CAR_Public/030120.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, January 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 13

                            Headlines                            

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Review Lawsuit Dismissal
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal
AIRGATE PCS: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. GA
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Widens Class Period in TX Suit
AOL TIME: Minnesota Board Chosen Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit

AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Grammar Settles Sexual Abuse Charges V. Counselor
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 80,000 Stuffed Bears For Choking Hazard
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SC Judge Grants Certification to Consumer Suit
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Judge Refuses To Permit Posting of Internal Documents
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in S.D. TX

HAWAII: Study Arising From Lawsuit Finds Causes For Child Agency Faults
HEWLETT-PACKARD Co.: Says Behavior Was Ethical In Hiring Expert Witness
INDONESIA: Suit V. Jakarta Governor Over Planned Sports Mall Dismissed
INTERVOICE INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY: Returns To Court Over Same-Sex Health Benefits

NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Approves $1.94M May 3 Fire Lawsuit Settlement
QWEST INTERNATIONAL: Ex-Employees Ask ID Court To Certify Overtime Suit
SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Suit in FL

UNITED STATES: VA Farmer Wins $6.6M After 17 Years Of Racial Bias
WESTAR ENERGY: Investors File Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
ZIMBABWE: Court Partially Dismisses Zimbabwe Leader's Human Rights Suit

                     New Securities Fraud Cases  

ANNUITY & LIFE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
CABLE & WIRELESS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
HOTELS.COM: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
NASH FINCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
SMARTFORCE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NH Court

TELLIUM INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TELLIUM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court

                           *********

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Review Lawsuit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.
filed a writ of certioriari with the United States Supreme Court to
challenge an appeal court's dismissal of their appeal relating to the
suit's dismissal.

The suit, which also names other companies in the entertainment
industry as defendants, was filed in the US District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division.  The plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants negligently caused injury to the plaintiffs as a
result of, in the case of the Company, its distribution of unidentified
"violent" video games, which induced a minor to harm his high school
classmates, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs, the parents of the
deceased individuals.  The plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of
approximately $110,000.  

The court dismissed this action, then the dismissal was appealed by the
plaintiffs to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The
appeals court then denied the plaintiffs' appeal.  


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. and
other companies in the entertainment industry in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado withdrew their appeal of
the suit's dismissal.

The complaint was brought 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, causing damages to plaintiffs. The complaint seeks:

     (1) compensatory damages in an amount not less than $15 for each
         plaintiff in the class, but up to $20,000 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 on March 4, 2002.  Following dismissal,
the plaintiffs moved for relief and the US District Court for the
District of Colorado denied the relief sought by plaintiff.  On April
5, 2002, plaintiffs noted an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  On October 3, 2002, the Tenth Circuit
took jurisdiction over plaintiff' appeal.  The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a stipulation of dismissal of their appeal with prejudice, and
the Tenth Circuit formally dismissed the appeal on December 10, 2002.
No further appeals are available to the plaintiffs.


AIRGATE PCS: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgate PCS, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

The complaints seek class certification and allege the prospectus used
in connection with the secondary offering of Company stock by certain
former iPCS shareholders on December 18, 2001 contained materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material information
necessary to make the statements in the prospectus not false and
misleading.  The alleged omissions included:

     (i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an effective
         integration of iPCS, drastic changes would have to be made to
         the Company's distribution channels,

    (ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the acquired iPCS
         markets would require extensive restructuring, and

   (iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate for
         subscribers would increase as a result of an increase in the
         amount of sub-prime credit quality subscribers the Company
         added from its merger with iPCS

On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On November
26, 2002, the court entered an Order requiring the plaintiffs to
provide additional information in connection with their Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and in December 2002, the plaintiffs
submitted Declarations in Support of Motion for Appointment of Lead
Plaintiff.  The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.  However, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of the
litigation.


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Widens Class Period in TX Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP will expand the class period in the securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
AmeriCredit Corporation (NYSE:ACF) to between April 14, 1999 and
September 16, 2002, inclusive to January 15, 2003.

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 regarding
the nature of the Company's revenues and earnings caused its stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous damages on
investors.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  




AOL TIME: Minnesota Board Chosen Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota State Board of Investment was appointed lead plaintiff in
the securities class action pending against AOL Time Warner Inc. in the
United States District Court in New York.  The board allegedly lost
more than $249 million from its investment in the world's largest media
company, the Star Tribune reports.

The suit seeks class action on behalf of other investors and names the
Company and its top executives like former Chairman Steve Case and CEO
Richard Parsons as defendants.  The suit primarily alleges that the
Company violated securities laws by misstating its ad revenue.  Company
insiders also allegedly sold stock at artificially inflated prices.

The state-run board has more than $39 billion in assets and is
responsible for investing all Minnesota funds, including state pension
funds, the Star Tribune states.  The lead plaintiff selects a lawyer,
guides trial strategy and conducts settlement talks.

