CAR_Public/021223.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Monday, December 23, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 253

                           Headlines                            

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Video Game Suit
CALICO COMMERCE: Defendants Ask For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
CASELLA WASTE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Agreement To Settle California Overtime Wage Suit
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: To Ask For Dismissal of TX Securities Fraud Suit

DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Derivative Suit Proceedings Stayed Pending Report
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Appeals Court Reverses NH Securities Suit Dismissal
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NH Court
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Proceedings in Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit Sought

EQUINIX INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
FINITY HOLDINGS: CA Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
GEORGIA: Witness Testifies Tri-State Crematory Well Run Before 1996
HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: States Approve $484M Accord to Consumer Suit

IRVINE SENSORS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in C.D. CA
KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Over Alleged Defective Brakes Gets Class Status
MAKITA USA: Voluntarily Recalls 180,000 Circular Saws For Injury Hazard
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Recalls 24,000 Electric Grinders For Injury Hazard
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA

PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Settlement of Securities Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Final
PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for CA Overtime Wage Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: To Oppose Certification of Listeriosis Outbreak Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Overtime Wage Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Asks For Dismissal of Suit For Packers Act Violations

RAMBUS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
RAMBUS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Lawsuit in CA State Court
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Senior Citizens Commence Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
UTAH: Inmates' Suit Opposes Salt Lake Jail's Policy For DNA Test Fees

WALT DISNEY: Plaintiffs Ask For Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suit
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in ERISA Suit Set June 2004 in Iowa Court

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ANNUITY AND LIFE: Caldwell & Associates Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
CYTYC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in MA Court
SPIEGEL INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

                           *********

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Video Game Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Acclaim Entertainment and other
companies in the entertainment industry have appealed the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado's dismissal of the suit,
which was filed on behalf of all persons killed or injured by the
shootings which occurred at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the video game defendants negligently caused
injury to the plaintiffs as a result of their distribution of
unidentified "violent" video games, which induced two minors to kill a
teacher related to the plaintiff and to kill or harm their high school
classmates, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs.  The complaint
seeks:

     (1) compensatory damages in an amount not less than $15,000 for
         each plaintiff in the class, but up to $20 million for some of
         the members of the class;

     (2) punitive damages in the amount of $5 billion;

     (3) statutory damages against certain other defendants in the
         action; and

     (4) equitable relief to address the marketing and distribution of
         "violent" video games to children

The court dismissed the suit in March 2002.  Following dismissal, the
plaintiffs moved for relief and the federal court denied the relief
sought by plaintiff.


CALICO COMMERCE: Defendants Ask For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
heard the motions to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Calico Commerce, Inc. and:

     (1) Alan Naumann, CEO,

     (2) Art Knapp, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) William Unger, director,

     (4) Bernard LaCroute, director, and

     (5) William Paseman, former director

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the investment banks which
underwrote the Company's initial public offering of securities, and
others, received commissions and made agreements which were not
disclosed, but should have been disclosed in the initial public
offering prospectus, and which affected the price of Company
securities.

Plaintiffs attempt to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the
Securities Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York, together with more than one thousand actions
making virtually identical allegations against the same and additional
investment banks, approximately 350 other issuers of securities which
conducted initial public offerings in 1998-2000, and numerous
individuals associated with such issuers.

No specific amount of damages is sought against the Company defendants
in the litigation, and no time has been set for the Company defendants
to respond to the complaints.  The Company believes that the
allegations in the litigation are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation. The Company is now awaiting the
outcome of the motion to dismiss.  The court has not provided any
indication with regard to when it intends to render a decision.


CASELLA WASTE: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. reached a settlement with plaintiffs in the
securities class actions filed in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey on behalf of all shareholders who purchased KTI
common stock from August 15, 1998 through April 14, 1999.  The Company
had earlier acquired KTI.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) KTI,

     (2) Ross Pirasteh,

     (3) Martin J. Sergi, and

     (4) Paul A. Garrett

The complaint alleged that the defendants made unspecified
misrepresentations regarding the Company's financial condition during
the class period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

At a settlement conference held on September 27, 2002 the parties
reached an agreement, which requires the defendants to pay $3.8 million
in return for a full release.  The Company's share of the settlement
amount is $150,000.  Insurers will pay the remainder.  Final settlement
is pending court approval.


CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Agreement To Settle California Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the class action filed
on behalf of the Company's assistant store managers, sales associates
and hourly employees in California from September 21,1997 to the
present, in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange.

The amended complaint alleged that the Company failed to pay overtime
wages and failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods.  The action
sought "class action" status and sought unspecified monetary damages.  
Following preliminary settlement discussions, the parties attended a
mediation on October 14, 2002, at which the parties reached a
settlement on a class-wide basis.  

The parties are in the process of preparing the settlement documents
and intend to diligently pursue final approval of the agreement with
the court.  The settlement agreement, which is not expected to have a
material impact on the Company's financial statements, will recognize
that the Company continues to deny that it has engaged in any unlawful
behavior.  

