CAR_Public/030106.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, January 6, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 3

                           Headlines                            

DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses Thirteen Securities Violations Suits
FIRST USA: Reaches $1.3 Million Settlement Of Credit Card Fraud Lawsuit
FRANCE: Kerosene Tanker Crashes into Sunken Car Carrier in North Sea
IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motions For Securities Suit
MEXICAN BRACEROS: New Measure Extends Statute of Limitations For Suit

NATIONAL SECURITIES: Working For Securities Suit Settlement in S.D. NY
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Court Throws Out Wrongful Death Lawsuit V. Abortion Doctor
NORTH CAROLINA: Inmates' Sentences Changed To "Life" After Law Change
OREGON: Federal Court Experiences Increase in Overtime Wage Litigation

TOYS R US: Settles Federal, State Fraud Suit Over Consumers' Privacy
WASHINGTON: Court Grants Certification To Seattle WTO Protesters Suit
TELLIUM INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Agreement and Stock Sale with Qwest

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN SKANDIA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ANNUITY AND LIFE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
CAPRIUS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
CARL KOENEMANN: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CARL KOENEMANN: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

CYTYC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
COLE NATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
CYTYC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MA
CYTYC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MA Court
CYTYC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA

DIVERSA CORPORATION: Sirota & Sirota Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EFUNDS CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in WI
EFUNDS CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
FOOTSTAR INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FOOTSTAR INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

LEAP WIRELESS: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
RETEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN Court
RURAL CELLULAR: Charles Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit in MN Court
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in MA
SEPRACOR INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court

SPIEGEL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
TELLIUM INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court

                           *********

DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses Thirteen Securities Violations Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New
York signed an order granting "in all respects" Duke Energy
Corporation's request for dismissal of all the plaintiffs' claims
pending in a consolidated matter consisting of 13 securities class
actions.  

The suit was filed against the Company and certain of its principal
officers and directors on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between July 22, 1999 and May 17,
2002.

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

"We are gratified that the judge has ordered the dismissal of the cases
in all respects," Rick Priory, chairman and chief executive officer
said in a statement.  "The increased number of class action lawsuits is
clearly a sign of the times, and it is up to the courts to evaluate
each case. We defended ourselves vigorously and obviously are pleased
with the court's ruling."


FIRST USA: Reaches $1.3 Million Settlement Of Credit Card Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First USA Bank reached a US$1.3 million settlement with 28 states over
claims relating to the way telemarketing firms sold products and
services to it's customer, the Associated Press reports.  The Company,
the nation's largest issuer of Visa credit cards, also agreed to
monitor its third-party vendors to prevent deceptive telemarketing
aimed at its credit card holders.  The settlement ends three years of
investigation led by attorneys general in California, Illinois, New
York and Vermont.

"As a result of the aggressive efforts by the states, approximately 150
million consumers of two of the most prominent credit card issuers will
be provided better protections," New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer said, according to an AP report. A similar agreement was
reached in February 2002 with Citibank, the world's largest credit card
issuer.

The Company, now known as Bank One Card Services, a subsidiary of
Chicago-based Bank One Corp., admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.  
"We're looking at issues that were raised by these attorneys general
more than three years ago," said Bank One spokeswoman Calmetta Coleman,
adding changes were begun in 1999, AP reports.  Bank One now notifies
customers how to opt out of solicitations by calling a toll-free
number, she said, and works with just one vendor for club memberships,
Trilegiant based on Norwalk, Connecticut.

First USA has contracted with telemarketing firms for years that sell
products and services to its customers.  The investigation showed
consumers sometimes were charged on their credit cards for products or
services they had no idea they agreed to buy, Mr. Spitzer said.

Many vendors used free gifts such as airline tickets to induce card
holders to accept offers for items like insurance, club memberships and
discount shopping programs.  Often, consumers didn't know that they had
an obligation to cancel during a trial period or have their credit card
charged, according to investigators, AP states.

The settlement bars the credit card company from charging a consumer
unless the vendor obtains express authorization for the purchase.  It
also requires the company to review and approve all its vendor
telemarketing scripts.  


FRANCE: Kerosene Tanker Crashes into Sunken Car Carrier in North Sea
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An 802-foot-long tanker transporting highly flammable kerosene collided
with a sunken car carrier off France, becoming the second ship to miss
a series of hazard signs and plow into the vessel, officials said,
according to a Reuters report.

The tanker, named Vicky, crashed into the Tricolor, which sank in the
North Sea between Britain and France in December with a cargo of luxury
cars including BMWs, Volvos and Saabs worth up to $50 million.  There
was no immediate danger to the 24 crewmembers, officials said.

"Our main concern is the pollution threat, as it was when the Tricolor
went down," Mark Clark of the Dover coastguard told British television.

The Vicky, a Turkish vessel, was carrying 70,000 tons of kerosene, a
thin distilled oil, and was en route to New York from Antwerp.  French
maritime officials said two helicopters and two tugboats were on the
way to the scene.  The French coastguard was coordinating the rescue
operation as the collision had occurred in French waters, Reuters
reports.

The Cherbourg local prefecture told Reuters that there are five
fluorescent buoys around the ship at distance of one mile, one of them
with a radar beacon, and that there are radio alerts every 30 minutes.  
It also said the Flemish maritime authority had warned the boat of the
sunken ship.  The entire crew was still on board the Vicky, the Dover
coastguard spokeswoman said.  It was not known where the vessel,
formerly called the Bear G, was registered.