"The Minnesota State Board of Investment has the largest financial
stake in the litigation," Judge Shirley Wohl Kram said.  Eleven other
investors or groups of investors had bid on the lead-plaintiff
designation, she said.

AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose declined to comment, according to the
Star Tribune.


AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Grammar Settles Sexual Abuse Charges V. Counselor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian school Brisbane Grammar agreed to settle for millions of
dollars, claims by 65 ex-students that they were sexually abused by
school counselor, Kevin John Lynch, the Courier-Mail reports.  Court
documents obtained by The Courier-Mail yesterday included notices of
discontinuance attached to complaints against the Brisbane Grammar
School of Trustees, indicating the claims had either been settled or
were in the process of being settled.

Simon Harrison of Shine Roche McGowan - who is acting on behalf of the
plaintiffs - confirmed that the mediation process with the former
students was under way. Part of that process included negotiations in
regard to claims, Mr. Harrison told the Courier-Mail.

The suit was filed in 2001 by former students of Brisbane Grammar and
the private Anglican school, St Paul's at Bald Hills.  Mr. Lynch was
employed as a counselor at both schools.  He committed suicide in 1997
after being charged with child-sex offences.  Twenty-three cases
involving students of St Paul's were settled midway through last year.

Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees chairman Howard Stack told
the Courier Mail last night there was "no perfect solution".  

"Even unlimited monetary compensation, were it available, would not
deliver that solution," Mr. Stack said.  He said the young men making
the claims "had conducted themselves with great dignity as we grappled
with complex moral, ethical and legal issues . There was broad
acceptance that none of us could turn the clock back, as much as we
wished we could do so.  Our aim was to agree on a package of monetary,
medical and moral support which would hopefully be a beginning to
enable these young men to put their lives back on track."

In the case of St Paul's school, the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane and
its former insurer paid out hundreds of thousands dollars to victims of
Mr. Lynch.  Mr. Stack was not able to comment on the school's insurance
arrangement but said that any costs would have a significant effect on
the school.


BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 80,000 Stuffed Bears For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build-A-Bear Workshop is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 80,000
"Founding Bear" stuffed bears.  The nose of the stuffed bear can be
pulled or twisted off, posing a choking hazard to a young child.
        
The Company has not received any reports of injuries resulting from
these stuffed bears.  This recall is being conducted to prevent
possible injuries.
        
The recall includes the "Founding Bear," and the "Founding Bear
II."  The "Founding Bear" is about 19-inches long, and the "Founding
Bear II" is about 18-inches long.  Both stuffed bears are chocolate
brown and have cream-colored paws and snout.  "OUR FOUNDING BEAR" is
written on a cardboard tag that was originally attached to the bear's
ear.
        
Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and web site sold these stuffed bears
nationwide between March 2000 and December 2002 for between $22 and
$25.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(866) 236-5683 between 9 am and 6 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.buildabear.com.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SC Judge Grants Certification to Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina judge granted class certification to a lawsuit filed
against Charter Communications on behalf of the Company's South
Carolina customers.  The order allows nearly 250,000 South Carolina
customers to possibly be compensated on the grounds that the Company
illegally required them to rent unnecessary equipment and/or to pay a
bogus wire maintenance fee, the South Carolina Herald-Journal states.

Circuit Judge Don Beatty's order, signed Jan. 5 but filed Thursday
morning, certifies a lawsuit filed by Spartanburg residents Nikki
Nicholls and Geraldine M. Barber as a class-action suit on behalf of
Charter's South Carolina customers.

Though preliminary legal maneuvering and appeals could take years,
lawyers for Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Barber have said Charter ultimately
could be ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages to
customers.  Charter's attorney, Billy Gunn of Spartanburg, could not be
reached for comment on Judge Beatty's ruling.  Mr. Gunn has said
Charter has several legal options, including waiting for the case to
run its course entirely, then appealing to the South Carolina Court of
Appeals, the SC Herald-Journal states.

Judge Beatty's 17-page order also denies several motions Mr. Gunn made
in a November 26 hearing, including motions seeking to have the judge
recuse himself from the case, asserting that Judge Beatty lacked
jurisdiction to preside until the appeals court could rule on another
matter, and seeking to deny class-certification on the grounds that the
suit wasn't eligible.

The next step, according to the judge's order, is a hearing to
determine how much time will be allotted to ascertain how much Charter
has illegally collected from customers.  At the hearing, Judge Beatty
also will decide how Charter will be required to notify the nearly
250,000 members of the newly created legal "class."

"Although (Barber and Nicholls) are delighted with the court's opinion
of today, any celebration at this time would be premature," plaintiffs
attorney Mike Spears of Spartanburg said in a written statement. "While
it is true that Charter has lost the case through default and that a
statewide class has now been certified, much is left to be done."


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Judge Refuses To Permit Posting of Internal Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas State Judge Gary Sanderson refused to grant permission to lawyers
suing Compaq Computer Corporation to post on the Internet company
documents they say would show the company knowingly sold 1.8 million
computers with defective floppy disk controllers, SiliconValley.com
reports.

