capital, which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay
their income taxes.

During the third quarter 2002, the plaintiffs provided their expert's
report that asserted for the first time that SFSP had essentially no
accumulated earnings and profits and that the entire dividend
distribution should have been treated as a return of capital, rather
than the approximately 34% that SFSP determined was a return of
capital.

Plaintiffs have a motion pending to certify a class of former SFSP
shareholders, which BNSF Railway has opposed, but a decision on class
certification issues is not expected until early 2003.  The Company
believes these claims lack merit and that it has substantial defenses
on both the merits of these claims and the attempted class action.


CANADA: Ontario Judge Okays Lawsuit By Gays Seeking Pension Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action can proceed on behalf of homosexuals denied
survivor pension benefits from the government after their partners
died, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity said a 2,000-member
British Columbia class-action lawsuit can join a similar lawsuit
representing about 8,000 people across the country.  Quebec is the only
province not represented in the lawsuit, because it operates a separate
pension plan.  The plaintiffs seek more than $260 million in pension
benefits.

"I am elated and delighted," said 75-year-old George Hislop, the lead
plaintiff in the case.   Mr. Hislop had a 28-year relationship with his
partner, who died in 1986.  Mr. Hislop will collect $55,100 if the
lawsuit succeeds.

The lawsuit, launched in Toronto last year, alleges discrimination
against same-sex couples by denying benefits to homosexuals whose
partners died before January 1, 1998.  The federal government imposed
the 1998 cutoff date when it granted various rights to same-sex couples
in 2000.

The lawsuit seeks benefits retroactive to 1985, when equality
guarantees were included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.  Such an interpretation of the Charter would set aside the
1998 cutoff as unlawful.


COLUMBIA ENERGY: Class Certification Discovery Starts in Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery regarding class certification of a lawsuit filed against
Columbia Energy Group, Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. (Columbia
Natural Resources) and Columbia Transmission is commencing in New York
State Court.

The complaint alleges that lead plaintiff Victoria Kershaw owns an
interest in an oil and gas lease in New York and that the defendants
have underpaid royalties on the lease by, among other things, failing
to base royalties on the price at which natural gas is sold to the end
user and by improperly deducting post-production costs.  The complaint
also seeks class action status on behalf of all royalty owners in oil
and gas leases operated by Columbia Natural Resources.

Columbia Natural Resources and Columbia Transmission removed the case
to federal court in March 2000.  The federal court remanded the suit
back to New York state court.  The Columbia defendants' motion to
dismiss was partially granted and partially denied by the New York
state court judge.  The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiffs'
complaint.


CROWLEY MARITIME: Reaches Settlement in Securities Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corporation settled the class action filed against it
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda on behalf of Dennis Wood and a class alleged to consist of
certain holders of the Company's common stock.  

The complaint named the Company and each member of its board of
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants undertook certain actions to avoid subjecting the Company to
public reporting requirements and caused shares of the Company's common
stock to be purchased and sold at artificially low prices in connection
with the Company's tender offer announced on April 16, 2001.  The
plaintiff originally asserted causes of action for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants subsequently answered the complaint and moved to dismiss
the breach of contract claim on the grounds that, based on the facts of
the case, the plaintiff could not properly allege such a claim as a
matter of law.  The court dismissed the breach of contract claim
without leave to amend.

On May 24, 2002, a hearing was held on plaintiff's motion to certify
this case as a class action.  On June 10, 2002, the court denied
plaintiff's motion seeking to certify this case as a class action.  The
parties began settlement negotiations.  On October 4, 2002, the entire
matter was settled and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  
Neither the Company nor any members of the Board of Directors paid any
damages or other amounts to the plaintiff.


FLUOR CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action pending against
Fluor Corporation and certain of its officers and directors appealed
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California's dismissal of the suit with prejudice.

The suit alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by providing false or
misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects.  
These complaints purport to be class action complaints brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from May
22, 1996 through February 18, 1997.

The Company's initial motion to dismiss the action was granted by the
court with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and the company moved the court to dismiss the new amended
complaint.  The court has now granted the Company's motion and
dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July 10, 2002.


FANNIE MAE: Suit Asserts Underwriting System Biased Against Minorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action against Fannie-Mae's automated-underwriting
system was filed recently in federal court by a black homeowner, who
raises the issue, whether black, Hispanic  and other minority home
buyers, get fair treatment when their mortgage applications are
underwritten by computers instead of humans, according to a report by
the Orlando Sentinel.