"The master of the vessel has informed the French coastguard that he
does not require any assistance and no damage has been reported," she
told Reuters.

David Osler, the industrial editor of shipping newspaper Lloyds List,
told Reuters an explosion in the engine room of the Vicky in February
2000 killed one and injured four.  In October 2000 the ship was refused
entry to New York because of a leak from its number two hold.  The
tanker, built in 1981, changed hands in September 2002 for $4.25
million.


IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motions For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
will hear on February 3,2003 the motion for dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Irvine Sensors
Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and an officer and director of its former subsidiary Silicon Film
Technologies, Inc.

The suit 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
the consolidated action and intends to defend it vigorously.  If the
Company does not obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth
in the action, such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on
its business, results of operations and financial condition.


MEXICAN BRACEROS: New Measure Extends Statute of Limitations For Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican workers who are seeking lost wages earned when they were
brought to the United States in the 1940s to pick peaches, plow fields
and toil on the railroads have been three years to sue for the wages,
which are estimated at millions of dollars, the Tri-Valley Herald
reports.

Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, D-Southgate, initiated AB 2913, a measure
which extends the statute of limitations until December 31, 2005,
giving braceros who worked in the United States between 1942 and 1949
another tool in the wage-recovery process.  "We (the Legislature)
believe this class of people, many of whom are Californians, deserve
redress," Mr. Firebaugh said.

California legislature approved the measure for the Mexican workers,
known as "braceros."  The measure has been welcomed as an important
legal tool that will help the class action on behalf of the braceros
and their heirs, currently pending in court.  

"The legislation was a great victory for the braceros," Enrique
Martinez, a San Francisco attorney involved in the class-action suit
told the Herald.  "It shows that the state Legislature recognizes the
importance of this case and recognizes the contributions that these men
made to the California economy."

The "braceros" were hired to fill a labor shortage during World War II,
from 1942 to 1964.  During that time, an estimated 4.6 million
contracts were issued to Mexican guest workers who were willing to
provide manual labor on American farms and railroads.  Between 1942 and
1949, the US government deducted 10 percent of their pay, putting the
money into savings accounts that were supposed to be paid to the
workers when they returned to Mexico, the Herald states.

However, very few of the workers ever saw a penny of that money.  
Though it's not clear how much is still owed, advocates say braceros
and their descendants may be entitled to several hundred million
dollars, including interest.

In August, a San Francisco federal judge dismissed the suit, saying
that the Mexican government could not be sued in this case, and that
the statute of limitations had already expired.  Mr. Martinez, however,
said the legal fight isn't over.  Although Firebaugh's law was approved
as an emergency measure and went on the books three months ago, its
first test should come in January when Mr. Martinez files a motion
asking the judge to reconsider.  If the judge changes his mind, said
J.M. Irigoyen, a Fresno attorney also working on the lawsuit, the new
law will definitely play a major role.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Working For Securities Suit Settlement in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Securities Corporation is participating in mediation for the
consolidated class action filed against it, Complete Management, Inc.
and other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The suit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, in connection with the Company's role as
underwriter in a June 1996 securities offering for Complete Management,
and in connection with the Company's role as a co-underwriter in a
December 1996 securities offering for Complete Management.  

Plaintiffs allege that the registration statements and prospectuses
filed in connection with the securities offerings in June and December
1996 contained false and misleading statements or omitted facts
necessary to make statements not misleading.

In June 2000, the Company, along with the other defendants, moved to
dismiss the action on the grounds that plaintiffs' complaint is
defective, that plaintiffs are barred by the statute of limitations,
and plaintiffs are unable to establish their claims as a matter of law.
On March 30, 2001, the court denied defendants' various motions to
dismiss.

In May 2001, the Company submitted its answer to the complaint in which
it set forth its defenses, including, among others, that much of the
class cannot trace their stock to offerings in which the Company was
involved and that the Company conducted appropriate due diligence.

After an initial round of document disclosure, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify the class. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew their
motion and the case was referred to mediation.  The mediation process
is moving toward a global settlement of the matter.  Should the matter
not be settled, the Company will pursue its defenses.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Securities Corporation asked the Superior Court of California
for the County of San Diego to dismiss the class action filed against
it relating to a series of private placements of securities in
Fastpoint Communications, Inc.

The suit alleges violations of state statutory and common law as well
as of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77l.  
The complaint asserts claims in connection with the Company's role as
placement agent in a series of private placements of securities in
Fastpoint.  Plaintiffs allege that the private placement memoranda
contained false and misleading statements or omitted facts necessary to
make statements not misleading.  No specific amount of damages has been
sought against the Company in the complaint.

In November 2002, the Company filed a demurrer seeking a dismissal of
the Fastpoint action.  No decision has been rendered.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously contest
class certification and defend this action, although the ultimate
outcome of the matter cannot be determined at this time.


NEW JERSEY: Court Throws Out Wrongful Death Lawsuit V. Abortion Doctor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another court has ruled that a woman who had an abortion at 16 cannot
sue the doctor who performed the procedure for wrongful death, claiming
she made an uninformed choice, Associated Press Newswires reports.

A three-judge federal appellate panel upheld last year's dismissal of
the federal lawsuit, filed in Trenton by plaintiff's attorney, who is
seeking class action status for the lawsuit.  Plaintiff, using the
pseudonym Donna Santa Marie, was challenging, in effect, the New Jersey
law that prohibits wrongful-death lawsuits when the victim is an unborn
child, charging that such a prohibition violates the equal protection
and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiff also is saying that because the informed consent laws, which
allegedly do not operate well, and failed to properly inform her about
abortion, her choice was uninformed.  Therefore, the act the doctor
performed was commission of a wrongful-death action.

