CAR_Public/030221.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, February 21, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 37

                              Headlines                            

AAMES FINANCIAL: CA Court Approves Settlement of Overtime Wage Lawsuit
AAMES FINANCIAL: Attempting To Settle Yield-Spread Premium Suit in CA
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Canadian Cars
CANADA: Ontario Pension Plan Members File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
CHINA: Chinese Court Accepts First Lawsuit For Securities Violations

IDAHO: To Contract With Doctors For Blood Lead-Screening For Children
IGEN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Ask MD Appeals Court To Review One Claim
MONTEREY PASTA: Investors Commence Suit For Securities Violations in CA
OLIN CORPORATION: Residents Sue Over Perchlorate-Tainted Wells
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Sue Over Securities Violations

PEMSTAR INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in MN Court
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Defendants Appeal Refusal To Dismiss MA Lawsuit
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask AZ Court To Certify Fraud Suit
TEXAS: Bill Aimed At Limiting Legal Avenues Of Tort Activity Proposed
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Transfer of Securities Lawsuits To NH Court Sought

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NH
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suit in NH Court
UNITED AIRLINES: Hearing-Impaired Teen Files Suit For Captioned Movies


                           Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devon Sailor's Appeal Rejected in Asbestos Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bill Seeking Asbestos Reform Introduced in Senate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 50 Years Later, Asbestos Exposure Destroying Lives
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: State Court Judge Jaffe Admits Guilt for Extortion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mayor Archer Fights Exploitative Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retiree Dies Due to Asbestos Related Cancer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Moves to Settle Asbestos Related Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: DaimlerChrysler Corp. Battles Asbestos Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos at Hotel Spawns Investigations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Emmett J. Bean Workers Fear Exposure To Asbestos

ASBESTOS ALERT: Flowserve Corporation Notes Asbestos Related Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay on Suits V. Halliburton Extended to March 21
ASBESTOS ALERT: Oil States Subsidiaries Face Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Pennzoil Joins Asbestos Premise-Owner Defendants List
ASBESTOS ALERT: United Tech Faces 850 Asbestos Cases, 16T Claimants


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERCO: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV Court
CARREKER CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
CORVIS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LEXENT INC.: Beatie and Osborn Commences Investor Suit in DE Court
MOTOROLA INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL

OWENS CORNING: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
SPRINT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in KS Court
SPRINT CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Securities Suit in KS
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Suit in TN

                           *********

AAMES FINANCIAL: CA Court Approves Settlement of Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of California approved the settlement
proposed by Aames Financial Corporation to settle a class action filed
against it and certain of its subsidiaries.

A former loan executive filed the suit on behalf of himself and current
and former loan executives employed by the Company.  The plaintiff
alleges that during his employment, he and other loan executives worked
in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.  The suit alleges
that the Company willfully failed to pay overtime in violation of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and, with respect to loan executives
employed in California, in violation of the California Labor Code and
Business & Professional Code & sect. 17200, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

On February 10, 2003, the court approved a settlement between the
parties regarding this litigation, in which the Company did not admit
liability.  The Company believes that the terms of this settlement did
not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position and results of operations.


AAMES FINANCIAL: Attempting To Settle Yield-Spread Premium Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Aames Financial Corporation is engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs
in the class action pending against it and certain of its subsidiaries,
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs, the Company's former customers, filed this action on behalf
of themselves and all persons who applied for or obtained loans from
the Company during the prior four years.  Plaintiffs allege various
state law claims premised their contention that the Company routinely  
"upcharges" third party fees and underdiscloses annual percentage
rates.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint limiting the
purported class to California borrowers and asserting claims based upon
the payment of a yield spread premium to their broker.  Plaintiffs
contend that such yield spread premium payments constitute kickbacks
and/or illegal referrals under California law and/or that the Company
failed to properly disclose the nature of a yield spread premium.  
Plaintiffs seek certification of the class, damages consisting of fees
paid to mortgage brokers, statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, restitution, disgorgement of improperly collected charges,
punitive damages and injunctive relief.  The Company has answered the
amended complaint, again asserting various affirmative defenses.  The
parties are presently engaged in mediation.  No trial has been set.


AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Canadian Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A conspiracy by automobile manufacturers and dealers to block Canadian
imports has cost American consumers thousands of dollars extra for each
new car purchased since at least 2001 - billions of dollars overall,
according to an antitrust lawsuit announced today by the law firm of
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit was filed in the United States District Courts for the
District of Massachusetts and the Northern District of California.  
Similar actions are being filed in other federal courts.  
Coincidentally, the complaints came as dealers geared up to promote low
prices on Presidents' Day weekend.

The complaint names most major carmakers as defendants, along with
associations representing American and Canadian dealerships.  It says
the defendants conspired to eliminate the import of lower-priced new
cars from Canada into the United States to illegally stifle
competition.  As part of the alleged conspiracy, for example, American
dealerships refused to honor new car warranties on cars purchased in
Canada.

Canadian dealers pay manufacturers 10% to 30% less for cars than their
Americans counterparts, despite the elimination of duties and tariffs
by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 and the
subsequent harmonization of safety and environmental regulations for
new cars, the complaint alleges.

"Talk about sticker shock: Car makers have rigged the deck to make U.S.
consumers pay thousands of dollars more per vehicle than Canadians for
virtually the same cars," said Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., a Berman
DeValerio partner.  "These auto manufacturers were all for NAFTA if it
meant getting cheaper parts and labor.  But when free trade threatened
to cut into their U.S. profits, they worked to get around it - and
broke the law to keep prices high."

The complaint alleges that the conspiracy permitted manufacturers to
maintain higher prices on virtually every car sold in the United States
compared to prices of the same vehicles in Canada.  In one example
cited in the complaint, Ford's 2002 Windstar LX minivan had a
Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $16,448 in Canada and
$22,340 in the United States - a difference of 26%.  In a second
example, the MSRP for a 2002 Lexus SC43 was 13% lower in the Canada
than the United States, $53,151 compared to $61,055.

According to the complaint, the manufacturers conspired to block
Canadian imports to the United States even though the Canadian cars
were, for all practical purposes, identical and conformed to US
regulations.  The only differences were metric vs. imperial measure
speedometers and odometers and, in some cases, daytime running lights,
all of which could easily be adapted.

Named as defendants are:

     (1) the General Motors Corporation and its Canadian subsidiary;

     (2) the Ford Motor Company and its Canadian subsidiary;

     (3) the Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan and its US subsidiary;

     (4) the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. of Japan and its US subsidiary;

     (5) DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft of Germany and its Canadian
         subsidiary;

     (6) the Nissan Motor Company of Japan and its US and Canadian
         subsidiaries;

     (7) Bayerischen Motor Werken Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) of Germany
         and its US subsidiary;

     (8) the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) of Toronto,
         which represents over 3,000 franchised new automobile
         dealerships in Canada; and

     (9) the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) of McLean,
         Virginia, which represents over 43,000 franchised automobile
         dealerships across the United States

US and Canadian franchise dealerships for the above manufacturers are
cited as unnamed co-conspirators in the complaint.

For more information, contact Richard Lorant by Phone: 617-542-8300 or
(mobile) 617-230-0903 by E-mail: rlorant@bermanesq.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bermanesq.com.


CANADA: Ontario Pension Plan Members File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of a pension plan have filed a class proceeding regarding
serious investment losses suffered by about 2,300 current and former
employees of 26 Ontario farm co-operatives.  

According to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, or FSCO,
only $64 million was available last September to meet $120 million in
pension promises under the Participating Co-operatives of Ontario
Trusteed Pension Plan.

Among the larger groups affected are the retirees and former employees
of the defunct United Co-operatives of Ontario.  The suit names as
defendants the pension plan board of trustees, its former investment
manager and consultant, and the custodian of the pension fund.  The
action alleges that the defendants were negligent and breached their
fiduciary duties owed to plan members.

"With wind-up costs, lawyers and administrative fees and potential
actuarial costs it is realistic to expect payouts of less than 50 per
cent," pension trustees warned plan members in a recent letter. FSCO
has given the trustees until the end of February to propose measures to
comply with the funding requirements of Ontario pension legislation.  
However, members have expressed concern that the plan may have to be
wound up in a deficit position.

An internal report by FSCO raises serious questions about how well the
plan's board of trustees supervised the investment manager, who used
derivative investment contracts to avoid substantial losses on equity
investments.