The proposed settlement must first be submitted to the court for
preliminary approval.  Following such approval, a notice to the class
of the settlement must be provided, giving class members the right to
opt out.  After the expiration of the opt-out period, the court will be
asked to provide final approval of the settlement.  This entire process
is expected to take a number of months to complete.


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: To Ask For Dismissal of TX Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq International, Inc. intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the securities
class action pending against it and two of its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws and regulations.

The putative class covers those persons who purchased the Company's
shares between November 29, 1999 and January 16, 2002.  The suit
alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues and
receivables and regarding whether the Company's operations complied
with various federal regulations.

These actions are at an early stage, and no discovery has taken place
at this time.  The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Derivative Suit Proceedings Stayed Pending Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas stayed proceedings in
the shareholder derivative suit filed against Dynacq International,
Inc. pending the report by the Company's Special Litigation Committee.

In March 2002, the Company accepted service of a shareholder derivative
action brought in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas
brought on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors,
outside auditor, and investment bank, and two analysts affiliated with
that investment bank.  The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of
contract.

Plaintiff makes general allegations of the defendants' alleged
misconduct in:

     (1) causing or allowing the Company to conduct its business in an
         unsafe, imprudent and unlawful manner;

     (2) failing to implement and maintain an adequate internal control
         system; and

     (3) exposing the Company to enormous losses," including
         allegations that various press releases and/or public
         statements issued between January 1999 and January 2002
         were misleading

Plaintiffs further allege sales by Company insiders while in possession
of material non-public information.  The plaintiffs made no demand on
either the Company or its Board of Directors prior to filing suit.

A separate action was brought in United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas making similar allegations in federal court
against only officers and directors of the Company.  The plaintiff in
this action also did not make a demand on the Company prior to filing
suit.  Another derivative suit making similar allegations was filed in
the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.  However, at the
plaintiff's request, the court dismissed that action.

The Board of Directors has appointed a Special Litigation Committee to
conduct an investigation and make a determination as to how the Company
should proceed on the claims asserted in the shareholder derivative
actions.  On October 7, 2002, the 295th district court stayed the
state-court shareholder derivative case for 60 days pending the Special
Litigation Committee's investigation.  On November 12, 2002, the
federal district court presiding over the shareholder derivative action
filed there stayed that action pending conclusion of the shareholder
class action lawsuit.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Appeals Court Reverses NH Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of the consolidated securities class action filed against Enterasys
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, alleges that the Company and several of its officers and
directors disseminated materially false and misleading information
about our operations and acted in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act during the period between March 3, 1997 and
December 2, 1997.  The complaint further alleges that certain officers
and directors profited from the dissemination of such misleading
information by selling shares of our common stock during this period.

In a ruling dated May 23, 2001, the court dismissed this complaint with
prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed. In a ruling issued on
November 12, 2002, the appeals court reversed and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.  If plaintiffs prevail on
the merits of the case, the Company could be required to pay
substantial damages.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NH Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.  The suit also names as defendants former chairman
and chief executive officer Enrique Fiallo and former chief
financial officer Robert Gagalis.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that during periods
spanning from as early as August, 2001 through February, 2002,
defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements
and press releases that overstated our revenues, income, and earnings
per share, because the Company purportedly recognized revenue in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the
Company's own accounting policies in connection with transactions in
the Company's Asia Pacific region.

By order of the court, the Company has not yet been required to file a
responsive pleading.  If plaintiffs prevail on the merits of the case,
the Company could be required to pay substantial damages.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Proceedings in Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Rockingham County, State of New Hampshire agreed
to stay proceedings in the shareholder derivative suit filed on
Enterasys Networks, Inc.'s behalf against its former chairman and chief
executive officer and certain members of its Board of Directors.

Plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to shareholders by causing or allowing the Company to
conduct its business in an unsafe, imprudent, and unlawful manner and
failing to implement and maintain an adequate internal accounting
control system.  Plaintiffs allege that this breach caused the Company
to improperly recognize revenue in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) and the Company's own accounting policies
in connection with transactions in the Company's Asia Pacific region,
and that this alleged wrongdoing resulted in damages to the Company.

The defense of these actions may result in the diversion of
management's resources from the operation of the Company's business,
which could impede the Company's ability to achieve its business
objectives.  The unfavorable resolution of any specific action could
materially harm the Company's business, operating results and financial
condition, and could cause the price of the Company's common stock to
decline significantly.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc.'s officers and directors asked the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County to
dismiss the shareholder derivative suit filed on behalf of the Company.  
The suit alleges that the individual defendants:

     (1) permitted wrongful business practices to occur which had the
         effect of manipulating revenues and earnings,

     (2) inadequately supervised the Company's employees and managers,
         and

     (3) failed to institute legal actions against those officers,
         directors and employees responsible for the alleged conduct

The complaint alleges counts for breach of fiduciary duty,
misappropriation of confidential information for personal profit, and
contribution and indemnification.  Plaintiffs seek judgment directing
defendants to account to the Company for all damages sustained by the
Company by reason of the alleged conduct, return all compensation of
whatever kind paid to them by the Company, pay interest on the damages
as well as costs of the action.  The plaintiff has not yet filed
a responsive brief with respect to this motion.