"If plaintiffs believe the informed consent laws in New Jersey are
inadequate, they can petition their elected representatives in the New
Jersey Legislature for redress, or continue to seek relief in the
courts under New Jersey law," the panel wrote.

Lawyer for the plaintiff, Harold J. Cassidy, said that the Legislature
has failed to address their concerns, and that they would appeal the
decision to the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in
Philadelphia, or the US Supreme Court.  The lawsuit names as
defendants, Governor James E. McGreevey, the state attorney general's
office and the state Board of Medical Examiners.


NORTH CAROLINA: Inmates' Sentences Changed To "Life" After Law Change
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More than a year after the state exempted mentally retarded murderers
from the death penalty, only two death-row inmates have had their
sentences changed to life in prison, The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)
reports.

Of the 50 death-row inmates who have sought relief under the claims of
mental retardation, about one-fourth of the men and women on North
Carolina's death row, most are still awaiting a decision.  Eight have
been denied, some without a hearing, according to information from the
state Attorney General's office and the North Carolina Center for Death
Penalty Litigation in Durham.

"They are being scrutinized case by case," said Gretchen Engel, a
lawyer at the death penalty center.  "Ultimately, the appellate court
may have to straighten (some cases) out."

The legal fights over who is retarded, and who gets to decide, have
only just begun.  A certain number of legal issues loom.  For example,
whether killers with an intelligence quotient over 70 can be considered
retarded, or whether juries, not judges, have to make the
determination.

Therefore, it could take years to decide all the claims, and several
more arise each year as new murder convictions are handed down.  
However, none of the inmates whose mental capacity is at issue will be
executed until their petitions are heard.  Under a state law that went
into effect October 1, 2001, death-row inmates and anyone newly
convicted of capital first-degree murder can seek a determination that
they are mentally retarded, and therefore exempt from execution by
lethal injection.   The law defines mental retardation as having an IQ
of 70 or less and having had significant difficulty managing daily life
from before age 18.  However, experts disagree about what combinations
of IQ and functioning constitute mental retardation.

When, in June, the US Supreme Court banned executions of the mentally
retarded, it left it to the states to define retardation.  However, the
court noted that some experts say that people of IQs up to 75 can be
considered retarded.  

Another issue is the different treatment of killers convicted before
and after the state law went into effect almost 15 months ago.  Inmates
convicted before the law's passage can turn only to a judge for relief.  
Inmates convicted since then can have either a judge or their trial
jury find them retarded.  That difference was but one of the many
compromises in the North Carolina law that allowed it to pass the
General Assembly in July 2001.  Lawyers for many death-row inmates
say the difference is unfair because it is unequal legal protection,
and that it violates a US Supreme Court ruling this year that juries
have to decide all factors leading to death sentences.


OREGON: Federal Court Experiences Increase in Overtime Wage Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers in Oregon are turning to federal courts more often for
resolution of wage and overtime complaints, the Seattle Times reports.  
This year, 48 lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), the law regulating pay and
overtime.  This is compared to 42 similar suits in 2001, 38 in 2000 and
21 in 1999.

The cases are also growing bigger in scope - suits have been filed
against large employers like Wal-mart and Taco Bell.  Experts say that
the trend might prove expensive for employers who fail to heed federal
laws on salary and overtime.

"There's definitely a pattern," Victor Kisch, who heads the employment-
law group at Portland firm, Tonkin Torp, told the Seattle Times.  "The
plaintiffs' lawyers are pursuing these cases because there are
attorneys' fees associated with them.  They think their burden of proof
is not as difficult.  Employers are, or should be, concerned about
this."

The trend in the state follows the national trend.  According to the US
Department of Labor, it collected $143 million in back wages in 2002
while enforcing the FLSA, a 29 percent increase over 2001's collection
of $111 million.  A recent survey also discovered that the number of
class actions under the act recently surpassed the number of class
actions alleging employment discrimination, according to the US
Department of Labor.

In reaction to the rising number of lawsuits, the Bush administration
is considering proposals to update the 64-year-old Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) to clarify who qualifies for overtime and allow employers to
offer more flexible work schedules, the Seattle Times reports.

"The FLSA is in some sense an anti-sweatshop law," said Paula Barran,
an attorney with Barran Liebman in Portland.  "It's one of these many
labor statutes that hasn't really kept pace."

Human-resource experts and employment attorneys say employers often get
in trouble unintentionally.  The act hasn't changed much since Congress
passed the law in 1938, making its outdated language difficult to apply
to today's workplace, according to the Times.

"Most employers think that they are doing the right thing, until
someone points out to them that they are not," said Corbett Gordon, an
attorney with Fisher & Phillips in Portland.


TOYS R US: Settles Federal, State Fraud Suit Over Consumers' Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Toys R Us, Inc., Toysrus.com, Inc., and Coremetrics, Inc. reached an
agreement to settle the class actions against them in the United States
District for the Northern District of California, and in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino.

Both federal and state suits name as defendants the Company, affiliates
Toysrus.com, Inc. and Toysrus.com, LLC, and Coremetrics, Inc, an
internet marketing company.  The suits generally assert various claims
under the federal privacy and computer fraud statutes, as well as under
state statutory and common law, arising out of an agreement between the
Company and Coremetrics.  The suits allege that the Company tracks its
web site users' activities online and shares that information with
third parties in violation of the law, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.