The suit, initially filed in federal court in Beaumont, Texas, claims
the Company knowingly sold Presario computers with a defective chip
that caused loss or corruption of data saved to floppy disks.  The
lawyers said they wanted to publicize internal Company memos about the
defectives and engineers giving its solution top priority.  The lawyers
said posting the documents would counter Compaq's claims that no defect
existed.

The court granted class certification to the suit in 2000.  The Company
has appealed that certification to the Texas Supreme Court.  The
Company contends the defect never existed and said the company informed
computer owners of a software patch which could be installed to protect
their computer from floppy disk controller problems, when it learned of
the lawsuit, SiliconValley.com reports.  Compaq attorney Alistair
Dawson said the plaintiffs were not going to post objective information
on the Internet, as required by court rules.

In a statement, HP lauded Judge Sanderson's Thursday ruling as an
effort to "ensure a balanced presentation is given to customers."  


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq International faces a consolidated securities class action
pending against it and two of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas 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 various complaints that have been consolidated claim 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.  

The Company anticipates moving to dismiss that consolidated amended
complaint.  These actions are at an early stage, and no discovery has
taken place at this time.

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:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) negligence and

     (4) breach of contract

The plaintiff makes general allegations of the defendants' alleged
misconduct in:

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

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

   (iii) 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 the Company's 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 to the Company
prior to filing suit.  Another derivative suit making similar
allegations was filed in 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 state-court shareholder
derivative case.  The state district court has stayed the case until
February 17, 2003 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.


HAWAII: Study Arising From Lawsuit Finds Causes For Child Agency Faults
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A study arising from a class action in Honolulu, Hawaii has found three
root causes that inhibit the state's Child Support Enforcement Agency
from achieving its mission and goals, state Auditor Marion Higa said
recently, according to Associated Press Newswires.

Experio Solutions, which was hired as consultant to conduct the
comprehensive study of the agency and the automated child support
enforcement system, cited the three root causes inhibiting the agency
from achieving its mission and goals, to be:

     (1) lack of focus on strategic definition,

     (2) lack of full exploitation of system capabilities and

     (3) deficiencies in training.

Honolulu Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna, in October 2002, gave the Child
Support Enforcement Agency until March 31, to account for more than
$3.5 million in un-cashed child support checks.

In a 52-page decision, Judge McKenna agreed with state lawyers that the
state agency is meeting its obligations in getting child support
payment checks out on time.  However, Judge McKenna ruled that the
agency has a fiduciary duty to the children entitled to child support
payments and to their custodial parents, as well, to account for all
the money the agency has collected since 1986.

The ruling followed a jury-waived trial in September on a class action.  
From this lawsuit, the consultant study emerged.  Among other things,
the consultant has found that a system called KEIKI has capabilities
that are not being fully exploited, and that the agency is not
converting captured data into information to support management,
planning and operational control.


HEWLETT-PACKARD Co.: Says Behavior Was Ethical In Hiring Expert Witness
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. said it acted ethically when it hired a former
expert witness, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.  The
plaintiffs are suing personal computer makers over an alleged defect.

The California attorney general's office said the hiring of Philip
Adams as a consultant and paying him $27 million misled investors and
frustrated an investigation.  Hewlett-Packard, in a statement made
through its spokeswoman Rebecca Robboy, said the company licensed from
Mr. Adams a patented floppy disk controller software "patch" designed
to fix the defect.  Mr. Adams, acting as a whistle-blower, then sued
Hewlett-Packard and other companies, alleging they sold computers with
faulty floppy disk controllers to state agencies, according to court
records.

With Mr. Adams' assistance, the attorney general began investigating
the allegations.  Mr. Adams would, at that point, have been entitled to
receive any damages recovered.  However, Mr. Adams negotiated secretly
to work for Hewlett-Packard and started there in May 2000, the court
records said.


INDONESIA: Suit V. Jakarta Governor Over Planned Sports Mall Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta State Administrative Court dismissed the class action filed
against Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso by residents of Kelapa Gading
district, North Jakarta, over his decision to allow the construction of
a sports mall in the area, which was designated for social and public
facilities, the Jakarta Post reports.

After a three-month trial, the judges hearing the case decided the suit
was invalid.  "The suit was filed with the court after the 90-day
deadline after an administration policy is issued or after the policy
recipient(s) suffer a loss caused by the policy," said presiding judge
A. Manurung, who was accompanied by judges Bambang Heriyanto and
Disiflin F. Manao.  

The judges were referring to Article 55 of Law No. 5/1986 on the State
Administrative Court, the Post stated.  Supreme Court Circular No.
2/1991 issued on July 9, 1991, gives judges the leeway to count the
deadline starting from the day the policy recipient(s) obtained a copy
of the written policy or suffer any losses caused by the policy.  The
reasoning behind this circular is that not all state institutions make
public their policies.