EQUINIX INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed certain of Equinix, Inc.'s officers and directors as
defendants from the securities class action filed against them, the
Company and several investment banks that were underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering, as part of an agreement with the
suit's plaintiffs.

The suit, filed on behalf of investors who purchased Company stock
between August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000, allege 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 in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The
plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading and in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  

The Company states that it is possible that additional similar
complaints may also be filed.  


FINITY HOLDINGS: CA Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the securities
class actions pending against Finity Holdings, Inc, alleging federal
securities violations.

The suit was commenced in July 2000 against the Company and:

     (1) Douglas R. Baetz,

     (2) Glenn M. Gallant,

     (3) Columbia Capital Corp. (the Company's predecessor in
         interest),

     (4) First Independent Computers and

     (5) Does 1-100

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company from January 1, 1998 through and including March 13, 2001, and
alleges:

     (i) violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934,

    (ii) violations of California securities laws,

   (iii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
         Act,

    (iv) fraud, and

     (v) conspiracy

The Company filed a motion in mid-2001 to dismiss the entire case
because the plaintiff's attorneys were not pursuing the case, which the
court granted with prejudice in July 2001.  Pursuant to the terms of
the order, the suit was dismissed with prejudice based upon the failure
to prosecute and plaintiff's inaction and failure to comply with the
court's Order to serve an amended complaint upon the defendants by
March 23, 2001, an earlier Class Action Reporter states.

This would have ended the litigation, except that in early August of
2001, plaintiffs in this case submitted a motion for reconsideration of
the court's ruling.  The court ruled in the Company's favor.  However,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in April 2002 the 9th circuit
Court Of Appeals.

The plaintiff's attorneys then filed a second case following their
failure in the first matter, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California naming as defendants:

     (1) Douglas R. Baetz,

     (2) Glenn M. Gallant,

     (3) Finity Holdings, Inc.,

     (4) Finity Corporation,

     (5) Chuck LaMontagne and

     (6) Kenneth Klotz

The suit is essentially the same case as the first case, with a new
lead plaintiff.  

The Company has not answered the complaint in the case, because it
agreed to settle and avoid prolonged litigation.  There were no
objections to the settlement and no potential class members have opted
out of the settlement.  Douglas R. Baetz and Glenn M. Gallant have not
settled and remain defendants in the action.


GEORGIA: Witness Testifies Tri-State Crematory Well Run Before 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LaShea Marsh, 32, the older sister of defendant Ray Brent Marsh,
recently gave a taped deposition in US District Court during a civil
hearing on the Tri-State Crematory case, to determine whether
plaintiffs, the relatives of the poorly treated bodies at the
crematory, can seek class action status, the Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reports.

Ray Brent Marsh is charged with 338 counts of theft by deception and 64
counts of abuse of a corpse.  Mr. Marsh took over the business from his
father, in 1996, and was operating it when 339 bodies were found, in
February of this year, strewn about and buried on the family's
property, in Noble, Georgia.  There is no evidence that Ms. Marsh was
involved in the felonies that are charged to her brother.

Ms. Marsh described in detail how she performed the cremations, which
she started doing as early as 1986, when her father still operated the
crematory.   Her description reflected that they were performed with
care.  She said, "My father always placed the body in the retort in a
reasonable amount of time after he received it."  Ms. Marsh also said
that her father was a reasonably neat and tidy man, who kept the
property in good shape.  She said she took a group from her church on a
tour of Tri-State sometime before 1996.  Ms. Marsh ceased doing
cremations in 1996.

Donald Guinn, a part-time employee at Wilson Funeral Home in Fort
Oglethorpe, said he had been in Tri-State Crematory five or six times,
from 1992 to 1996, to drop off bodies.  He testified that the cremation
machine was activated every time he was there.  He also said the
crematory was neat and clean, and that the building was in good repair.

This description is a far cry from those presented by plaintiffs' side
the first day of the hearing, which showed pictures, taken in June, of
the place in disrepair, widespread debris and a crematory retort caked
with soot.  The pictures shown by the plaintiffs were taken after the
state had occupied the property for four months, clear-cutting 14 acres
of forest and bulldozing most of the property.


HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. reaches a settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

Several suits was commenced in 2000 after the Company restated its
consolidated financial statements for the first three quarters of
fiscal 1999 and the prior four fiscal years.  The suits assert various
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  On May 15, 2000, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company,
its current and former directors and officers at the time of the
Company's June 1998 initial public offering and three underwriters,
Salomon Smith Barney, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. and Furman Selz, LLC
asserting various claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Motions to dismiss these actions were filed by
the Company and, on September 25, 2001, were denied by the court.

On September 12, 2002, the Company announced that an agreement in
principle to settle the actions described above had been reached. The
settlement requires a payment of $5.75 million ($3.25 million of which
the Company estimates will be funded from amounts remaining under the
Company's director and officer insurance policy after the payment of
litigation expenses) and the assignment to the plaintiff settlement
class of any claims the Company may have had against KPMG Peat Marwick,
LLP, the Company's outside auditors at the time of the March 7, 2000
announcement.  The settlement resolves all claims against the Company,
its current and former defendant officers and directors and the
defendant underwriters.  Based on the foregoing, the Company recorded a
loss contingency of $2.5 million, or $0.22 per share, during the second
quarter of fiscal 2002.  