The Company and Coremetrics consequently filed a joint application with
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of the
federal actions consolidated and transferred to the United States
District court for the Northern District of California, which the panel
approved in November 2000.  The Company moved for a stay of the state
action pending resolution of the actions filed in federal court, which
the court granted in May 2001.  Consequently, the plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.  

The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the federal suits, which the
court granted in part and denied in part in October 2001.  The court's
order dismissed one cause of action without leave to amend, dismissed a
second cause of action with leave to amend and denied the Company's
motion as to the third cause of action.

Final approval of the settlement agreement by the Court will result in
the dismissal of the class action privacy lawsuit.  The agreement
implies no wrongdoing or violation of consumer privacy by either Toys R
Us or Coremetrics, and both companies commit to continue or enhance
certain privacy protections for online consumers.  There will be a
hearing on February 21, 2003. before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney at
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California to address final court approval of the settlement agreement.

Coremetrics has agreed to:

     (1) institute internal policies to ensure the protection of data
         collected online;

     (2) recommend to its clients certain online disclosures regarding
         data collection and usage;

     (3) maintain an independent privacy seal program; and

     (4) return or destroy data collected from Toys R Us

Toys R Us has agreed to:

     (i) appoint an internal privacy committee to implement and monitor
         its privacy program;

    (ii) request destruction of Toys R Us data held by Coremetrics;
   
   (iii) maintain clear and conspicuous hyperlinks to its privacy
         policy;

    (iv) provide notice to customers of future material changes to its
         privacy policy concerning disclosure of personal identifying
         information; and

     (v) obtain customers' consent before using any personal
         identifying information in a manner contrary to Toys R Us'
         privacy policy existing at the time such information was
         collected.


WASHINGTON: Court Grants Certification To Seattle WTO Protesters Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Seattle, Washington certified a
class action representing protesters arrested outside the "no-protest
zone" created by the City of Seattle during the World Trade
Organization (WTO) conference in December 1999, the Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice website reports.

Originally filed by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice TLPJ), the lawsuit
claims the mass arrest and imprisonment of approximately 140 protesters
outside the no-protest zone violated the plaintiffs' constitutional
rights of free speech and assembly.

"These protesters were wrongly arrested en masse for doing something
that they did not do; namely, entering the no-protest zone to
demonstrate," said TLPJ attorney Victoria Ni, co-counsel in the case.  
"As a result of this class certification order, we can now proceed to
trial on claims of peaceful protesters arrested outside the no-protest
zone."

"We do intend to let these injustices stand as acceptable behavior for
police and city governments," said Steve Berman of the Seattle law firm
Hagens Berman, lead co-counsel.  "Instead of setting an example of free
speech and democracy for the rest of the world, we believe Seattle used
an unjust method to squelch dissent."

Dismissing the city's argument that class treatment was not appropriate
because individual circumstances might exist to justify each
protester's arrest, the court noted that class members "were arrested
together at the same general location, for the same alleged violation
and they were booked on the same charge."


TELLIUM INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Agreement and Stock Sale with Qwest
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders have sued a telecommunications equipment company that
allegedly misled investors about a $300 million deal with Qwest
Communications, the Rocky Mountain News reports.  The class action
claims that New Jersey-based Tellium Inc. failed to disclose Qwest
entered the agreement only because Tellium gave hot initial public
offering stock to former Qwest Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio and two
other Qwest executives.

Furthermore, the 200 switches involved in the deal were more than what
Qwest needed or wanted.  Qwest had no minimum purchase commitment, and
Qwest never used the switches, according to the lawsuit filed in a New
Jersey federal court by Milberg Weiss.

Tellium went public in May 2001, at $15 a share, at a time the market
was deteriorating.  The stock quickly rose to nearly $30 a share.  In
late 2001, Tellium stock declined as the agreement with Qwest was
modified to give Qwest "flexibility to terminate," according to Milberg
Weiss.  

Mr. Nacchio allegedly received 40,000 shares of Tellium IPO stock,
while two other Qwest executives received a total of 45,000 shares,
according to the lawsuit.  Such IPO stock now is under scrutiny by
regulators, and Mr. Nacchio faces a lawsuit in New York related to hot
IPO stock doled out by investment banking firms to cement
relationships.

Mr. Nacchio's attorney Charles Stillman said he had not yet seen the
lawsuit and had no comment at this time.  Tellium's spokesman was out
of the office.  Qwest declined to comment on the lawsuit.

                      New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN SKANDIA: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities 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 against American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation, American
Skandia Marketing, Inc. and other American Skandia affiliates.  The
lawsuit was brought on behalf of all those who purchased an individual
tax-deferred variable annuity contract or who received a certificate to
a group deferred variable annuity contract, issued, underwritten,
marketed or sold, by one of the defendants, which was used to fund a
contributory (not defined benefit) retirement plan or arrangement
qualified for favorable income tax treatment pursuant to the Internal
Revenue Code, including but not limited to an IRA, rollover IRA, Keogh
account or 401(k).

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
received American Skandia variable annuity contracts for their
contributory, qualified retirement arrangements (as defined above)
during the class period - those who purchased or received such
contracts beginning on December 13, 1997, with the class period ending
(and including):

     (1) those who received the variable annuity with an Issue Date no
         later than October 22, 2000, inclusive, or

     (2) those who received or purchased the variable annuity whose
         applications were dated no later than October 22, 2000,
         inclusive, or if and only if the application was undated then
         that application was received by any defendant or any agent
         for defendant (for example, received by the financial
         institution, unaffiliated with any defendant, which sold the
         annuity to the Class Member) no later than October 22, 2000,
         inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants committed violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The complaint alleges that American Skandia, American Skandia
Marketing, and other American Skandia affiliates, all of whom issue,
underwrite, market and/or sell these variable annuities, violated the
securities laws and the Investment Company Act, and common law, by
making materially misleading statements and material omissions in the
prospectuses and other written documents under which these variable
annuities were sold. The material misstatements included that tax-
deferred variable annuities were appropriate and suitable investments
for tax-deferred retirement accounts.