Representing the plaintiffs, the head of RW 6, Harry A. Roboth, and a
team of lawyers said they would challenge the ruling with the high
court.  Lawyer Carrel Ticulau said the ruling was flawed because the
judges repeatedly ignored demands for a suspension of the construction
of the sports mall, and they also did not allow expert witnesses to
testify in court on the designated function of the area, the Post
reports.

Another lawyer, Tubagus Haryo Karbyanto, said the residents would file
a similar suit at the Central Jakarta District Court against Sutiyoso,
Yayasan Darma Bakti Mahaka and construction company PT Adhikarya.  The
case revolves around the issuance of a gubernatorial decree on July 19,
2001, authorizing Yayasan Darma Bakti Mahaka to build the Kelapa Gading
International Basketball Complex on the 26,215 square-meter plot of
land on Jl. Kelapa Nias, where the community unit is located, the Post
reports.

A ceremony to mark the construction took place in conjunction with
Jakarta's anniversary on June 22.  The residents say the administration
never informed or involved them in the plan.  The construction was
halted until Governor Sutiyoso renewed the decree on February 8, 2002.
On Feb. 25, about 400 families in the community unit, as well as the
heads of the neighboring RW 7 and RW 11 community units, signed a
petition against the construction, which they said disturbed the peace,
obstructed the road and polluted the air.

"Moreover, the land is where the squatters along the Kelapa Gading
River used to plant vegetables to eat," Mr. Roboth told The Jakarta
Post after the trial.

Mr. Ticulau, who also lives in Kelapa Gading, said the residents had
spent six months asking the administration to clarify the land's
development details.  "It was only in August that we finally obtained a
copy of the decree and found that no environmental impact analysis had
been made. So when we filed the suit at the court on Aug. 12, we were
still within the deadline," he told the Post.


INTERVOICE INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intervoice, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated amended
securities class action pending against it and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

Several related lawsuits were initially filed on behalf of purchasers
of common stock of the Company during the period from October 12, 1999
through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs have filed claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company as
well as certain named current and former officers and directors of the
Company on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the suit, plaintiffs claim that the Company and the named current
and former officers and directors issued false and misleading
statements during the class period concerning the financial condition
of the Company, the results of the Company's merger with Brite and the
alleged future business projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have
asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially
inflated stock prices.

The Company believes that it and its officers complied with their
obligations under the securities laws, and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.  The Company responded to these complaints, which
were consolidated into one proceeding, by filing a motion to dismiss
the complaint in the consolidated proceeding.

The Company asserted that the complaint lacked the degree of
specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards
applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this basis, the
Company requested that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  
Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal.

On August 8, 2002, the court entered an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In the order dismissing the lawsuit,
the court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by
filing an amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 23, 2002.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition
to the Company's motion to dismiss.  All discovery and other
proceedings not related to the dismissal will be stayed pending
resolution of the Company's request to dismiss the amended
complaint.


PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY: Returns To Court Over Same-Sex Health Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) are heading back to court nine months after a school panel
recommended the university not offer same-sex health benefits, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Pitt filed a motion recently seeking to permanently bar the city from
hearing a lawsuit involving seven former and current workers who allege
the university discriminated by denying their partners of the same sex
health benefits.  The ACLU plans to fight the motion and has until
January 21 to respond in court.

Both sides remain at odds seven years after former Pitt employee
Deborah Henson filed a complaint with the Pittsburgh Commission on
Human Relations, saying the school violated the city's 1990 gay-rights
law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Six
others later joined her in the pending class action.

Pitt won an injunction, in 2000, from Allegheny County Judge Robert
Gallo, barring the commission from hearing the lawsuit on the grounds
that the city's gay-rights law exceeded the scope of the state's Human
Relations Act.  The school also noted in its court papers that a state
law exempts public universities from local laws that mandate health
benefits be extended to domestic partners.  Pitt is a state-affiliated
school with 9,500 employees.  The most recent court filing seeks to
make the injunction permanent.

Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU's Pittsburgh chapter, warned
that a permanent injunction, barring a hearing before the Commission on
the issue of a denial of same-sex health benefits to partners of
university employees, would result in dismantling discrimination
protection.

"If they (the university) win that argument, it would essentially wipe
out any rights sexual minorities have," Mr. Walczak said.

Mr. Walczak called Pitt's position "bigoted and increasingly obsolete"
as more colleges and universities move toward offering health benefits
to same-sex couples.  The number of institutions that offer some form
of domestic partner benefits has grown to 170, said Kim I. Mills,
education director for the foundation, Human Rights Campaign.  However,
the reply from Pitt's spokesman Robert Hill was, "We are still at the
point where far fewer colleges and universities offer the benefits than
those that don't."  Mr. Hill added that Pitt does offer other perks
such as the use of the libraries and fitness facilities.

Mr. Walczak said, "The report (on the panel's study) was really
distressing, especially about how the feelings of a few gay students
and employees did not justify issuance of same-sex health benefits.  
They refused to address the issue of discrimination."