Plan members may not be eligible for partial compensation from the
Ontario Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund. The guarantee fund does not
cover multi-employer pension plans, which the farm co-operatives' plan
has been since 1994. Until 1994, the pension plan was sponsored and
administered by the United Co-operatives of Ontario, which went through
a restructuring and sale of assets due to a fall in its business.

Lawyer Ari Kaplan of the firm Koskie Minsky said some members who
retired early have already received notice stating that their pensions
were calculated improperly and have been asked to repay money. "I have
heard that one retiree has had his pension already reduced by 70 per
cent and has been asked to repay money to the pension plan," Mr. Kaplan
said.

He said his firm is still investigating what other claims plan members
might have and whom such claims might be made against.  "Members are
being told that they must increase their own contributions or take a
cut in benefits as a result of the drop in assets, or risk having their
plan wound up in a deficit", he said.

According to the FSCO report, an independent fund manager succeeded in
losing fund money between 1997 and 2000.  However, during these years,
stocks and bonds were providing strong returns to other pension plans.
Things went from bad to worse when stock prices fell in 2001 and 2002.  
Individual members have been given only a sketchy explanation that
losses prior to 2001 resulted, among other things, from the use of
derivative investments.

A FSCO report sent to Nancy Fletcher, director of pension
administration at the Co-operatives pension plan, refers to the use of
"protection contracts" based on derivatives. "There were no written
policies or procedures established by the pension committee in respect
of these investments," the report alleges.  "Investments in derivatives
call for a high level of sophistication."

"One of the areas stressed in the policies (of the Pension Commission
of Ontario and FSCO) is the need for documented policies and procedures
on the practice of using derivatives as an investment strategy" the
FSCO report states.

The FSCO report also questions if certain assets were registered in the
name of the pension fund or the name of an investment adviser, contrary
to the Pension Benefits Act and the pension plan's guidelines.

For more details, contact Ari Kaplan by Phone: 416-595-2087 or by Fax:
416-204-2875 or contact Michael Mazzuca by Phone: 416-595-2101 or by
Fax: 416-204-2881 or contact Kirk Baert by Phone: 416-595-2117 or by
Fax: 416-204-2889


CHINA: Chinese Court Accepts First Lawsuit For Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Chinese court, for the first time, accepted a class action, which
involves alleged financial fraud at a petrochemical company, according
to a report by Dow Jones Business News.  It is uncertain when a trial
might begin.

The Harbin Intermediate Court, located in northeast China, accepted the
lawsuit on behalf of 381 plaintiff shareholders who allege that the
Daqing Lianyi Petrochemical Company falsified its books both before and
after its initial public offering in 1996.  The lawsuit further alleges
that the company bribed regulators "to look the other way."  The
lawsuit seeks 10.2 million yuan ($1.2 million) in damages.  In addition
to Daqing Lianyi, the lawsuit names as defendants three of its board
members, underwriters at Shenyin Wanguo Securities Co. and the
company's Harbin-based accounting firm.

Some 600 people expressed an interest in joining the suit accepted by
the Harbin court.  However, the Harbin court actually consolidated
cases it had accepted earlier on behalf of individuals in order to form
the suit, which is going forward, newspapers have reported.

The way was paved for acceptance of the Daqing Lianyi case by the
Harbin Court, which like the rest of the Chinese court system is
cautious of change, after regulators fined the company, ordered its
restructuring and sent a number of people to jail.  At that point, it
was evident that the company and its officers had been guilty of
wrongdoing.  Consequently, the Harbin court was open to accommodating
the interests of the shareholders when they subsequently filed their
grievances with the court.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Xuan Wei Hua, of Grandell Legal Group Shanghai,
described the shareholders' class action against Daqing as a "test
case," according to media reports.  He has predicted that the case
will "help further establish the class action system in China."


IDAHO: To Contract With Doctors For Blood Lead-Screening For Children
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatricians in Idaho will conduct blood-lead screening for children
in order to help the state of Idaho meet its obligations under the
Medicaid program.  The state's Department of Health and Welfare hopes
to line up seven contracts with doctors to install blood-lead testing
devices and have the program going by March, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

A class action, filed in 2000, on behalf of children from the Siver
Valley, contending the state failed to comply with lead-screening for
children in various Medicaid programs, was settled recently when the
state entered into a consent decree.   Federal District Court
Magistrate Judge Mikel Williams earlier had issued a judgment which
found the state was not screening poor children for potential lead
hazards through Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment Services.