Similarly, the material omissions failed to disclose that the tax-
deferred variable annuities sold by defendants are never suitable
investments for already tax-deferred retirement accounts because
earnings on any investment placed in such an annuity already are tax-
deferred by virtue of the retirement account itself, and purchase of a
deferred annuity in a tax-deferred retirement account represents a
useless approach which simply increases carrying costs. These material
misstatements/omissions caused plaintiff and other members of the class
to purchase the variable annuity contracts.

For more details, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Robert B.
Weintraub, or Daniel W. Krasner by Phone: 1-800-575-0735 or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com


ANNUITY AND LIFE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE:
ANR) publicly traded securities during the period between February 12,
2001 and November 19, 2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


CAPRIUS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 in the United
States District Court, District of 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 suit alleges that the Individual Defendants made misrepresentations
to the Board and its officers in connection with Caprius' June 1999
merger with Opus Diagnostics, Inc.  The defendants also misrepresented
to the Board and its officers that they:

     (1) were in a financial position to and would in fact consummate
         -- pre-merger -- the asset purchase called for in the merger
         agreement;

     (2) 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 and 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 Complaint, the
intentional or reckless misconduct of the Individual Defendants has
severely damaged Caprius and its shareholders.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


CARL KOENEMANN: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:
MOT) between February 3, 2000 and May 14, 2001, inclusive against Carl
F. Koenemann.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Motorola issued a
false and misleading statement announcing "a three-year deal for
Motorola to provide products and services to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Telsim)."  However, Motorola failed
to disclose that the deal with Telsim required Motorola to provide
Telsim with $1.7 billion in vendor financing, and that this loan
represented a huge risk to Motorola shareholders if Telsim defaulted.  
Furthermore, Motorola failed to disclose that Motorola had lent other
customers a total of $2.9 billion in similar vendor financing
arrangements for purchases of Motorola products.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com


CARL KOENEMANN: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Motorola, Inc. securities (NYSE:MOT) between February 3, 2000 and May
14, 2001, both dates inclusive.  Carl F. Koenemann is named as a
defendant in the action.

The suit alleges that defendant violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached his fiduciary duty to the
Class by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's financial results.  In particular, it is alleged
that Motorola's vendor financing commitments were never properly
disclosed, including over $1.7 billion in vendor financing to a single
customer in Turkey.

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of Motorola common stock was artificially inflated
throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other members of
the class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
(800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://
www.rabinlaw.com


CYTYC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of Cytyc Corporation (Nasdaq: CYTC) who
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired common stock during the
period between July 25, 2001 and June 25, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Cytyc's financial results and
business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cytyc
failed to disclose the Company's impressive revenue growth was a result
of overstocking inventory and deep discounts of its main source of
revenue, ThinPrep.  

As a result, the shares of the Company's stock was artificially
inflated throughout the class period, allowing the Company to acquire
other companies using the artificially inflated stock as currency and
allowing executives to sell in excess of 70,000 shares at inflated
prices.

However, on April 24, 2002, the Company reported that its revenues
would materially deviate from its initial disclosure of between $295-
$305 million in 2001 to $270 million due to a cut in inventory by its
customers which had overstocked ThinPrep, contradicting earlier
repeated assertions from the Company.  On this news, the price of Cytyc
shares plummeted 36.5% from $24.80 to $15.73 the next day.  The full
truth of Cytyc's financial situation was not disclosed until June 25,
2002, when the Company downgraded their revenue expectations again to
between $230-$240 million causing Cytyc shares to plummet again from
$11.46 on June 24, 2002 to $6.88 on June 25, 2002, a drop of 39%.

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/library/user--images/cytyc.pdf


COLE NATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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, Cole National
Corporation 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


CYTYC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Cytyc Corporation
(Nasdaq: CYTC) from July 25, 2001 through June 25, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Cytyc's financial results and
business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cytyc
failed to disclose the Company's impressive revenue growth was a result
of overstocking inventory and deep discounts of its main source of
revenue, ThinPrep.

As a result, the shares of the Company's stock was artificially
inflated throughout the class period, allowing the Company to acquire
other companies using the artificially inflated stock as currency and
allowing executives to sell in excess of 70,000 shares at inflated
prices.

However, on April 24, 2002, the Company reported that its revenues
would materially deviate from its initial disclosure of between $295-
$305 million in 2001 to $270 million due to a cut in inventory by its
customers which had overstocked ThinPrep, contradicting earlier
repeated assertions from the Company.  On this news, the price of
Company shares plummeted 36.5% from $24.80 to $15.73 the next day. The
full truth of Cytyc's financial situation was not disclosed until June
25, 2002, when the Company downgraded their revenue expectations again
to between $230-$240 million causing Cytyc shares to plummet again from
$11.46 on June 24, 2002 to $6.88 on June 25, 2002, a drop of 39%.