In 2001, the university agreed with the ACLU to convene a panel to
study health benefits for same-sex couples.  The ACLU, in return,
agreed to suspend its lawsuit until the study was completed.  Last
year, a university panel recommended against offering same-sex health
benefits, saying that while many in the university community favor such
benefits, many state legislators oppose the idea themselves or have
constituents who oppose that form of health benefits coverage.


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Approves $1.94M May 3 Fire Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina judge approved a US$1.94 million settlement between
Mitchell County and the families of 17 inmates, eight of whom died in
the deadliest jail fire in North Carolina history, the Associated Press
reports.  The payment from the county's insurer was the maximum the
victims and families could get under state law.

According to investigators, the fire was caused by cardboard that
ignited when it stacked up against a heater in a storage room that had
been added to the jail in 1965.  A report released in November by the
state Labor Department said state and county inspectors failed to
detect "serious safety deficiencies," including the storage room built
without firewall and with a door, roof and shingles that were
combustible.  The report also said inspectors from the Department of
Health and Human Services - which inspects jails twice a year - failed
to detect the safety violations on repeated occasions, according to the
Associated Press.

The settlement was reached on Thursday.  The settlement includes a
$50,000 immediate payment, minus some fees, to the 17 families and
survivors.  An arbitration panel will determine the distribution of the
remaining money.  

The two sides agreed to the settlement during a hearing Thursday.  
However, some family members said additional civil claims were possible
and some said they would continue to push for criminal charges.  "This
is the very last thing I could do for my son to make sure justice is
served," Mark Thomas, whose son, Mark Halen Thomas, 20, died in the May
3 fire told AP.  "If no one in the county was guilty, I don't think
they would have paid anything."

Scott MacLatchie, an attorney who represented the county, said the
agreement includes no admission of guilt by county officials, the
sheriff or jail employees.  "This was a tragic event with eight souls
that were lost and nine survivors," he told AP.  The settlement "was a
wise business and economic decision and somewhat of a moral decision."


QWEST INTERNATIONAL: Ex-Employees Ask ID Court To Certify Overtime Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen former Qwest Communications International sales
representatives asked the United States District Court of Idaho to
grant class certification to a class action alleging the Company forced
employees to work unpaid overtime, the Oregonian reports.  The class
certification, if granted, could apply the case's results to hundreds
of sales representatives in Oregon and thousands nationwide.

Dan Williams, the Boise lawyer who filed the suit against Qwest in late
December, claims Qwest employees worked off the clock before their
shifts began and after they ended.  "Some people worked an extra two
hours a day," Mr. Williams told the Oregonian.

Sales quotas were a main source of pressure to work off the clock,
Williams said.  To close sales of phone services and drive toward their
quotas, sales representatives often needed to return calls to
customers, the suit says. However, it was difficult for employees to
receive approval to log off of the queue that sends new customer calls
to them so that they could make the return phone calls.  

As a result, Mr. Williams said, they had to wait until the system shut
down for the evening.  "There's an enormous incentive to make sure you
meet your quotas," Mr. Williams told the Oregonian.

The suit further states that employees also claim that because they
were only paid for times they were logged onto the telephone and
computer system, they came in up to 20 minutes before their shifts
started to boot up slow-loading computer programs.  The lawsuit alleges
managers told employees that off-the-clock overtime was a ticket to
promotions. And it claims managers discouraged employees from charging
the company for overtime.

The plaintiffs from Portland are Dennis Blakesley, James McCracken and
Dianna Scheffler.  Mr. Blakesley would not comment, and Mr. McCracken
and Ms. Scheffler did not return phone calls, according to the
Oregonian.  Qwest would not comment on the pending lawsuits,
spokeswoman Erin Dunn said.


SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandata Technologies, Inc. entered into a non-binding memorandum of
agreement with plaintiffs in the securities class action filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court against it and the members of its Board of
Directors:

     (1) Bert E. Brodsky,

     (2) Ronald L. Fish,  

     (3) Martin Bernard,  

     (4) Hugh Freund, and

     (5) Gary Stoller

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company and the Company's public shareholders in connection with
Sandata Acquisition Corporation's proposal to acquire all of the
outstanding public shares of the Company.  The plaintiffs also allege,
among other things, that the directors serving on the special committee
are not independent, and that the merger consideration is inadequate.   
The complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, both
a preliminary and permanent injunction against the proposed
transaction, and rescission if it is not enjoined.

On December 23, 2002, the Company entered into a non-binding Memorandum
of Understanding.  Pursuant to the Memorandum, Sandata Acquisition
Corporation agreed to increase its offer set forth in the Merger
Agreement, to $2.21 for each outstanding share of Sandata common stock.
The Memorandum also provides for the lawsuits' parties to use their
best efforts to agree upon, execute, and present to the court a formal
Stipulation of Settlement in order to obtain the approval of the court
of the settlement and release of the consolidated actions.