The state and the plaintiffs, represented by former Idaho Supreme Court
Justice Robert Huntley, began negotiating the consent decree in
November.  "The fact is, as a condition of participation in Medicaid,
the state receives federal dollars and is required to implement this
program," Mr. Huntley said.  "In truth, the state has not been devoting
proper resources to implement the program.  It will take proper funding
from the Legislature."

In order to help the state get the screening program started, Dr.
Terence Neff, who operates clinics in Coeur d'Alene and Post Falls, has
agreed to have the testing machines set up in his clinics.   Dr. Neff
is also president of the Idaho Pediatrics Society.  He said the group
has voted to support the state and provide child blood-lead screening
for a minimum of two years.  The screening will follow both state and
federal Medicaid guidelines to screen children at ages one and two.


IGEN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Ask MD Appeals Court To Review One Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative and class action lawsuits
filed against IGen International, Inc. asked the Maryland Special
Appeals court to review the dismissal of one of the five claims in the
suit, making the dismissal of the other claims final.

In February 2001, Brown Simpson Strategic Growth Fund LP, Brown Simpson
Strategic Growth Fund, Ltd. and Brown Simpson Partners I initiated a
shareholder derivative lawsuit for and on behalf of the shareholders of
the Company in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland
against four of the Company's current directors, two former directors,
three executive officers and the Company as a nominal defendant.

In the complaint, Brown Simpson alleged breach of fiduciary duties by
the named individual defendants in connection with transactions between
the Company and other entities in which certain directors and officers
are alleged to have an interest, including the Meso Scale Diagnostics,
LLC. joint venture.

In March 2001, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by
Laurence Paskowitz in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland
with allegations substantially the same as those set forth in the
complaint filed by Brown Simpson.  The complaint was later amended to
add direct claims against the defendants and to seek class action
certification for those direct claims.

Both lawsuits sought principally that the defendants hold in trust and
be required to account for and restore to the Company damages that IGEN
has allegedly sustained by reason of the allegations and relief
relating to board and management composition.  The Paskowitz complaint
also sought damages for a class of IGEN shareholders for the direct
claims against the individual defendants.  The complaints did not
include any claims against the Company.

The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss or,
in the alternative, for summary judgment in both lawsuits.  In May
2002, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing all claims
asserted against all of the defendants in both cases.  No appeal was
filed by the Brown Simpson plaintiff and the decision in that case is
now final.  In June 2002, the Paskowitz plaintiff filed an appeal to
the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland seeking review only for one
direct claim. The Circuit Court dismissal of all other claims in the
Paskowitz complaint is now final.  A decision of the Court of Special
Appeals is anticipated in the near future.

The Company believes that the remaining claim in the Paskowitz suit is
without merit.


MONTEREY PASTA: Investors Commence Suit For Securities Violations in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monterey Pasta Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the
United States Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between the period July 11,
2002 and December 16, 2002, inclusive.

The press release stated the complaint alleges the defendant violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly issuing a series of
materially misleading statements to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock.  The
plaintiff, who is not identified in the press release, seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all acquirers of the Company's stock during the
class period.

The Company has not been served with, nor seen the complaint as of the
time of this filing.  


OLIN CORPORATION: Residents Sue Over Perchlorate Tainted Wells
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five homeowners in San Martin, California, recently filed a class
action, in Santa Clara County Superior Court, against Olin Corporation,
the aerospace and ammunition manufacturer, whose Morgan Hill highway-
flare operation has allegedly contaminated their drinking water wells
with a chemical used in rocket fuels, the San Jose Mercury News
reports.

Lead plaintiffs Kisti Daniels, Mark Daniels, Sue McElwaine, Louis J.
Kateh, Jr. and Fred N. Threatt filed the suit on behalf of thousands of
residents and nearby affected areas.  The lawsuit also names as
defendants Olin's subsidiary, Standard Fusee Corporation, which
operated the highway-flare firm, as well as two Fusee supervisors, Anne
Lee and Yoshio Suekawa.

The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of damages for the
residents.  The residents allege their properties have decreased in
value since the contamination by the chemical perchlorate, known to
cause thyroid disorders, was disclosed a month ago.