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


CYTYC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Cytyc Corporation (Nasdaq: CYTC) between July 25, 2001
and June 25, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Cytyc issued press
releases representing that it had record revenue and earnings growth,
boosting the market share of its primary product (ThinPrep), that its
revenues would increase by 25% in 2002 over 2001, to $275-$300 million,
and that the Company was not adversely effected, and would not be
adversely effected, by the wide- ranging economic slowdown that was
occurring at that time.  The statements were materially false and
misleading, as the complaint alleges, because they omitted that Cytyc's
seemingly-remarkable revenue and earnings growth had resulted from, in
relevant part, the overstocking of inventory at the client laboratories
which acquired ThinPrep in great volumes ascribed to large discounts
offered by Cytyc (which counts revenue upon shipment).

The complaint also alleges the reasoning behind defendants' violations
was to inflate Cytyc's stock in order to make important corporate
acquisitions.  On December 3, 2001, Cytyc obtained Pro-Duct Health,
Inc. for $167 million in Cytyc common stock and cash and, on February
2, 2002, revealed that it had entered a definitive merger agreement to
acquire Digene Corporation by means of Cytyc common stock and cash.  
Pursuant to the announcement, the Digene acquisition was estimated at
$554 million.  

On April 24, 2002, following the close of trading, Cytyc divulged,
during a conference call, that its revenues and earnings for 2002 would
be materially smaller than what the market had understood.  Instead of
revenues between $295-$305 million, the Company confirmed 2002 sales
would be as low as $270 million, and diminished earnings expectations
from $0.66 per share to $0.55-$0.55 per share.  

Cytyc claimed that the cut had resulted from inventory reduction by its
clients (the laboratories), having had overstocked ThinPrep in the
first quarter of 2002 and would meet end-user demand from inventory as
an alternative to new orders.  On April 25, 2002, the price of Cytyc
common stock closed at $15.73, a decrease of 36.5%, on extremely heavy
trading volume following this disclosure.

On June 25, 2002, Cytyc surprised the market by reducing its expected
revenues for 2002 a second time to $230-$245 million and earnings per
share to $0.40-$0.44.  During a conference call held later that day,
Cytyc disclosed that it was contemplating switching its revenue
recognition model from its current recognition-on-shipment to a system
concerning end-user demand.  The market response was another large
decrease, this time falling by 39%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, 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 Cytyc.


CYTYC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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, Patric 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
Cytyc issued press releases representing that it was enjoying record
revenue and earnings growth, increasing the market share of its primary
product (ThinPrep), that its revenues would grow by 25% in 2002 over
2001, to $275-$300 million, and that 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Sirota & Sirota Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirota & Sirota LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Diversa Corporation (NASDAQ: DVSA)
between February 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company and:

     (1) Jay M. Short,

     (2) Karin Eastham,

     (3) James H. Cavanaugh,

     (4) Bear Stearns Co., Inc.,

     (5) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (as successor-in-interest to
         Chase H&Q),

     (6) Chase H&Q,

     (7) Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown,

     (8) Credit Suisse First Boston (as successor-in-interest to DLJ),

     (9) ABN Amro Securities (as successor-in-interest to ING Baring
         Furman Selz),

    (10) ING Baring Furman Selz,

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

    (12) Morgan Stanley,

    (13) Robertson Stephens, Inc. (as successor-in-interest to
         FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.),

    (14) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

    (15) SG Cowen Securities Corp.,

    (16) Warburg Dillon Read,

    (17) RBC Dain Rauscher (as successor-in-interest to Dain Rauscher
         Wessels),

    (18) Dain Rauscher, Needham & Company, Inc.,

    (19) Pacific Growth Equities, Inc.,

    (20) RBC Dain Rauscher (as successor-in-interest to Tucker Anthony)
         and

    (21) Tucker Anthony

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On
February 14, 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
7,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $24 per
share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed with the SEC a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus.  The complaint further
alleges, among other things, that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

    (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive
        and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
        for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
        investors material portions of the Diversa shares issued in
        connection with the Diversa IPO; and

   (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
        customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
        Diversa shares to those customers in the Diversa IPO in
        exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
        Diversa shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the Underwriter
Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who were compromised by
undisclosed conflicts of interest, to artificially inflate or maintain
the price of Diversa stock.

For more details, contact Saul Roffe or Rachell Sirota by Phone:
212/425-9055 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sirotalaw.com


EFUNDS CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired eFunds
Corporation (Nasdaq: EFDS) securities between February 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
under Section 10(b), by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market between February 2, 2001 to October
24, 2002.  According to the complaint, throughout the class period,
eFunds issued press releases announcing quarter after quarter of record
results of operations, with revenues and earnings doubling in several
quarters during the class period.  The financial results contained in
such press releases were repeated in quarterly and annual reports filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the complaint, such statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that eFunds had been
improperly recognizing revenue during the class period.  Specifically,
the Company recognized revenues on certain contracts immediately which,
according to generally accepted accounting principles, should have been
deferred over a period of time.

On March 4, 2002, eFunds issued a press release announcing that it was
"revising its previously announced results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2001" because the Company had recognized revenue
from two transactions in the second quarter of 2001 that should have
been recorded in the third quarter as a single transaction, or, in the
alternative, as a reduction in operating expenses instead of as
revenue.  The revision required a reduction of the Company's reported
2001 revenue by $5 million.  According to the suit, that announcement,
however, did not disclose the truth regarding the Company's improper
revenue recognition.