Safiyyah Rahmaan of Wilson, North Carolina, a black homeowner, said in
a national class action filed in federal court, that the banks where
she applied for a $95,000 mortgage ran her application through Fannie
Mae's "Desktop Underwriting" system and turned her down.  The reason
for the rejections, she charged, is that the system itself is biased
against minorities.

"The (electronic) model used by Fannie Mae," alleges Ms. Rahmaan in her
lawsuit, "is inherently discriminatory" against African-Americans and
other minorities, and "has a profoundly disparate impact" on them.

Fannie Mae vigorously disputed Ms. Rahmaan's allegations and has asked
the court to dismiss the class action.  A decision is expected early
next year.  A similar lawsuit challenging Freddie Mac's electronic
system is expected to be filed soon.

The theory behind the litigation, wrote Kenneth R. Harney of the
Washington Post Writers Group, as presented in the Orlando Sentinel, is
that the complex statistical formulations, embedded in all electronic-
underwriting systems, use financial and credit behavioral data obtained
primarily from white consumers.  Non-white and immigrant community
consumers, by contrast, often show distinctive patterns in banking and
credit uses that are not evaluated fairly by electronic underwriting.

For instance, wrote Mr. Harney, some cultural groups have long
traditions of avoiding established banking and financial institutions,
relying instead on family or community resources.  Such practices,
however, tend to be penalized by risk-evaluation systems that are
loaded with credit card and banking data predominantly from white
customers.  Since the advent of electronic underwriting in the mid-to-
late-1990s, no comprehensive statistical study has been published on
the bias issue.

However, a new paper, Mr. Harney wrote, published by three researchers,
a professor at George Washington University and two Freddie Mac
economists, suggests that automated underwriting programs are more fair
to minority home buyers and lower income mortgage applicants than
traditional "manual" underwriting.

The report appears in the latest issue of Housing Policy Debate, which
is published by the Fannie Mae Foundation.  The study is the first to
examine loan-application and payment-performance data from a major
computerized system.  It involved thousands of borrowers' applications
from the early and mid-1990s until 2001.

By looking at mortgage applications from 1993 to 1995, that were
underwritten manually by loan officers, and then running the same
application data through Freddie Mac's Loan Prospector electronic-under
system, Mr. Harney wrote, the researchers were able to compare
acceptance and non-acceptance rates.  They were also able to determine
which underwriting method more accurately predicted defaults and which
approach approved more loans for minority applicants.

The results are that Freddie Mac's electronic system outperformed human
underwriters in predicting later defaults.  It produced net gains of 29
percent in loan approvals for minority groups and 36 percent for all
low- and moderate-income applicants, when compared with approval rates
by human underwriters in the mid-1990s.

The researchers have said that their study is not the final word
whether the computers treat applicants more fairly than human
underwriters, Mr. Harney reported.  Their conclusions are at the
"macro" level, the big statistical picture, added Mr. Harney, rather
than on a case-by-case basis, such as that raised by Ms. Rahmaan
against Fannie Mae's underwriting system.

The statistical evidence appears to suggest that computerized
underwriting is more inclusive, less biased and more predictive of
defaults than human underwriters.  Better yet, electronic underwriting
appears to put more blacks, Hispanic and other minorities into houses
than the old-fashioned human underwriters do.


GEORGIA: Remains In Grave Desecration Case Both Human, Legal Concern
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For many people this holiday season, grieving over the death of a loved
one is intensified by an element of uncertainty.  In the vicinity of
the Tri-State Crematory, in Noble, Georgia, some 340 dumped corpses
were discovered, bringing to light that the man running the crematory
was accepting money for cremations he never performed, Associated Press
Newswires reports.  Thoughts of pending class actions and pending
criminal action, as well, have been put aside during this, the season-
not-to-be-so-jolly for the families of the deceased.

Forensics experts have been using sophisticated DNA testing to identify
the remains of 195 people, but they now say that they cannot identify
the rest, some 145 people.   Katy Kinlaw, an associate director for the
Center of Ethics at Emory University, said that while holidays
intensify the grief from a death, for families with deceased relatives
unaccounted for, as in the instance of the remains from the Tri-State
Crematory that defy DNA identification, it is "almost like someone
missing in action."