Before completion of the settlement agreements, plaintiffs' counsel
informed the Company that the plaintiff settlement class had settled
all claims against KPMG, including the claims assigned by the Company.
Amended settlement agreements that added the terms of the KPMG
settlement with the plaintiff settlement class are expected to be filed
in mid December 2002.  The settlement is subject to court approval.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: States Approve $484M Accord to Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have given final approval to
a $484 million settlement with Household International, a lending
company which is accused of duping tens of thousands of poor home
buyers with hidden and unnecessary costs, the Los Angeles Daily News
reports.  Overall, this case presents the largest restitution amount in
a state or federal consumer case, said Thomas Miller, Iowa Attorney
General and lead prosecutor in the case.

A preliminary agreement of the settlement was reached in October after
officials from 19 states and Washington, DC accused the company of
misrepresenting loan terms and keeping cost information from home
buyers.  Many borrowers lost their homes, or nearly lost them because
their monthly payments were higher than expected, the state officials
alleged in the lawsuit.

In the preliminary settlement, the Company did not admit to wrongdoing,
but apologized and agreed to new lending practices and better
monitoring of real estate loans.


IRVINE SENSORS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Irvine
Sensors Corporation filed a consolidated amended suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit
names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and an officer and director of its former
subsidiary Silicon Film Technologies,

The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during the period
January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.  The amended
complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, and seeks damages of an unspecified amount.

There has been no discovery to date and no trial has yet been
scheduled.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
these actions.  Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution
of the claims set forth in the actions could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial
condition.


KIA MOTORS: Lawsuit Over Alleged Defective Brakes Gets Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge said a woman who demanded a refund for her Kia Sephia
automobile after it needed five brake jobs in just 17,000 miles, can
sue the carmaker on behalf of 10,000 Pennsylvanians who bought the same
car, Associated Press Newswires reports.

US District Judge J. Curtis Joyner said the woman, who bought her Kia
in Philadelphia three years ago, had introduced evidence that "a vast
number" of Sephias bought between 1997 and 2001, needed to have their
brake pads and rotors replaced less than every 5,000 miles.  In a
recently signed opinion, Judge Joyner certified the woman as the
lead plaintiff in a class action against Kia Motors America, which
discontinued the Sephia model in 2001.

Judge Joyner's ruling applies only to car owners in Pennsylvania, but
Mr. Feldman said he hopes judges in other states will take note of his
decision.  "We intend to seek relief for every member of the class,"
said Philadelphia attorney Alan M. Feldman, who is representing the
plaintiff Shamell Samuel-Bassett.  "Consumers should have a method for
vindicating their rights when they are sold a defective car."

The lawsuit claims that the Sephia suffers from a defect that causes
its brakes to repeatedly wear out.  Drivers notice the problem when
their brakes begin to shudder, make grinding noises, and, in some
cases, fail entirely, says the lawsuit.  The 2000 Sephia had a base
price of about $13,370, the lawsuit said.  The plaintiffs want the
company to pay for past or future repairs, plus damages to cover the
diminished value of their cars.  The carmaker said it would appeal
Judge Joyner's ruling.


MAKITA USA: Voluntarily Recalls 180,000 Circular Saws For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makita USA, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission, (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 180,000 circular
saws.  The lower blade guard of the saw can become jammed, which can
result in the consumer coming in contact with the blade and suffering a
serious injury.  Makita USA Inc. has not received any reports of
incidents.   This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility
of injuries.
        
The recall involves 7 1/4-inch circular saws with the model number
5740NB.  The model number is located on the silver nameplate next to
the name "Makita."  The saw's housing is blue-green and the name
"Makita" appears on the metal blade guard and silver nameplate on the
motor housing.  The recalled saws were manufactured in China.  
        
Home centers, hardware stores and industrial suppliers nationwide
sold the circular saws from April 1998 to November 2002 for between $99
and $119.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 462-5482 between
8 am and 4:30 pm Monday through Friday.
        

MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Recalls 24,000 Electric Grinders For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 24,000
electric grinders.  The grinder's switch can stick in the "on"
position, which could pose an injury hazard to consumers.  The Company
has received 12 reports of grinder switches sticking in the "on"
position.  No injuries have been reported.
        
The recall includes the 15 Amp grinders that have a seven or nine inch
disc and have the following catalog and serial numbers, which can be
found on a nameplate on the top of the grinder:

     (1) Catalog Number: 6086-20, Serial Numbers: 991A and 991B only,

     (2) Catalog Number: 6088-20, Serial Numbers: Serial Prefix 994A
         and 994B only,

     (3) Catalog Number: 6089-20, Serial Numbers: Serial Prefix 992A

The grinders were manufactured in the United States.  Home centers,
hardware stores and industrial distributors nationwide sold these
grinders from June 2001 through November 2002 for between $165 and
$175.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 414-6527 between
6 am and 6:30 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.heavydutytool.com.   