On October 25, 2002, before the open of trading, eFunds shocked the
market by announcing that it would "delay the release of its earnings
for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, while the Company completes a
review of the accounting treatment given to various transactions that
occurred in 2000 and 2001 and certain tax matters related to the
Company's India based operations."  In response to the announcement,
the price of eFunds common stock fell by 10% in one day, from a close
of $9.65 per share on October 24, 2002 to a close of $8.68 per share on
October 25, 2002, on unusually large trading volume, and representing a
decline of 66% from the class period high of $25.49 per share reached
on May 18, 2001.

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


EFUNDS CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of eFunds Corporation (Nasdaq: EFDS)
publicly traded securities during the period between February 2, 2001
and October 24, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) John A. Blanchard III (CEO and Chairman from February 2, 2001
         to September 15, 2002),

     (2) Paul F. Walsh (CEO and Chairman since September 16, 2002),

     (3) Paul H. Bristow (Executive Vice President and CFO from
         February 2, 2001 to June 30, 2002) and

     (4) Thomas S. Liston (Interim Financial Officer since July 1,
         2002)

The defendants allegedly 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 February 2, 2001 to October 24, 2002.  For example,
according to the complaint, throughout the class period, eFunds issued
press releases announcing quarter after quarter of record results of
operations, with revenues and earnings doubling in several quarters
during the class period.  The financial statements contained in such
press releases were repeated in quarterly and annual reports filed with
the SEC.

According to the complaint, such statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that eFunds had been
improperly recognizing revenue during the class period.  Specifically,
according to the complaint, the Company recognized revenues on certain
contracts immediately which, according to generally accepted accounting
principles, should have been deferred over a period of time.

Accordingly, the complaint alleges, eFunds materially inflated its
revenues and revenue growth rate throughout the Class Period. On March
4, 2002, eFunds issued a press release announcing that it was "revising
its previously announced results of operations for the year ended
December 31, 2001" because the Company had recognized revenue from two
transactions in the second quarter of 2001 which should have been
recorded in the third quarter as a single transaction, or, in the
alternative, as a reduction in operating expenses instead of revenue.
The revision required a reduction of the Company's reported 2001
revenue by $5 million.

According to the complaint, that announcement, however, did not
disclose the truth regarding the Company's improper revenue
recognition.  On October 25, 2002, before the open of trading, eFunds
shocked the market by announcing that it would "delay the release of
its earnings for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, while the
Company completes a review of the accounting treatment given to various
transactions that occurred in 2000 and 2001 and certain tax matters
related to the Company's India based operations."

In response to the announcement, the price of eFunds common stock fell
by 10% in one day, from a close of $9.65 per share on October 24, 2002
to close at $8.68 per share on October 25, 2002, on unusually large
trading volume, and representing a decline of 66% from the class period
high of $25.49 per share reached on May 18, 2001.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


FOOTSTAR INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired common stock of
Footstar, Inc. NYSE: FTS) between February 8, 2002 through and
including November 12, 2002, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.  Throughout the
class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous
statements and filed quarterly reports and an annual report with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission which described the
Company's increasing revenues and financial performance.

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

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

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

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

On November 13, 2002, Footstar shocked the market by announcing that it
had "discovered discrepancies in the reporting of its account payable
balances," following management's review of the account reconciliation
processes of its accounts payable balances.  Specifically, defendants
had cumulatively understated the Company's accounts payable balances in
its athletic segment by approximately $35 million.  As a result, the
Company announced that it will likely be restating its financial
statements for the first nine months of 2002 and prior periods, with a
significant portion of the discrepancies affecting fiscal year 2001 and
earlier.

Following this announcement, shares of Footstar fell $1.25, or almost
20%, to close at $5.05, after hitting an intra-day low of $3.30, on
volume of 2,137,700 shares traded, or almost six times Footstar's
average daily trading volume.

For more details, contact 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: FTS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


FOOTSTAR INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Footstar, Inc. (NYSE: FTS)
between February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, inclusive. The action
is pending against the Company, J.M. Robinson and Stephen R. Wilson.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Footstar securities.  Throughout
the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly reports and an annual report
with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and
financial performance.

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

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

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

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

On November 13, 2002, Footstar shocked the market by announcing that it
had "discovered discrepancies in the reporting of its account payable
balances," following management's review of the account reconciliation
processes of its accounts payable balances.  Specifically, defendants
had cumulatively understated the Company's accounts payable balances in
its athletic segment by approximately $35 million.  

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


LEAP WIRELESS: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of institutions, individuals and other investors who
purchased the common stock of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (OTC
Bulletin Board: LWIN) between February 11, 2002 and July 24, 2002, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California,

In addition to the Company, the suit names Manford Leonard, Susan G.
Swenson and Harvey P. White, all of whom were senior officers and/or
directors of the Company during the class period, as defendants.  The
suit charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements regarding its business and financial condition
during the class period.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, at the time the Company announced
its financial results for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 2001
(i.e., on February 11, 2002) and throughout the remainder of the class
period, defendants concealed the deteriorated value of its wireless
license assets by relying upon a fraudulent impairment test of those
assets, which resulted in a gross and material overstatement of the
value of the Company's assets in the Company's financial statements.

The suit also pleads that Defendants issued additional false and
misleading statements during the class period that caused the value of
the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by Phone:
866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


RETEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of Retek Inc. (NASDAQ: RETK) securities during the
period between October 17, 2001 and July 8, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a leading provider of software solutions and services to the
retail industry.  In April 2000, the Company announced that it had
formed an alliance with IBM to develop a partnership to develop a
merchandising solution for the food and drug segment of the retail
market.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants continuously led the market
to believe not only that the alliance was fully intact but also that
the alliance was on track to generate revenues of more than $1 billion
for the two companies for the year 2003.  Defendants, however,
concealed that not only was the $1 billion prospect a fallacy, but that
throughout the class period the so-called alliance was in shambles.  
Retek wanted access to IBM's consulting deals and IBM wanted Retek to
change its software applications so that they ran on IBM's platform,
not Oracle's.  By October 2001, defendants realized that the conversion
would be too costly in the short run and delayed the full conversion to
IBM platforms, including the most critical, a merchandising product for
large-scale retail operations.