Ray Brent Marsh, 29, was arrested about 10 months ago for allegedly
accepting money for cremations he never performed.  Complete and
partial human remains were found on the crematory property in storage
buildings, burial vaults, pits and a surrounding forest.  Mr. Marsh
remains free on bond awaiting trial on nearly 400 felony charges,
including theft by deception and abuse of a body.   A grand jury may
hear the case in January.

Mr. Marsh also faces numerous civil lawsuits in Georgia, some class
action, and a federal class action in Tennessee.  Mr. Marsh allegedly
stopped performing cremations in 1997, when he took over the family
business from his father.  Investigators have said that Mr. Marsh
sometimes gave funeral homes boxes filled with dirt, cement or crushed
rocks, passing them off as cremated remains.

John Bankhead, spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, said
that investigators were astounded they had identified as many remains
as they did, given their age and the state of decomposition.
Authorities plan to number and bury the unidentified remains when they
find enough cemetery space.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Share Rights Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. will settle two putative class actions
filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada alleging breaches of
fiduciary obligations by the Company's directors and its majority
stockholder.  The lawsuits were filed in connection with the Company's
Preferred Share Purchase Rights Plan, and the rejection of a purported
third party offer to acquire a controlling interest in the Company.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits request:

     (1) an order compelling the defendants to take steps to seek a
         sale of the Company,

     (2) an order enjoining the defendants in office,

     (3) unspecified damages, and

     (4) other relief

The Company has reached a settlement agreement under which it will pay
plaintiff's s legal fees of $190,000. The Company's insurer has agreed
to pay 50% of the settlement amount.  The settlement remains subject to
court approval for which a hearing date has not yet been set.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: NV Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County in the State of Nevada granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action pending against
Herbalife International, Inc., its board of directors, and a former
director.

In April 2002, Harbor Finance Partners, allegedly an Herbalife
stockholder, filed the suit, alleging a claim of breach of fiduciary
duty arising out of the announced merger transaction between Herbalife
and WH Holdings.

The court gave final approval to a settlement on November 1, 2002
providing for the payment of plaintiff's legal fees of $650,000, which
is included in the Company's financial statements.  Payments pursuant
to the settlement were made in early November 2002.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Distributors' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Central District of California to dismiss the class action
filed against, alleging that specified marketing plans employed by the
distributor defendants are illegal, and that the Company has permitted
the use of these marketing plans and/or failed to supervise its
distributors' conduct to prevent violations of law by them.  The
complaint does not challenge the legality of Herbalife's marketing
system.  The complaint seeks to state causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various
state and other federal laws.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and a hearing was held on
November 18, 2002.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the allegations contained in the lawsuit.  However, an adverse result
in this litigation could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition and operating results.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inrange 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 officers,
and the underwriters that participated in the Company's initial public
offering.

The suit alleges, in essence that the underwriters combined and
conspired to increase their respective compensation in connection with
the IPO by:

     (1) receiving excessive, undisclosed commissions in exchange for
         lucrative allocations of IPO shares; and

     (2) trading in the Company's stock after creating artificially
         high prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or
         "laddering" arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations of
         IPO shares agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for
         more than the public offering price for Inrange shares) and
         dissemination of misleading market analysis on the Company's
         prospects; and

The suit further alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by not disclosing these underwriter arrangements in its
prospectus.  

The suit is identical to hundreds of shareholder class actions pending
in the same court in connection with other recent IPOs and is generally
referred to as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation.  
The issuers (including the Company) and the underwriters have filed
motions to dismiss the case in its entirety, which motions are pending
before the court.

At this point, it is too early to form a definitive opinion concerning
the ultimate outcome.  Management believes, after consultation with
legal counsel, that none of these contingencies will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Lawsuits May Expose Firm's Internal Strife
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies was in a downward spiral two summers ago when a top
executive, William O'Shea, sent a memo urging then-Chief Executive
Richard McGinn to rally his demoralized band of officers, The Star-
Ledger (Newark, NJ) reports.

Such a memo is one example of the kind of memos about to be publicly
aired in two anticipated lawsuits.  One lawsuit is being brought by  
Nina Aversano against Lucent.  Ms. Aversano once ran Lucent's North
American sales group.  The second lawsuit is a class action brought by
shareholders who sued while the company's stock was
losing 99 percent of its values.  Exhibits, including e-mails,
depositions and memos, such as the one cited above, paint a company
willing to cut corners to meet aggressive growth targets and willing
also to disparage each other in private.