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against
Network Associates, Inc. and:

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Prabhat Goyal and

     (3) Peter Watkins

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between July 19 and December 26, 2000.  The complaint asserts causes of
action (and seeks unspecified damages) for alleged violations of
Exchange Act Section 10(b)/SEC Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section
20(a).

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues and
earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the Company's class
period financial statements were false and misleading and failed to
comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  
Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's consolidated
complaint on October 29, 2001.  

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on April 16, 2002.  On
April 29, 2002, the court entered an order approving a jointly
stipulated withdrawal of defendants' motion to dismiss.  


PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Settlement of Securities Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the securities class action filed against Pediatric
Services of America, Inc. has become final after no appeal was filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The suit names as defendants the Company and certain of its then
current officers and directors, and alleged that prior to the decline
in the price of the Company's common stock on July 28, 1998, there were
violations of the federal securities laws arising from misstatements of
material information in and/or omissions of material information from
certain of the Company's securities filings and other public
disclosures principally related to its reporting of accounts receivable
and the allowance for doubtful accounts.  The amended complaint
purported to expand the class to include all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from July 29, 1997 through and
including July 29, 1998.  

The Company and the individuals named as defendants moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on both substantive and procedural grounds, but
the court denied the motions.  The Company and the individuals named as
defendants later filed their answer, denying liability.

The court later granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  
Fact discovery was commenced in the suit.  On September 5, 2001,
Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint and to
expand the class period.  The proposed second amended complaint
purported to expand the class to include all persons who purchased the
Company's stock between November 11, 1996 and July 28, 1998.  The court
denied plaintiffs' motion on October 12, 2001.  

In January 2002, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement
settling all claims asserted in the lawsuit against all parties for a
total of $3.2 million, subject to court approval.  On March 14, 2002,
following a hearing on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
proposed settlement, the court entered an order approving the
settlement.  The time for appeal of the settlement order has expired
and no appeal has been taken.


PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Seek Certification for CA Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the overtime wage lawsuit filed against PETCO Animal
Supplies, Inc. asked the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Diego to certify the suit as a class action.

The suit was commenced on behalf of salaried managers or assistant
managers in the Company's stores in the state of California at any time
between July 30, 1997 and the present.  The complaint alleges that the
individual plaintiffs and the purported class members worked hours for
which they were entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime
compensation under California law, and that they were classified as
"exempt" store management employees but were forced to work more than
50% of their time in non-exempt tasks.  The complaint alleges
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending the
action.  A motion for certification of this action as a class action
was filed on November 1, 2002.  The Company has filed its written
opposition to the motion for class certification.  A ruling is expected
within the next 60 days.  If successful, this litigation could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
and any required change in the Company's labor practices could have a
negative impact on its results of operations.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: To Oppose Certification of Listeriosis Outbreak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Wampler Foods, Inc. faces a class
action filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by an individual who allegedly consumed
the Company's meat products.

The complaint seeks recovery on behalf of a putative class of all
persons that purchased and/or consumed meat products manufactured by
the Company between May 1, 2002, and October 11, 2002, bearing
establishment code P-1351 and who have suffered an injury.  This class
represents all individuals who have suffered Listeriosis and symptoms
of Listeriosis and other medical injuries.  Plaintiff also seeks to
represent a putative class of all persons that purchased and/or
consumed meat products manufactured by the Company between May 1, 2002
and October 11, 2002 bearing establishment code P-1351 and who have not
suffered any personal injury.   The complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages under:

     (1) theories of negligence,  

     (2) alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
         Act and Consumer Protection Law,  

     (3) strict liability in tort, and

     (4) unjust enrichment

The time for responding to the complaint has not yet arrived.  The
Company intends to defend vigorously both certification of the case as
a class action and questions concerning ultimate liability and damages,
if any.  No discovery has been conducted to date.  Neither the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate
liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined at this
time.  The Company does not expect this matter to have a material
impact on its financial position, operation or liquidity after
considering its available insurance coverage.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's
decision dismissing the class action filed against Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation by seventeen of its current and/or former employees,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Lufkin Division, alleged the Company failed to pay
employees for all hours worked.  The suit generally alleged that:

     (1) employees should be paid for time spent to put on, take off,
         and clean certain personal gear at the  beginning and end of
         their shifts and breaks and

     (2) the use of a master time card or production "line" time fails
         to pay employees for all time actually worked.  

Approximately 1,700 consents to join as plaintiffs were filed with the
court by current and/or former employees.  During the week of March 5,
2001, the case was tried in court.  The Company prevailed at the trial
with a judgment issued by the court, which found no evidence presented
to support the plaintiffs' allegations.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal
in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the judge's decision.  
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in this matter
on June 4, 2002.  On June 6, 2002 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
entered a per curiam opinion affirming the opinion of the trial court.  
Appellants did not file any motion for a rehearing and the deadline for
filing of such a motion has passed.