Olin Corporation has accepted responsibility for the contamination,
which is the biggest occurrence of groundwater pollution in the
county's history, and stands ready to assume responsibility for the
cleanup costs.  Plaintiffs' lawsuit is asking that the corporation
create a program to survey and monitor the health of the current
residents and any other persons who lived in the area since 1955.  

The lawsuit asks further that the Company pay all costs for medical
diagnosis and treatment for such residents.  The lawsuit also seeks a
survey of residents with thyroid or endocrine disorders, the data from
which would be put into a confidential registry open to medical doctors
and researchers.

The contamination was revealed after testing showed that a plume of
perchlorate had spread through the underground aquifer.  Tests recently
released showed that 90 of the 271 wells tested south of the site so
far tested positive for the chemical.  More than 500 businesses and
homes are awaiting results.  Officials fear the chemical could affect
the drinking water of more than 2,000 people.

The perchlorate was first discovered three years ago at the 13-acre
site in southern Morgan Hill where Standard Fusee operated a flare-
manufacturing plant from 1955 to 1996.  The company mixed chemicals in
metal bowls, which were then washed out and the rinse water dumped into
an evaporation pond, from which it percolated into the ground.  Over
the years, a plume of perchlorate contamination spread at least seven
miles southeast through the underground aquifers in an area where most
residents get their drinking water from wells.

The plaintiffs' lawsuit therefore charges that Olin and Standard Fusee
negligently let the chemical perchlorate seep into the South County
groundwater supply despite knowing better after a half-century of
experience in chemical use.

Ignoring California's environmental laws, the lawsuit further charges,
Standard Fusee, "created a toxic waste site, left their waste in the
soils and allowed it to infiltrate the groundwater system."

The suit says, "It is uncertain as to the length of time which will be
required for abatement of the contamination, if it can be abated at
all."  The residents, says the lawsuit "are essentially prisoners of
the Olin site, having lost all ability to sell, market or finance."


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Sue Over Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parametric Technology Corporation (NasdaqNM: PMTC) faces a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts naming the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges that false statements were made concerning PTC's
maintenance revenue and purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period October 19, 1999 and
December 31, 2002.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and will
contest the lawsuit vigorously, it said in a press statement.


PEMSTAR INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against Pemstar, Inc.
filed a consolidated amended securities suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Allen Berning,

     (2) William Leary,

     (3) William Kullback,

     (4) Robert Murphy,

     (5) Steve Petracca,

     (6) Karl Shurson,

     (7) Robert Ahmann,

     (8) Paul Singh,

     (9) Gregory Lea,

    (10) Thomas Burton and

    (11) Bruce Jaffe

The suit alleges that certain current and former officers and directors
of the Company violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The lawsuit alleges, in essence, that
the defendants defrauded their shareholders by making optimistic
statements during a time when they should have known that business
prospects were less promising.  

The suit further alleges a violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The suit specifically states that the
registration statement filed by the Company in connection with a
secondary offering contained false, material misrepresentations.

It is too early to predict the likelihood of prevailing on the suit.  
The Company believes the actions are wholly without merit and will
vigorously defend against the claims.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Defendants Appeal Refusal To Dismiss MA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder derivative suit filed against Polymendica
Corporation's board of directors is docketed at the Massachusetts
Appeals court.

Several suits were filed in Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex
County, and were later consolidated.  The suit alleges that the
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, failing to exercise reasonable care in the oversight of
corporate affairs and management with respect to the operations of
Liberty and by acquiescing in alleged misconduct by Liberty.  The suit
seeks unspecified damages, the return of compensation, and other
relief, including injunctive relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on January 31, 2002.  
After briefing and a hearing on the motion, the court entered an order
denying the motion to dismiss on July 16, 2002.  On August 8, 2002,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to report the
case to the appeals court and stay the proceeding.

The court issued an order on September 16, 2002 in which it refused to
reconsider its decision, but reported the case to the appeals court and
granted defendants' motion to stay the action.  On January 23, 2003,
the Appeals court docketed the case under the caption Roberta Casden v.
Daniel S. Bernstein and others; No. 2003-P-01070.

The directors and defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to
the claims made in the consolidated complaint and intend to contest the
claims vigorously.  The Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the likely outcome of this litigation.


RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask AZ Court To Certify Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the one of the securities suits pending against
Rural/Metro Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona to certify the suit as a class action.  

Two suits were initially filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities between April 28,1997 and June 11,1998.  One
suit, Haskell V. Rural/Metro Corporation et al., was filed in Pima
County, Arizona Superior Court, while the other suit, Ruble V.
Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona.  The suits name as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Warren S. Rustand, the former Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Executive Officer of the Company,  

     (2) James H. Bolin, the former Vice Chairman of the Board, and  

     (3) Robert E. Ramsey, Jr., the former Executive Vice President and
         former Director

The Haskell suit seeks unspecified damages under the Arizona Securities
Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and under Arizona common law
fraud, and also seeks punitive damages, a constructive trust, and other
injunctive relief.  The Ruble suit seeks unspecified damages under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  

The complaints in both actions allege that between April 28, 1997 and
June 11, 1998 the defendants issued certain false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's financial status
and that these statements allegedly caused the Company's common stock
to be traded at artificially inflated prices.

The complaints also allege that Mr. Bolin and Mr. Ramsey sold stock
during this period, allegedly taking advantage of inside information
that the stock prices were artificially inflated.

The Arizona State Court later granted a request for a stay of the
Haskell action until the Ruble action is finally resolved.  The Company
and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Ruble action.  The
court later granted the motion to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to replead.  

The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint.  The Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  On March 8, 2002, the court granted the motions to dismiss
of Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Bolin with leave to replead and denied the
motions to dismiss of the Company and Mr. Rustand.

Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Bolin have been dismissed from the Ruble v.
Rural/Metro case although the court has permitted plaintiffs leave to
file another complaint against those individuals.  Mr. Rustand and the
Company remain defendants.

The parties have commenced discovery in the Ruble v. Rural/Metro case.  
During discovery, the parties conduct investigation through formal
processes such as depositions, subpoenas and requests for production of
documents.  This phase is currently expected to run through November
2003.

In addition, Plaintiffs have moved to certify the class in the Ruble v.
Rural/Metro case.  Defendants, without waiving the right to object in
the future, at this juncture expect to stipulate to the certification
of the class.


TEXAS: Bill Aimed At Limiting Legal Avenues Of Tort Activity Proposed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Joseph Nixon, R-Houston, recently filed legislation in
the Texas House that, if passed, would be the first important revision
of Texas civil law in some eight years, having the potential of   
bringing important changes into the lives of ordinary Texas citizens,
the Austin American-Statesman reports.

Rep. Nixon's bill, among other things, would impose some stricter rules
for class actions.  It would limit the amount of interest paid on
judgments, increase the pressure on plaintiffs to make out-of-court
settlements and protect retailers and manufacturers from liability when
they sell potentially defective products.

Supporters of the changes, like Richard Trabulsi, President of Texans
for Lawsuit Reform, say the newly proposed legislation addresses abuses
that only recently are being given publicity.  "If the Legislature
passes this agenda . it makes Texas a beacon state.  It will show
the way for a fair, balanced and efficient system," Mr. Trabulsi said.

Some Texans, however, voice other sentiments, charging that business
interests are working to take from average citizens their right to sue
when they are wronged.  "This (the proposed bill) is an agenda that is
driven by lobbyists," said Daniel Lambe, executive director of Texas
Watch, a consumer rights group.  "There is nothing in this bill that
the public or average Texas family is crying out for."

Many of the items in Mr. Nixon's House Bill 4 were considered and
rejected in 1995, when a number of tort law changes were enacted.  
Groups, for example, that want lawsuit limits placed on the right to
sue are now pushing for the revival of such proposals only gathering
dust in the House Civil Practices Committee.

"Most all of the things they are suggesting (the lawmakers, the
lobbyists) have been considered and rejected in 1995, and since then,"
said Willie Chapman of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.  For
example:

     (1) a key provision of the bill would attempt to compel more
         out-of-court settlements by providing that defendants offer an
         amount for settlement.  If the plaintiffs do not accept, the
         plaintiffs would have to win a judgment within 10 percent of
         the settlement offer or pay part of the defense's legal costs.

     (2) Juries would be allowed to consider how much other people or
         businesses not parties to the lawsuit might have contributed
         to the injury and assign blame accordingly, possibly limiting
         the damages that a named defendant would have to pay.