The sales outlook for communications gear is still bleak, but Lucent is
striving to become profitable again by next September.  The last thing
the company needs, the analysts are saying, is a distraction from the
intense focus on their goal.  A handful of top executives slinging mud
or being hit with it is just such a distraction, The Star-Ledger wrote.

The Aversano lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial January 6, 2003, in
Middlesex County, New Jersey.  The former executive claims she was a
corporate whistleblower forced to resign.  Ms Aversano is seeking
payment of a $2 million compensation package.  No date has been set for
the class-action lawsuit, which will be heard in US District Court in
Newark, New Jersey.  The company and the shareholders are currently in
court-ordered mediation.

Both lawsuits claim that Lucent's leadership misled investors with
fraudulent financial guidance, a charge the company denies.  "We look
forward to having our day in court," said Lucent spokeswoman, Kathy
Fitzgerald.

Ms. Aversano, in her suit to obtain a compensation package, alleges
that when Mr. McGinn, the then-CEO, failed to notify Wall Street of the
seriousness of Lucent's predicament, she urged him to "come clean," and
she was subsequently forced to resign.  "Rich McGinn kept insisting
that even after I told him how bad things were, that should still be
driving towards 15 percent (growth)," Ms. Aversano said in a
deposition.  "This was a man who did not want to accept the truth."

Ms. Aversano negotiated a generous severance package, and Lucent issued
a press release celebrating her achievements.  However, the $2 million
check was held up while Lucent and the Securities and Exchange
Commission looked into accounting irregularities involving credits the
company gave to Winstar Communications, an account Ms. Aversano's unit
handled.

In a deposition, Henry Schacht, who replaced Mr. McGinn as CEO, has
said that he was prepared to release Ms. Aversano's money once she was
cleared of any wrongdoing.  By the time that happened weeks later, Ms.
Aversano already had filed her lawsuit in state Superior Court, and
most of her allegations eventually found their way into an updated
version of the class action.


MASTERCARD INC.: Trial in Retailer Antitrust Suit Set April 2003 in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the retailer class action filed against Mastercard, Inc. and
Visa USA, Inc. by a number of US merchants is set to commence April
28,2003 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Several class actions were commenced in October 1996 by a number of US
merchants, including:

     (1) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

     (2) Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc.,

     (3) The Limited Inc. and

     (4) Safeway, Inc.

The suit challenges certain aspects of the payment card industry under
US federal antitrust law.  The plaintiffs challenge MasterCard's "Honor
All Cards" rule (and a similar Visa rule), which ensures universal
acceptance for consumers by requiring merchants who accept MasterCard
cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card.  
Plaintiffs claim that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully have tied
acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards.

In essence, the merchants desire the ability to reject off-line,
signature-based debit transactions (for example, MasterCard card
transactions) in favor of other payment forms, including on-line, PIN-
based debit transactions (for example, Maestro or regional ATM network
transactions) which generally impose lower transaction costs for
merchants.

The plaintiffs also claim that MasterCard and Visa have conspired to
monopolize what they characterize as the point-of-sale debit card
market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM
payment systems.  Plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff class has been
forced to pay unlawfully high prices for debit and credit card
transactions as a result of the alleged tying arrangement and
monopolization practices.

There are related consumer class actions pending in two state courts
that have been stayed pending developments in this matter.  In
addition, a related case was filed by a merchant in federal district
court in Michigan, alleging antitrust violations arising from a
purported tie of signature-based debit transactions to credit
transactions.

The Company is presently evaluating the procedure to have this case
consolidated with the pending action in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, if possible.  The Company also denies the
merchant allegations and believes that the "Honor All Cards" rule and
MasterCard practices with respect to debit card programs in the United
States are pro-competitive and fully consistent with US federal
antitrust law.

In February 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  MasterCard and Visa subsequently appealed the decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  In October 2001, a three-judge
panel affirmed the lower court decision by a two-to-one majority.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court on April 3, 2002, which was denied on June 6, 2002.  
Motions seeking summary judgment have been filed by both sides and
fully briefed in the district court.  An argument date for summary
judgment has now been set for January 10, 2003 by an order of the
court.


NAHC INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's
dismissal of the securities class action pending against NAHC, Inc. on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
during the period between April 5, 1999 through and including November
22, 1999.

The suit, which names the Company, certain of its directors and
officers and PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the prospects of the Company's business and the Company's
liquidation value and by failing timely to disclose the impact of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on the long term care services business.  
The plaintiffs alleged that these statements and omissions artificially
inflated the value of the Company's stock during the class period.  