In August of 2000, four of our current and/or former employees filed
the case of "Betty Kennell, et al. v. Wampler Foods, Inc." in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia, claiming the Company violated requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The suit generally makes the same allegations as the
suit discussed above.  Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages plus
liquidated damages and legal fees.  Approximately 150 consents to join
as plaintiffs were filed with the court by current and/or former
employees.  No trial date has been set.  To date, only limited
discovery has been performed.  

Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of
ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can be determined
at this time.  The Company does not expect this matter, individually or
collectively, to have a material impact on its financial position,  
operations or liquidity.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Asks For Dismissal of Suit For Packers Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division to dismiss the class
action filed against the Company on behalf of a putative class of
chicken growers.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary duties
allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers.  The plaintiffs also brought
individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards Act alleging common
law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of
contract.  

The Company filed our Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b) (1), 12(b)
(6) and 9(b).  The Company also filed a motion to transfer venue and
the plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction to
prohibit any alleged retaliation against the growers.  Discovery has
not yet been conducted in this case.  The court has not ruled upon any
of the motions.   

The Company intends to defend vigorously both certification of the case
as a class action and questions concerning ultimate liability and
damages, if any.  Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor
the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this case can
be determined at this time.   The Company does not expect this matter,
to have a material impact on our financial position, operations or
liquidity.


RAMBUS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rambus, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 11, 2000 and May 9, 2001, inclusive.

The suit asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5.  The suit
alleges that the Company misled shareholders concerning its business
and the status of its intellectual property in light of allegations
concerning its involvement in JEDEC.

On May 17, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  The Company also filed a reply brief and the matter is
pending.


RAMBUS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Lawsuit in CA State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Rambus, Inc. filed an
amended suit in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.  The
suit purports to be on behalf of an alleged class of "indirect
purchasers" of memory from January 2000 to March 2002.

The suit alleges that those purchasers paid higher prices for various
types of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) due to the Company's
alleged unlawful use of market power in the various DRAM markets to
coerce vendors of equipment using that technology to enter into
supposed agreements in restraint of trade.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on various legal theories and on the Company's alleged
anticompetitive actions in patenting and licensing various technologies
relating to DRAM, which plaintiffs assert, occurred during the
Company's involvement at JEDEC in 1991-96, as well as during its
subsequent patent licensing and litigation efforts.

The Company demurred to this complaint in its entirety on June 24, 2002
and a hearing on this demurrer occurred on August 27, 2002, at which
point the court granted the Company's demurrer, giving plaintiff leave
to amend its suit.  The Company has already demurred to the amended
complaint, and its demurrer is pending.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Sycamore Networks, Inc.'s officers and directors as
defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed against
them, the Company, the underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering on October 21, 1999, the underwriters for the Company's
follow-on offering on March 14, 2000.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000
and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on the
assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and the
other named defendants made material false and misleading statements in
the Company's Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the
SEC in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with
         the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors
         in the Company's public offerings; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into
         agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to
         allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the
         investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of
the Company's officers and directors and the underwriters under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  It also alleges claims
against the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with over three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  
The actions seek damages in an unspecified amount.  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.  An opposition to
that motion was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and a reply brief was
filed on behalf of the defendants.  The fully briefed issues are
now pending before the court and oral arguments were heard on November
1, 2002.

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
that the claims against it are without merit, but is not currently able
to estimate the possibility of loss or range of loss, if any, relating
to these claims.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Senior Citizens Commence Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A group representing more than 650,000 California senior citizens filed
a lawsuit this week contending that Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC) has
engaged in a wide variety of illegal actions, adding exorbitant mark-
ups to prescription drugs and other hospitalization charges, as well as
conducting unnecessary medical procedures, in an effort to boost
corporate profits at the expense of its members and other health care
consumers.

The Congress of California Seniors, an umbrella organization for
hundreds of affiliated senior groups in California, filed the suit in
an effort to reclaim the estimated millions of dollars of illegal
profits reaped by Tenet with devastating impact on seniors and other
consumers.  The litigation is sponsored by Community Catalyst, a
national health advocacy organization working with the Congress of
California Seniors and consumer groups around the country to improve
health care access.

"Many of our members get their care at Tenet Hospitals," said Congress
of California Seniors Legislative Director Bill Powers. "So these
outrageous prices have hurt many of us directly, by forcing us to pay
higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays. Then they tell us
Medicare can't afford to pay for drugs. Well, now we know why.
Medicare's getting ripped off by corporations like Tenet, just to feed
the company's bottom line."

Health system changes driven by the rise of market-based health care is
a major focus for Community Catalyst, which provides support to
consumer groups in more than 30 states, ensuring that they have a voice
in key health care access issues, including hospital and health plan
ownership changes.

"We've warned for years that treating health care as a market commodity
means consumer and community interests take a back seat. And it
absolutely distorts the health system. This lawsuit is about bringing
some corporate accountability to bear on companies that price their
services in complete disregard of consumer health needs," said
Community Catalyst attorney Dawn Touzin.