The parties agreed that the stipulation of settlement will provide,
among other things:

     (i) that Sandata Acquisition Corporation will increase its offer
         contained in the merger agreement to $2.21 per share of
         Sandata common stock; and

    (ii) for a complete release and settlement of all claims against
         Sandata, the members of its Board, Sandata Acquisition
         Corporation and their respective predecessors, successors,
         assignees, parents, subsidiaries, counsel, accountants,
         attorneys, affiliates, agents and representatives, including
         without limitation, investment banks or bankers or commercial
         banks and any past, present, or future officers,  directors,
         or employees of defendants and their predecessors, successors,
         assignees, parents, subsidiaries, counsel, accountants,
         attorneys, affiliates, agents and representatives, which have
         been, or could have been, asserted relating to Sandata
         Acquisition Corporation's proposal.

The Memorandum further provides that the parties to the consolidated
actions will petition the Court for final certification of a non-opt
out class defined as all holders of Company common stock as of August
5, 2002, through and including the closing date of the Merger
Agreement.  The settlement contemplated by the Memorandum is subject to
the execution of a formal Stipulation and Settlement, the consummation
of the merger transaction with Sandata Acquisition Corporation for
$2.21 per share of Company common stock, final approval of the Court of
the settlement, including certification of a class, and the dismissal
of the consolidated actions by the Court.

The Memorandum also provides that, subject to approval of the Court,
none of the defendants will object to an application by plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed
$60,000.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter
and, accordingly, no adjustments have been made in the condensed
consolidated financial statements in response to this matter.


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniroyal Technology Corporation and certain of its officers face five
securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.  The suits allege, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended in connection with:

     (1) the valuation of a promissory note held by the Company in
         December 1999,

     (2) the write-down of goodwill in the Company's subsidiary
         Sterling in December 2001, and
         
     (3) statements made in filings with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission and in press releases concerning Sterling.

The Company labeled the lawsuits "without merit" and said that the
lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
results or operations.


UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniroyal Technology Corporation and certain of its officers are
currently defendants in a securities class action filed by certain
former shareholders of its subsidiary Sterling Semiconductor, Inc. in
the the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

This suit alleges, among other things, violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the exchange of common
stock of the Company for securities of Sterling in May 2000.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company misrepresented the timing of the
attainment of commercial viability of the Company's subsidiary UOE.  
Management intends to defend this suit vigorously.


UNITED STATES: VA Farmer Wins $6.6M After 17 Years Of Racial Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has ordered the government to pay $6.6 million to a
farmer for 17 years of racial discrimination and attempts to force him
off the land, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The decision is the first finding of liability against the government
by an administrative law judge under a process set up in late 1998, for
reviewing long-standing complaints of discrimination by the Department
of Agriculture against black farmers, the Richmond Times- Dispatch
reports.  The award was made to Will Sylvester Warren, 77, of
Southampton County in southeastern Virginia.  At least five other cases
have been settled by the government privately, without a hearing before
a judge.

The ruling, issued by Judge Constance T. O'Bryant, is under review by
Department of Agriculture staff.  The department will decide by the end
of next week whether to order a formal review of the ruling.  Assistant
Secretary for Administration Lou Gallegos would make the final
determination on the judge's findings and award.  If Mr. Gallegos does
not review the case, Judge O'Bryant's judgment will stand.

The judge's 46-page ruling bristles with indignation at Mr. Warren's
treatment by the Agriculture Department's officials in Southampton, a
farm-rich community best known for the 1831 slave uprising led by Nat
Turner.  Judge O'Bryant said the Department failed repeatedly in its
duty to help Mr. Warren, who cannot read or write, and then retaliated
against him for alleging racial discrimination.

"He knew racism was widespread in the county; indeed, he had been
victimized by it," the Judge wrote.  "However, he held onto his faith
that the federal government would treat him fairly.  Regrettably, he
found this was not to be.  Mr. Warren has challenged the establishment
and he has paid a hefty price for it."

An investigation by the Agriculture Department's Office of Civil Rights
found that the Department has discriminated against Mr. Warren at least
since 1988.  The government went further when the case went to trial,
stipulating that it had discriminated against the farmer since 1985.

However, the government has tried to avoid a big payout to Mr. Warren,
who had "opted out" of the government's settlement of a class-action
lawsuit filed by black farmers who alleged systematic discrimination in
farm-loan programs.  Judge O'Bryant, of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, rejected the government's estimates of Mr. Warren's
farm losses at about $300,000 as "implausible and unreliable."

Instead, she awarded him more than $1.1 million to compensate for his
losses, which included the inability to maintain leases on more than
600 acres and the shutdown of his swine operation.  He was unable to
expand his farm or maintain the peanut production that had put him in
what the judge called "an elite group of farmers" chosen to grow
peanuts for a program overseen by what is now widely known as Virginia
Tech.  "Moreover, his ability to obtain credit was destroyed," she
said.