The plaintiffs also asserted a violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 against the Company and individual
defendants as well as against Wasserstein Perella & Co. in connection
with the Company's proxy statements dated August 13, 1999, as amended
through September 10, 1999.

The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants were negligent in
disseminating the proxy statements, which allegedly contained
materially false and misleading statements.  

In October 2001, the court dismissed the suit against the Company and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP with prejudice.  On October 3, 2002, the
appeals court affirmed the dismissal.


PHOENIX HOME: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Suit V. Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action pending against Phoenix Home Life Mutual
Insurance Co. intend to appeal the Supreme Court of the State of New
York for New York County's dismissal of the suit.

The suit seeks to challenge the Company's reorganization and the
adequacy of the information provided to policyholders regarding the
plan of reorganization.  The plaintiff seeks to maintain a class action
on behalf of a putative class consisting of the eligible policyholders
of the Company as of December 18, 2000, the date the plan of
reorganization was adopted.  The plaintiff also seeks compensatory
damages for losses allegedly sustained by the class as a result of the
demutualization, punitive damages and other relief.

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Company, its directors,
as well as Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, financial advisor to
Phoenix Life in connection with the plan of reorganization.

A motion to dismiss the claims asserted in this lawsuit has been
granted.  The Company believes that the suit lacks merit.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AES CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of AES
Corporation. (NYSE: AES) from April 26, 2001 through February 14, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that AES, a global energy and utility company, and
certain of its officers and directors issued materially misleading
statements concerning AES's business condition.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that the United Kingdom had adopted a new
framework for the pricing of energy that undermined AES's ability to
achieve profitability in its United Kingdom activities, and that the
Company lacked adequate long-term contracts to avoid a rapid decline in
its United Kingdom operations.

Defendants also touted AES's United Kingdom operations as profitable
while the adoption of NETA (New Energy Arrangements) in the United
Kingdom caused AES's Fifoots utility operations to operate at a loss.  
For the first quarter of 2001, Fifoots had an after tax loss of $11
million.  On February 14, 2002, the Company announced that it had
ceased operations at its Fifoots Point Power station in the United
Kingdom because of sliding wholesale electric prices. On this news, the
stock price plummeted over 25% from $9.50 on February 14, 2002 to $7.00
on February 15, 2002.

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


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE: AEP) from May 17, 1999
through October 9, 2002, inclusive.  Also included are those who
acquired shares through the acquisition of Central & Southwest Corp.

The suit alleges that AEP, a public utility holding company that
directly or indirectly owns domestic electric utility subsidiaries, and
certain of its officers and directors and three underwriters violated
the federal securities law by issuing materially false and misleading
statements.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that AEP's trading operations were
in disarray and its management controls left the Company at risk of
contingent legal liabilities arising our of the actions of its electric
power traders.  AEP, after first denying that it had engaged in
activities referred to as "wash" or "round-trip" trading later admitted
to engaging in such trades.

On August 30, 2002 AEP revealed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission had initiated an informal inquiry into its trading practices
and on October 9, 2002 the Company disclosed that it had fired five
employees for reporting inaccurate price information.  On this news,
AEP's shares tumbled to $15.10 per share.  During the class period the
shares traded as high as $48.90.

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


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Answerthink, Inc.
(NYSE: ANSR) securities (the "Class") between October 17, 2000 through
April 25, 2002.

During the class period, defendants issues a series of false and
misleading statements announcing "record" financial results. In
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
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.

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.  Answerthink investors who purchased
or acquired securities 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 Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Phone: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-mail: ANSR@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  


CAPRIUS INC.: Lowenstein Sandler Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowenstein Sandler, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Caprius, Inc. (OTC BB: CAPR.OB) between
February 14, 2000 and June 25, 2002, inclusive in the United States
District Court for New Jersey.

The suit alleges, among other things, violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and its top two officers, defendants George Aaron
and Jonathon Joels.

According to the suit, the individual defendants first devised a
fraudulent plan and scheme by which they sought to obtain control of
Caprius.  In May 1999, the individuals defendants proposed a merger
transaction to Caprius' Board of Directors and executive officers.

On June 28, 1999, Caprius consummated a merger through which the
individual defendants acquired 45.6% ownership of Caprius -- equivalent
to 6,178,978 million shares of Caprius' common stock.  The suit alleges
that once they gained control of Caprius, the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Caprius and its shareholders by
disseminating false and misleading statements concerning Caprius'
business, operations, and financial results for fiscal 1999, 2000,
2001, and portions of fiscal 2002.

The Complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants:

     (1) made misrepresentations to the Board and its officers in
         connection with Caprius' June 1999 merger with Opus
         Diagnostics, Inc. (Opus);

     (2) misrepresented to the Board and its officers that the I
         individual defendants were in a financial position to and
         would in fact consummate -- pre-merger the asset purchase
         called for in the merger agreement, would invest $1 million of
         their personal capital into the merged entity

     (3) exploited Caprius' resources by using Caprius' personnel,
         office space, and assets to run their private business, the
         Portman Group;

     (4) diverted Caprius' assets to their personal use by using
         Caprius' funds to consummate -- post-merger -- the asset
         purchase; causing Caprius to enter into a series of
         transactions designed to dilute public ownership in Caprius
         securities;

     (5) gouged Caprius' resources by spending substantial time
         pursuing unrelated, personal business interests while
         receiving a salary from Caprius;

     (6) deceived Caprius' Board and its officers into consummating the
         merger, resulting in business losses and consequential
         damages; and

     (7) breached their fiduciary duty to Caprius and its shareholders
         by subordinating the rights and interests of Caprius'
         shareholders to their own; depleting the assets of Caprius,
         increasing Caprius' debt, thereby diluting the value of
         Caprius securities; causing Caprius to borrow money to cover
         debt that the Individual Defendants unnecessarily created; and
         borrowing money on preferential terms to the lenders.

Because of the Individual Defendants' fraudulent practices, Caprius'
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period.  
Further, due to these practices, Caprius' stock price steadily declined
to its current price of $0.09 per share, since reaching a high price of
$1.12 per share in February 2000.

As alleged in the suit, the intentional or reckless misconduct of the
Individual Defendants has severely damaged Caprius and its
shareholders.

For more details, contact R. Scott Thompson by Mail: 65 Livingston
Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 by Phone: (973) 597-2500 by Fax:
(973) 597-2400 by E-mail: sthompson@lowenstein.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.lowenstein.com  


CIGNA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired CIGNA
Corp. (NYSE:CI) common stock between May 2, 2001 and October 24, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between May 2, 2001 to October 24, 2002.  The
complaint alleges that defendants issued press releases announcing
CIGNA's quarterly and annual results of operations and filed reports
with the SEC, which reported its financial performance, seemingly
impressive earnings growth and represented that operating income in
2002 was expected to be $1.1 billion.

The suit further alleges that the Company's representations issued
during the class period were materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose that CIGNA had failed to adequately
reserve (by at least hundreds of millions of dollars) for its
obligations under the GMDB reinsurance that it had provided, thereby
artificially inflating its earnings, net worth and its income.

In addition, during the class period, CIGNA issued purported risk
disclosures that were materially false and misleading in and of
themselves as they failed to disclose the existence and magnitude of
Company's risk exposure in providing the GMDB reinsurance, and instead,
represented that its reinsurance obligations generally were not
expected to have a materially negative impact on CIGNA's liquidity.

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: CI@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  


COLE NATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Ohio, Eastern Division
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Cole National
Corporation (NYSE: CNJ) between March 23, 1999, through and including
November 26, 2002, inclusive.

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

     (1) that the Company's revenues from optical warranties and net
         income for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and for the two quarters of
         2002 have been seriously overstated;

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

     (3) despite Cole National's representations to the contrary, the
         Company's Class Period financial statements did not comply
         with GAAP, causing Cole National to investigate and consider
         restating its financial statements.

On November 26, 2002, the Company shocked the market and revealed that:

     (i) the Company would conduct a re-audit of the financial
         statements for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
         previously audited by Arthur Andersen LLP;

    (ii) re-audits would likely result in the restatement of the
         Company's financial statements;

   (iii) the Company was advised to recognize the revenues earned on
         the sale of the optical warranties at the time of sale; and

    (iv) as a result of these adjustments, material changes are likely
         in the timing of the recognition of the revenue and operating
         profits associated with these sales, in current and prior
         balance sheets relating to deferred revenue and shareholder's
         equity.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


COLE NATIONAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Cole National Corporation
(NYSE: CNJ) publicly traded securities during the period between March
23, 1999 and November 26, 2002, inclusive.