The nation's second largest health care company, Tenet racked up more
than $2.9 billion in profits during the last 13 years through its
aggressive pricing markup practice. Tenet's exorbitant pricing has hurt
Medicare, private health plans and other payers, as well as the
uninsured, who are forced to pay these inflated prices out-of-pocket.
Tenet's practices have led to several government investigations,
including a federal audit of its Medicare reimbursements, a probe by
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and a FBI investigation
of two leading doctors at the Redding Medical Center.

"We intend to show that Tenet's core business philosophy is to dominate
a region in such a way as to create a virtual stranglehold on the
health care delivery system," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman, the law firm leading the litigation. "Once they achieve
that market dominance, that's when the price-gouging begins."

Berman noted that Tenet hospitals in California charge as much as twice
the price other hospitals charge for some procedures. "It is a
viciously cynical approach to health care, and one that needs to stop,"
he said.

The lawsuit filed by Congress for California Seniors claims Tenet also
trumped up its profits by using its overwhelming regional market power
to charge unlawfully high prices for other aspects of hospital care,
including pharmaceutical charges.

"It's clear that within the Tenet system, which seeks to maximize
profits through any means possible, the company's doctors and health
institutions were promised bonus and incentive programs to the extent
that they helped boost Tenet revenue," Touzin noted.

According to the complaint, the price gouging also extended to
prescription drug prices, with Tenet setting prices more than 1,000
percent above actual drug costs in California, and twice the drug mark-
ups by other hospitals.

Two Tenet physicians, in particular, are being investigated for
operating a scheme in which they used a combination of high rates and
frequent recommendations of unnecessary surgery to boost profits for
Tenet and themselves. According to the suit, both Drs. Chae Hyun Moon
and Fidel Realyvasquez billed more than $7 million in Medicare claims
during the last year, charging prices four to five times more than
average physicians at times.
For example, during 2001, Dr. Moon performed 876 left-side
catheterization procedures - several times more than average physicians
- in addition to numerous other stent placement procedures and
angioplasties.  In each instance, the catheterization was being
performed outside the hospital, at a Tenet-owned catheterization lab.
An independent review of the two doctors' patients and their medical
histories revealed that 25 to 50 percent of the patients underwent
unnecessary procedures, the complaint states.

The suit claims these excessively high prices for surgeries and drugs
force consumers to choose between life-saving medical care and basic
needs.  The suit was filed December 17, 2002 in California Superior
Court in Los Angeles. The suit asks for a return of all illegal profits
received by Tenet as a result of its allegedly unlawful business
practices.

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman by Phone:
1-206-623-7292 by E-mail: steve@hagens-berman.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.hagens-berman.com


UTAH: Inmates' Suit Opposes Salt Lake Jail's Policy For DNA Test Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action filed on behalf of Salt Lake County Jail
inmates challenges the jail's policy of using inmates' funds to pay a
$75 fee for DNA testing of felons, which is required by law, The Salt
Lake Tribune reports.

The jail does not assess inmates' finances to determine their ability
to pay, which is required by the testing law, the suit alleges.  The
statute says the fee is to be paid by the felon "unless the agency
determines the person lacks the ability to pay."  Agencies are required
to establish "guidelines and procedures" to determine an inmate's
ability to pay.

However, "what the jail has said is that we are going to assess
everybody (to pay the fee)," said Brian Bernard of Utah Legal Clinic,
an attorney representing the inmates.  According to the lawsuit, Salt
Lake County Jail takes "the position that all felony inmates . have the
ability to pay for the DNA test and that no inmate (indigent or not)
will have that fee waived."

The lawsuit seeks a judge's ruling that the inmates are not required to
pay the fee until an administrative determination is mad on their
ability to pay.  The lawsuit seeks to include the claims of all past,
current and future inmates who allegedly suffered damages because they
were not properly evaluated.

Third District Judge Timothy Hanson has been assigned to hear the
lawsuit.  Mr. Bernard has a similar class action pending against the
Utah Department of Corrections over DNA testing.


WALT DISNEY: Plaintiffs Ask For Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against The Walt Disney
Company have asked the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to consolidate the suits.  The suits also name
as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002, uniformly allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by not disclosing the
pendency and potential implications of the Winnie the Pooh litigation
prior to the Company's filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q in
May 2002.  

The plaintiffs claim that this alleged nondisclosure constituted a
fraud on the market that artificially inflated the Company's stock
price, and contend that a decline in the stock price resulted from the
May 2002 disclosure.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and/or
rescission for themselves and all members of their defined class.  
Several of the plaintiffs have filed motions asking the court to
appoint lead plaintiffs and counsel, and to consolidate the related
actions into a single case.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to estimate the
impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have
on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in ERISA Suit Set June 2004 in Iowa Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action pending against Winnebago Industries, Inc.
and its employee compensation plans is set for June 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Central
Division.  The plans named as defendants in the suit are:

     (1) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan,

     (2) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula Bonus
         Plan and

     (3) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan and
         Deferred Bonus Plan Trust

The suit alleges a class consisting of participants in the Winnebago
Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan and the Winnebago
Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula Bonus Plan and alleges
23 separate causes of action including declaratory and injunctive
relief, federal common law unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty
and violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
vesting provisions and ERISA funding requirements.  The suit seeks to
negate certain amendments made to the Plans in 1994 which reduced the
benefits which some participants would receive under the Plans.  This
action has not been certified as a class action.