The complaint further alleges that by the beginning of the class
period, many of the Company's projects (IBM) were faltering and its new
products (Retek 10), which were scheduled to boast earnings, were
riddled with bugs.  Moreover, one of the Company's joint ventures,
PerformanceRetail Inc. (PRI), was hemorrhaging nearly $200,000 of the
Company's monies per month.  Finally, the defendants' projections were
not only stale but actually false when made as the defendants knew or
made a conscious decision to ignore the fact that circumstances
underlying those projections (i.e., problems with Retek 10, the IBM
alliance, PRI, an eroding customer base) actually compelled the
conclusion that the Company could not possibly achieve the projections.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


RURAL CELLULAR: Charles Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Rural Cellular Corporation (OTC
BB: RCCC) between January 6, 2002 and November 13, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 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 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


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons 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 Company describes itself as a leading developer, manufacturer and
marketer of video storage systems which automates the management and
distribution of video streams, for example, movies and other feature
presentations and advertisements.  The suit alleges that the prospectus
was materially false and misleading because it omitted, among other
things, that the Company's ability to compete was strongly hindered as
the Company could not supply server systems sizeable enough necessary
to obtain contracts from cable companies situated in key metropolitan
areas.  The suit further alleges that the Company's products were
reliant on technology, developed and patented one of their main rivals,
that SeaChange lacked proprietary rights to utilize.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, 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 SeaChange.


SEPRACOR INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Sepracor, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SEPR) between April 14, 2000, and March 6, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning
Soltara -- an antihistamine for which the Company had applied for FDA
approval, which was ultimately rejected -- caused Sepracor's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The suit alleges that, contrary to defendants' representations, Soltara
had caused potentially fatal cardiac effects in dogs and rats, as well
as a serious liver disorder in dogs, and Soltara had not been tested in
patients at maximum tissue concentration, a prerequisite for FDA
approval of antihistamines such as Soltara which had demonstrated
cardiac effects in animal studies.

Additionally, the complaint asserts that defendants' representations
that they were "confident" that the FDA would approve Soltara by March
2002 were misleading in light of these facts.  The complaint further
alleges that on March 7, 2002, defendants disclosed that the FDA had
declined to approve Soltara, and subsequently revealed that substantial
additional clinical studies would be required.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


SPIEGEL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Spiegel,
Inc. and Spiegel Holdings, Inc. (Pink Sheets: SPGLA) from April 24,
2001 through April 19, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Spiegel, Inc. and Spiegel Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that:

     (1) the Company lacked sufficient internal controls and therefore
         was unable to understand its true financial standing,
         including the fact that FNCB had inadequate and improper
         internal and financial controls and accounting practices,
         including improperly inflated earnings, improper accounting
         for increasing charge-offs and seriously inflated the value of
         its securitized receivables;

     (2) that the Company's credit card accounts were seriously
         overstated and credit had been extended to certain high-risk
         market segments without appropriate disclosure of this
         liability;

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

     (4) Spiegel's Eddie Bauer division was mismanaged, and had
         significant over-inventory.

The result of these problems was a rapid deterioration in the Company's
credit portfolio and significant earnings shortfalls in fiscal 2001.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      


TELLIUM INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all
purchasers of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:TELM) securities between May 17,
2001 and February 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a materially false prospectus in
connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO).  Moreover,
the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading press
releases concerning its highly touted contract with Qwest
Communications International, Inc. (Qwest) for the sale of switches
which provided for a minimum $300 million purchase commitment.

These statements were materially false and misleading because Tellium
failed to disclose:

     (1) that Qwest neither needed nor wanted Tellium's switches but
         had entered into the agreement only because Tellium was giving
         "friends and family" stock to officers of Qwest;

     (2) the number of switches envisioned by the agreement was much
         larger than Qwest would need and represented some 200
         switches, which by far exceeded the number of sites Qwest had;
         and

     (3) in fact, Qwest had no solid minimum commitments and could
         terminate the agreement with relative ease.

On February 1, 2002, Tellium admitted its 2002 results would be far
worse than expected based partly because it could not rely on the Qwest
order.  As a result of this revelation, the price of Tellium stock
declined to $2-55/64, approximately 90% from its class period high of
$29-47/64.

For more details, contact Eric Crusius or Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320
East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212)
983-9330 by E-mail: Ecrusius@faruqilaw.com or Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com


TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:
TELM) from May 17, 2001 through February 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Qwest agreed to purchase Tellium products, in return, Qwest
         executives received lucrative shares of Tellium in conjunction
         with its IPO, a fact that was not disclosed to the public;

     (2) Qwest did not need the large number of switches they had
         ordered from Tellium and, in fact, had no strong obligation to
         purchase more switches in the future and could avoid their
         contractual obligations with relative ease;

     (3) after issuing positive statements about the Company's
         financial standing, defendants Bunting and Glassmeyer unloaded
         large amount of their shares; and

     (4) because the Company issued false and misleading statements
         about Tellium's business and the Qwest contract, the Company's
         shares have been traded at artificially inflated prices, as
         high as $29 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182      

                              *********


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  * * *