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

     (1) that the Company's revenues from optical warranties and net
         income for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and for the two quarters of
         2002 have been seriously overstated;

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

     (3) despite Cole National's representations to the contrary, the
         Company's Class Period financial statements did not comply
         with GAAP, causing Cole National to investigate and consider
         restating its financial statements.

On November 26, 2002, the Company shocked the market and revealed that:

     (i) the Company would conduct a re-audit of the financial
         statements for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002
         previously audited by Arthur Andersen LLP;

    (ii) re-audits would likely result in the restatement of the
         Company's financial statements;

   (iii) the Company was advised to recognize the revenues earned on
         the sale of the optical warranties at the time of sale; and

    (iv) as a result of these adjustments, material changes are likely
         in the timing of the recognition of the revenue and operating
         profits associated with these sales, in current and prior
         balance sheets relating to deferred revenue and shareholders'
         equity.

Further, the Company reported that the filing of its Form 10-Q for the
third quarter of 2002 will be delayed and most likely the required
restatements will be available at the time of the filing of its Form
10-K for its fiscal year ending February 1, 2003. The Company also
stated that the investors should not rely on its previous financial
statements.

In response to the news that Cole National's previously-reported
financial results may not in fact be what they seemed (an accurate
financial summary of the Company's operations), the Company's shares
fell $1.25 or approximately 10% per share to close at $11.09 on
November 26, 2002.

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action
against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of AOL Time
Warner, Inc, formerly America Online, Inc. (NYSE:AOL) between January
16, 2001 and September 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendant CSFB violated the federal
securities laws by issuing analyst reports regarding AOL that
recommended the purchase of AOL common stock and which set price
targets for AOL common stock, without any reasonable factual basis.

The complaint further alleges, among other things, that when issuing
its AOL analyst reports, defendant CSFB failed to disclose material,
non-public, adverse information which it possessed about AOL.  
Throughout the class period, CSFB maintained positive recommendation on
AOL in order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for CSFB.

The class period begins on January 16, 2001 at which time CSFB
maintained a "BUY" rating for AOL common stock, and ends on September
3, 2002, the date CSFB belatedly downgraded AOL to a "RESTRICTIVE"
rating.  As a result of CSFB's false and misleading analyst reports,
AOL common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during the
class period.

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: (612) 339-6900
or by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com  


FOOTSTAR INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Footstar, Inc. (NYSE:FTS)
between February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA 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


H&R BLOCK: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of H&R
Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) between November 8, 1997 and November 1, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Mark A. Ernst,

     (2) Frank J. Cotroneo,

     (3) Frank L. Salizzoni,

     (4) Matthew A. Engel,

     (5) Cheryl L. Givens,

     (6) Ozzie Wenich, and

     (7) Patrick D. Petrie

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 during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price
of Company securities.

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


OM GROUP: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 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) common stock during
the period between April 25, 2002 and October 30, 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.  The Company produces and markets
metal-based specialty chemicals and related materials.  Certain of the
Company's products are value- added and some are commodity.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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 the
Company's Chief Executive Officer had sold all his holdings to cover a
margin call on some 710,000 shares on Company 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 Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: (612) 339-6900
by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com  


RETEK INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Retek, Inc.
(Nasdaq: RETK) between October 17, 2001 and July 8, 2002, inclusive
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the representations and statements made by the
defendants during the class period were materially false and misleading
when made as they misrepresented and/or omitted one or more of the
following adverse facts which then existed and disclosure of which was
necessary to make the statements not false and/or misleading including,
but not limited to:

     (1) Retek had more than $40 million in undisclosed deferred or
         delayed customer orders and contracts, which were material to
         the Company's results of operations and financial condition.
         To conceal the true status of these orders and contracts,
         Retek manipulated quarterly and annual financial statements
         and results of operations by, e.g., not itemizing quarterly
         bookings of software and license agreements, and spreading
         over several quarters revenues from large software and license
         agreements;

     (2) Retek customers were extending their procurement processes by,
         among other things, asking for pilot projects before signing
         software and license agreements, which they typically had done
         after signing, thereby adding "weeks or months" to a sale;

     (3) Retek was negotiating agreements with employees of existing
         and prospective customers who lacked authority to "close" the
         contracts, materially increasing the prospects of delayed or
         deferred orders and contracts;

     (4) that Retek was experiencing significant problems with Multi
         Asia Inc. (MAI), which would require the Company to reverse
         and restate on its balance sheet $4 million in non-cash
         deferred revenue associated with MAI due to, among other
         things, prematurely shipped product that did not work
         properly; and

     (5) that millions of dollars of the defendants' projections were
         attributable to transactions which defendants knew had little
         chance of ever being consummated.