     (3) The bill would shield retailers from liability when they
         merely sold a product that is claimed to be dangerous or
         defective; it would protect manufacturers whose products have
         complied with all pertinent federal and state regulations.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Transfer of Securities Lawsuits To NH Court Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four class actions pending against Tyco International
Ltd. asked for the transfer of the suits from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the District of
New Hampshire.  The suits were initially filed in December 2002 in the
Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida:

     (1) Hromyak V. Tyco International, Ltd., et al.,

     (2) Rappold V. Tyco International, Ltd., et al.,

     (3) Myers V. Tyco International, Ltd., et al., and

     (4) Goldfarb V. Tyco International, Ltd., et al.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions also assert claims against the
Company, certain of its current and former directors and officers,
and in three instances the Company's auditors under the Securities Act
of 1933, and seek class certification, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The HROMYAK complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of persons who
exchanged their United States Surgical Corporation (US Surgical) stock
for Company shares in connection with our acquisition of US Surgical in
or about October of 1998.  

The RAPPOLD complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of persons who
exchanged their InnerDyne, Inc. (InnerDyne) stock for shares of Tyco in
connection with its acquisition of InnerDyne in or about December of
2001.   

The MYERS complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of persons who
exchanged their TyCom, LTD (TyCom) stock for shares of Tyco in
connection with the Company's acquisition of TyCom in or about December
of 2001.  

The GOLDFARB complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of persons who
exchanged their Scott Technologies, Inc. (Scott) stock for shares of
Tyco in connection with the Company's acquisition of Scott in or about
May of 2001.  

The suits uniformly allege that the registration statement filed in
connection with the Company's acquisition of the respective companies
contained false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things, financial disclosures concerning certain of the Company's
mergers and acquisitions and accounting therefor.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International, Ltd. faces an amended consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.  The suit names as defendants certain former officers and
certain current and former directors of the Company, its auditors, and
the Company as a nominal defendant.

As to the Company's present or former personnel, the complaint asserts
causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate
assets.  As against the Company's auditors, the complaint asserts
causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentations, and
breach of contract.

The action alleges that individual defendants engaged in, permitted
and/or acquiesced in the following alleged improper conduct:

     (1) using Tyco funds for personal benefit, including
         misappropriation of funds from the Company's Key Employee Loan
         Program and relocation programs;

     (2) engaging in improper self-dealing real estate transactions;

     (3) entering into improper undisclosed retention agreements; and

     (4) filing false and misleading financial statements with the
         Securities and Exchange Commission that were based on improper
         accounting methods.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suit in NH Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class actions against Tyco International Ltd. and
certain of its current and former employees, officers and directors
filed an amended consolidated suit in the United States District Court
in the District of New Hampshire.

The suits were brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of the
Tyco International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment Plans
and the participants therein.

Two of the actions were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire, and the six remaining actions were
transferred to that court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

The suit named as defendants the Company, certain of its present and
former officers, directors and employees, its wholly owned subsidiary
Tyco International (US) Inc., its retirement committee.  The complaint
asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose
material information concerning, among other things:

     (1) related-party transactions and executive compensation;

     (2) Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting therefor,
         as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; and

     (3) misstatements of Tyco's financial results

The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by allowing the Plans to invest in Tyco stock when it was not a
prudent investment.  The plaintiffs seek:

     (i) a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to
         protection under ERISA's safe harbor provision;

    (ii) an order compelling the defendants to make good to the Plans
         all losses caused by the defendants' alleged breaches of
         fiduciary duty;

   (iii) imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by which any
         defendant was unjustly enriched;

    (iv) an order enjoining future violations of ERISA;

     (v) actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans suffered;

    (vi) costs and attorneys' fees, and

   (vii) an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
         equitable monetary relief


UNITED AIRLINES: Hearing-Impaired Teen Files Suit For Captioned Movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bynum, an 18-year-old high school senior, who is severely hearing-
impaired, filed a federal lawsuit in Houston, which claims that
Continental Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines and several
other airlines are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by not
providing captioning with their movie/TV screens, the Houston Chronicle
reports.  Mr. Bynum has requested the court to grant his lawsuit class
action status.