In addition to the actual losses, Judge O'Bryant ruled that Mr. Warren
was entitled to $5 million for the emotional distress inflicted on him
"throughout a relentless campaign by USDA staff to cause him economic
and emotional harm."  The judge also awarded him $450,000 for damage to
his reputation as a borrower, as a person of honesty and good faith,
and as a farmer.


WESTAR ENERGY: Investors File Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed recently against Westar Energy Inc. charges the
company and its top executives with knowingly issuing false and
misleading statements about the company's finances, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The lawsuit in the US District Court in Topeka, Kansas, charges that
those statements cost hundreds of thousands of people to lose money
because Westar securities consequently sold at artificially high
prices.  The class represented in the lawsuit includes anyone who
bought Westar stock between March 30, 2001 and December 26, 2002.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Howard B. Kahn, hometown
unavailable.  The lawsuit was filed by attorneys with Swanson Midgley
of Kansas City, Missouri, Schiffrin & Barroway of Bala Cynwyd,
Pennsylvania and Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates of Little Rock,
Arkansas.

The lawsuit charges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act by issuing the misleading or false statements involving
its dealings with Cleco Corp., and earnings for Protection One, a
security alarm firm owned primarily by Westar.  The complaint said the
statements artificially inflated the price of Westar's securities, and
that each of the defendants knew about the deception.

Westar announced in December it had received a subpoena from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, seeking details about its trades
with Cleco Corp., a Louisiana utility that acknowledged making
inappropriate trades of electrical power.  Cleco said it had made
"round trip" transactions, in which a trader buys and sells an energy
contract at the same moment for the same price, which can artificially
inflate revenue and transaction volume.

Westar also announced in November it was restating financial results
for the first half of the year 2002, including taking a $93 million
charge to correct an accounting error involving Protection One.  State
regulators, around the same time, ordered Westar to reorganize, saying
they wanted to protect electric consumers from risks associated with
the company's non-utility business interests, such as Protection One, a
security-alarm firm.  

Westar is the state's largest electric company.  Its non-utility
interests include an 88 percent ownership in Protection One, which
critics have argued is a drain on Westar's finances.


ZIMBABWE: Court Partially Dismisses Zimbabwe Leader's Human Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed several claims in the class action filed by citizens of
Zimbabwe against Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, and Stan
Mudenge, Foreign Minister, individually and as officers of the Zimbabwe
African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), the American Society
on International Law (ASIL) newsletter states.

The suit states that:

     (1) ZANU-PF and the individual defendants planned and executed a
         campaign of violence designed to intimidate and suppress its
         political opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change  
         (MDC).  Specifically, Plaintiffs charged that the defendants'
         conduct included "murder, torture, terrorism, rape, beatings,
         and destruction of property;"

     (2) plaintiffs based their claims on the Alien Tort Claims Act
         (ATCA), the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), the general
         federal question jurisdictional statute, and "fundamental
         norms of international human rights law."

The defendants were served while they were in New York City as
representatives of Zimbabwe to the United Nations Millennium Summit.  
They were served, however, outside of the UN Headquarters Area.  
Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Mugabe was served when he arrived at an
unofficial gathering of a private New York group raising money for
ZANU-PF.  After plaintiffs moved for entry of a default judgment, the
defendants asked the State Department for a "Suggestion of Immunity,"
the ASIL newsletter states.

The State Department agreed, indicating to the court that Mr. Mugabe
and Mr. Mudenge were immune from suit and that "'permitting this action
to proceed against the President and Foreign Minister would be
incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."  The
State Department urged dismissal of the claims against the defendants
based on head-of-state immunity, diplomatic immunity and "personal
inviolability attaching to both Mugabe and Mudenge."

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Mugabe and Mr.
Mudenge individually based on head-of-state immunity and diplomatic
immunity.  The court, however, allowed claims against ZANU-PF to
proceed despite the fact that service of process on the political party
was made upon them.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases  
ANNUITY & LIFE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE:ANR)
between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the Company and:

     (1) Frederick S. Hammer,

     (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

     (3) John F. Burke

The complaint charges Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. and certain
of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements and
filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the
Company's increasing revenues and financial performance.  As alleged in
the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 by E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whesq.com


CABLE & WIRELESS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Cable and Wireless plc (NYSE: CWP) between August 6, 1999
and December 6, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

Cable announced, in an August 6, 1999 press release that it had agreed
to sell One 2 One, a British based mobile telecommunications operator,
to Deutsche Telekom.  The announced terms of the agreement detailed
that Deutsche Telekom would pay 6.9 billion pounds sterling in cash for
100% of the equity ownership interest in One 2 One.  Additionally,
Deutsche Telekom would provide for the repayment of 237 million pounds
of shareholder loans, and would assume nearly 1.5 billion pounds of
third-party debt.