The Company believes the defendants have meritorious defenses to class
certification and as to the plaintiff's substantive claims.  The
Company is vigorously defending the lawsuit and will oppose any attempt
by the plaintiffs to have the case certified as a class action.  

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ANNUITY AND LIFE: Caldwell & Associates Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Caldwell & Associates LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut against Annuity
and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE: ANR) and certain of its Officers
and Directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities during the period from February 12, 2001 through 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 it its
annuity reinsurance contracts during those years.  The Company's stock
plummeted 44% upon this revelation.

For more details, contact Ann M. Caldwell by Mail: 159 Old Belmont
Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (888) 255-5455 or
(610) 668-8600 by E-mail: acaldwell@classactlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.classactlaw.com


CYTYC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cytyc Corporation
(NASDAQ: CYTC) between July 25, 2001 to June 25, 2002 inclusive in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against
the Company, Patrick J. Sullivan (CEO throughout the Class Period,
President until January 30, 2002, Chairman since November 7, 2001) and
Robert L. Bowen (CFO).

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 July 25, 2001 to June 25, 2002.  Among
other things, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period
the Company issued press releases representing that:

     (1) it was enjoying record revenue and earnings growth, increasing
         the market share of its primary product (ThinPrep),

     (2) its revenues would grow by 25% in 2002 over 2001, to $275-$300
         million, and

     (3) the Company was not negatively impacted, and would not be
         negatively impacted, by the general economic slowdown that was
         well underway at the time.

These statements were materially false and misleading, according to the
complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company's
seemingly-impressive revenue and earnings growth was attributable, in
material part, to overstocking of inventory at the laboratories which
purchased ThinPrep in large volumes in reaction to deep discounts
offered by Cytyc (which recognizes revenue upon shipment).  The
complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to commit the
alleged securities laws violations in order to pump up the Company's
results so that it could use its inflated stock as currency for key
corporate acquisitions.

On December 3, 2001, Cytyc acquired Pro-Duct Health, Inc. for $167
million in Cytyc common stock and cash and, on February 2, 2002,
announced that it has entered a definitive merger agreement to acquire
Digene Corporation using Cytyc common stock and cash.  At the time of
the announcement, the Digene acquisition was valued at $554 million.  
On April 24, 2002, after the close of trading, Cytyc revealed, in a
conference call, that its revenues and earnings for 2002 would be
materially less than the market had been led to believe. Instead of
revenues between $295-$305 million, the Company stated 2002 sales would
be as low as $270 million, and reduced earnings expectations from $0.66
per share to $0.55-$0.55 per share.

According to the Company, the cut was due to inventory reduction by its
customers (laboratories), which had overstocked ThinPrep in the first
quarter of 2002 and would meet end-user demand from inventory instead
of new orders.  In response to the announcement, which was contrary to
repeated assurances by the Company, the price of Cytyc common stock
plummeted by 36.5%, falling from a $24.80 per share close on April 24
to close at $15.73 on April 25, on extremely heavy trading volume.

The truth regarding the Company's business, however was still
undisclosed, according to the complaint.  On June 25, 2002, Cytyc
shocked the market by again lowering its expected revenues for 2002 to
$230- $245 million and earnings per share to $0.40- $0.44. In a
conference call held later that day, Cytyc announced that it was
considering switching its revenue recognition model from its current
recognition-on-shipment to a system more reflective of end-user demand.
In response, Cytyc's stock price plummeted again, this time by 39%,
falling from a $11.46 per share close on June 24, to close at $6.88 per
share on June 25, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


SPIEGEL INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division), case number: 02 C 9107,
against Spiegel, Inc. (Pink Sheets:SPGLA) and four of the Company's
senior officers on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock
of Spiegel during the period between April 24, 2001 and April 19, 2002,
inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing and/or failing to
correct false and misleading financial statements and press releases
concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings.

The suit alleges that Spiegel, a leading international specialty
retailer marketing fashionable apparel and home furnishings to
customers through catalogs, nearly 580 specialty retail and outlet
stores, and e-commerce sites, issued and/or failed to correct financial
statements and results of operations which were false and misleading
and prepared in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), due, among other things, to Spiegel's accounting of its credit
card business which improperly inflated its income and earnings, failed
to account for increasing charge-offs, and grossly inflated the value
of its securitized receivables.

On April 19, 2002, Spiegel revealed to the market information
concerning the deterioration of its credit card business and its impact
on Spiegel's' overall business. In addition, the Company reported that
it had not filed its Form 10-K for the 2001 fiscal year. In response to
the news, Spiegel's Class A Non-Voting shares fell from a high of $3.15
on April 19, 2002 to a low of $1.01 on April 22, 2002 or a decline of
more than 90% from the Class Period high of $10.71. One June 3, 2002,
the NASD delisted the Company's Class A common stock on the Nasdaq
National Market System effective June 2, 2002, "based on the Company's
filing delinquencies and other public interest concerns."

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomlaw.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  * * *