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


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Goodkind Labaton Seeks Lead Plaintiff Position in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP will file in the United States
District Court for New Jersey a motion to be lead plaintiff in the case
against Schering-Plough Corporation (NYSE: SGP) and other defendants.  
The suits against Schering-Plough Corporation allege it, its CEO
Richard Jay Kogan and Putnam Investment Management, LLC failed to
advise all Company shareholders of materially adverse information
concerning the company's predicted earnings.

The complaints allege that between October 1, 2002, and October 3,
2002, the Company informed Putnam Investment Management, LLC and
certain analysts that the Company's 2003 and 2004 earnings would be far
below expectations but failed to pass this information to other
shareholders until late in the evening of October 3, 2002.

While in possession of the adverse information, and before the same
information was made public, Putnam Investment Management, LLC and
others sold significant quantities of their Schering-Plough shares.
When Schering-Plough finally informed the public of the adverse
information the price of Schering-Plough shares fell significantly
causing harm to the proposed class.

For more details, contact Henry J. Young or Thomas A. Dubbs by Mail:
1000 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017-5563 by Phone:
212-907-0700 by E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.glrslaw.com  


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased
the common shares of SeaChange International, Inc. (Nasdaq:SEAC) in or
traceable to the offering conducted by SeaChange on or about January
29, 2002.  The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors and the lead underwriters of the Offering.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading prospectus on or about January 29, 2002
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

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 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.pivenlaw.com


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Syncor International Corporation.
(Nasdaq:SCOR) between April 24, 2000 and November 5, 2002 against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
trumpeting significant sales growth in the Company's international
business.

Unbeknownst to the investing public, however, the Company's success
during the class period resulted from the making of illegal payments to
Syncor's overseas customers by the Company's Chairman of the Board and
the director of its Asian division.  Before the market opened on
November 6, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it
was conducting an internal investigation into illegal payments to its
overseas customers and had contacted the Justice Department and the
Securities Exchange Commission, and that its previously announced
acquisition by Cardinal Health, Inc. was in doubt.

As a result of this news, Syncor's stock price dropped sharply in pre-
market trading to $22.50 per share, down $13.42 per share from its
previous closing price of $35.92, and NASDAQ halted trading of Syncor's
stock pending a satisfactory response to its request for additional
information from the Company.

During the class period, the suit explains, the stock was trading at an
artificially inflated price.  As a result of this inflation, defendants
were able to sell 333,500 shares of their Syncor stock for proceeds of
$8.56 million.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 23000, Atlanta Georgia 30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999
(toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


UNAPIX ENTERTAINMENT: Katzman Wasserman Launches Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Katzman Wasserman & Bennardini, PA initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Unapix Entertainment, Inc.
(AMEX:UPX) between June 9, 2000 and November 20, 2000, inclusive.  The
defendants in this lawsuit are Herbert M. Pearlman and David A.
Dreilinger, the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Chief
Executive Officer and Director, respectively, of the Company.  The
lawsuit was filed on September 9, 2002 before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of misrepresentations to the open
market during the class period concerning the valuation of one of
Unapix's primary assets: its film and television library.

Specifically, the defendants overstated the value of Unapix's film and
television library by at least $51.1 million in order to artificially
inflate the market price of Unapix.  The defendants' misrepresentations
artificially inflated the value of Unapix stock by a maximum of 50
cents per share during the class period; an increase of nearly 35% from
one day prior to the start of the class period.

At the time the defendants made these misrepresentations, Unapix had
overdrawn its credit by $1,176,000, and was in dire financial straits.
These misrepresentations were made in order to allow the Defendants to
increase the value of their personally-held Unapix shares, keep a
financially-troubled Unapix in business so that the Defendants could
continue to receive their excessive level of executive compensation,
and induce potential investors to provide much-needed financing. These
misrepresentations almost caused a company named H5B5 Media AG, Munich
to invest $4 million in Unapix. Ultimately, however, it did not do so.

On November 21, 2000, the American Stock Exchange halted the trading of
Unapix stock. On November 28, 2000, Unapix filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

For more details, contact Steven M. Katzman or Craig A. Rubinstein by
Phone: 561/477-7774 by Fax: 561/477-7447 by E-mail: smk@kwblaw.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  * * *