The complaint alleges that those statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to reveal that an essential term of the
One 2 One deal was a 1.5 billion pounds tax indemnification clause
agreed to by Cable, and specifically, a trigger clause, involving a
future downgrade of Cable's long-term debt rating below a predetermined
level, which would trigger a 1.5 billion pounds cash commitment on
behalf of Cable.

Moody's investment service announced on December 6, 2002, that it would
downgrade the long-term debt rating of Cable from Baa1 to Baa2.  The
Company then surprised the market in a press release that same day
revealing that, resulting from the downgrade, the aforementioned
"ratings trigger" was initiated.

The announcement resulted in a 40 percent decline in the price of
Cable's ADRs, from a closing price of $3.90 per ADR on December 6,
2002, to a close at $2.33 per ADR on December 9, 2002, on uncommonly
high trading volume.  Consequently, the Company filed a Form 6-K with
the SEC on December 9, 2002 including a statement concerning the tax
indemnification "ratings trigger" clause.

For more details, contact Daniel W. Krasner, 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 Cable.


HOTELS.COM: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Hotels.com (Nasdaq:ROOM), between
October 23, 2002 and January 6, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Hotels.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Hotels.com is an online consolidator of hotel accommodations,
contracting with hotels in advance for volume purchases and guaranteed
availability of hotel rooms at wholesale prices which are then sold to
customers.  On October 23, 2002, the Company's president said the
Company was an unqualified success and projected phenomenal growth for
the fourth quarter, including Q4 '02 revenue of $283-$289 million and
cash earnings per share of $0.46 to $0.47.  The October 23 release sent
the Company's shares soaring to above $60 per share, eventually hitting
a Class Period high of $75 on December 2, 2002.  Then on January 6,
2003, the defendants announced that the Company would fall materially
short of hitting its forecasted projections.  On this news, the
Company's shares dropped to $44 from $59, a market cap loss of more
than $855 million. The complaint details $42 million in insider trading
during the class period.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-
free), by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


NASH FINCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired common stock of Nash
Finch Company (NASDAQ: NAFCE) between July 15, 2002 through and
including November 8, 2002.

The suit charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the suit alleges that
Nash Finch issued false statements, including false financial results
in which the Company included income from vendor promotions to which
Nash Finch was not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings
on its debt.  As a result of defendants' false statements, the
Company's stock traded at artificially inflated levels, permitting Nash
Finch to maintain credit ratings on its $400 million in debt.

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

For more details, contact 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: NAFCE@bernlieb.com.  


SMARTFORCE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NH Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired American Depository
Shares (ADS) of SmartForce PLC, doing business as SkillSoft (NASDAQ:
SKIL) during the period from October 19, 1999 through and including
November 18, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). As
alleged in the complaint, during the class period, defendants and its
predecessors 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) SmartForce improperly recognized revenue under a re-seller
         arrangement, resulting in the booking of revenue before it
         was received from the re-sellers;

     (2) SmartForce recognized revenue for software sales upon
         shipment, even though the payment schedules for those
         contracts extended over several years;

     (3) SmartForce recognized revenue in connection with other
         customer contracts upon execution of those contracts, even
         though the terms were four to five years in length; and

     (4) SmartForce improperly accounted for bad debt, causing an
         increase in reserve.

On November 19, 2002, SmartForce shocked the market by announcing that
it intended to restate the historical financial statements of
SmartForce for 1999, 2000, 2001, and the first two quarters of 2002.  
In the process of preparing the closing balance sheet of SmartForce as
of September 6, 2002, SmartForce identified several accounting issues
that required the pre-merger SmartForce financial statements to be
restated.  In response to this announcement, the shares of SmartForce
dropped 33.7% to close at $3.07.

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


TELLIUM INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Tellium,
Inc. (Nasdaq:TELM) on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus for its initial public offering dated May 15, 2001,
including those persons who purchased Tellium common stock in the open
market during the period May 17, 2001 through January 31, 2002, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff alleges that Tellium's Registration Statement and other
public statements during the Class Period repeatedly touted the
Company's $300 million Agreement with Quest Communications
International Inc., stating, for example, that Qwest had committed to
"purchase a minimum of $300 million of our optical switches over the
first three years of the contract."  The Registration Statement,
however, failed to disclose that the Qwest Agreement had a "Termination
for Convenience" clause, which allowed Qwest, at its sole option, to
terminate or suspend the Agreement or any part thereof for any reason.

The true facts were first disclosed on January 31, 2002, when
defendants shocked the market by disclosing that it could not rely on
revenues from the Qwest Agreement to achieve its financial guidance for
2002.  This statement contradicted defendants' earlier statements
during the class period that assured investors that the Company's
projected 2002 revenues would come from its existing customers.  
Following this disclosure, the market price of Tellium's common stock
fell almost 18%, to close at $4.48 per share, down approximately 84%
from the class period high of $27.10.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703 by
Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


TELLIUM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action has been filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:TELM) publicly traded
securities during the period between May 17, 2001 and February 1, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Tellium, 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 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 Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 by E-mail:
clowther@whesq.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  * * *