Disability laws require that companies must make reasonable
accommodations to comply with the disabilities act, said David George,
a Houston lawyer.  Mr. George pointed out that the legal issue in the
airlines' case may be determined by the cost of making captioned movies
available.

For example, Mr. George said, small mom and pop businesses are not
required to provide elevators to disabled customers because the cost to
them would be too much of a financial burden.  On the other hand,
requiring a hotel chain to provide elevators would be seen as a
reasonable accommodation.

In this case, if airlines "are required to spend millions to retrofit
every plane, that may not be reasonable, but if they just have to
install software, that may be considered reasonable, Mr. George said.  
Mr. George's partner, Brady Edwards, said that adding subtitles would
not be onerous.

United Airlines spokesman Jeffrey Green said the airline typically does
not comment on pending litigation.  However, he said, there are
technical problems with putting captions on the screens.  For one, they
would be difficult to fit on the small screens used on planes.  With
screens ranging from the size of a paperback to a sheet of notebook
paper, the type would either be too tiny or take up much of the screen.


                           Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devon Sailor's Appeal Rejected in Asbestos Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A former sailor from Devon, United Kingdom who says his health was
ruined by exposure to asbestos, has lost his case for compensation from
the Ministry of Defence (MoD).  

Alan Matthews, 65, from Exeter, said he was exposed to large quantities
of asbestos dust while serving in the Royal Navy 40 years ago.  

However, five Law Lords refused to strip the MoD of the last vestiges
of the Crown immunity, which protects it from being sued over injuries
suffered decades ago.  Mr. Matthews said he was "absolutely gutted" by
the Lords' decision and his lawyers are now to take the case to the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  

The 1947 Crown Proceedings Act barred lawsuits against the MoD over
injuries sustained by services personnel, until it was repealed in
1987.  However, the change was not applied retrospectively, meaning
those injured before 1987 could not bring claims.  In January 2002, the
High Court ruled this broke an individual's right to a fair hearing,
part of the Human Rights Convention, when Mr. Matthews first brought
his case to court.  However, the verdict was overturned in the Court of
Appeal three months later and the case was taken to the House of Lords,
where it was again rejected.

Mr Matthews said of the verdict, "It's not about the rules, it's about
justice, and we just haven't had it.  I'm not going to throw in the
towel. I always knew this was going to be a struggle, but the fight
must go on.  The livelihoods of too many people, including families and
widows who have lost loved ones to the negligence of the armed forces,
depend on the outcome of my case to give up now."

Four years ago, X-rays showed Mr. Matthews' lungs had been affected by
asbestos dust.  Mr. Matthews believes this came from when he was
exposed to the substance as an electrician in the Royal Navy between
1955 and 1968.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bill Seeking Asbestos Reform Introduced in Senate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation aimed at curbing asbestos lawsuits has been introduced in
the US Senate, just days after a call for action by the nation's
largest legal group, a senator's office said.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles introduced the asbestos
reform bill, spokeswoman Gayle Osterberg said.  It would limit asbestos
personal injury claims by, among other things, setting medical
criteria.

However, some critics say this would exclude too many people from
filing claims, and they favor another possible solution, setting up a
trust fund for victims.  They are also hoping to get their ideas into
legislation in the new Congress.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Republican chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah,
and the ranking Democrat, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, are trying to
find a consensus on asbestos reform that industry, lawyers and unions
could support.

Earlier this month the American Bar Association backed limits on
asbestos lawsuits brought over non-cancerous lung injuries that
plaintiffs allege were caused by exposure to the fire-retardant
mineral.  Sen. Nickles' bill, which largely mirrors the ABA approach,
and a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on asbestos set for March 5
could spur further debate in Congress over whether to stop the torrent
of litigation blamed for driving more than 60 companies into
bankruptcy.

Previous Congresses have failed to address soaring asbestos claims.  
Companies lobbying for limits have been countered by environmentalists
and trial lawyers with major involvement in asbestos litigation.  Last
year, there was talk in Congress for months about an asbestos bill, but
it never materialized.  Supreme Court justices have invited Congress to
find a national solution to the "elephantine mass of asbestos cases,"
as Justice David Souter said in 1999.

Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the
1970s, when scientists concluded that inhaled fibers could be linked to
cancer and other diseases.  An avalanche of claims since then has cost
more than $54,000,000,000 in settlements.

In a statement, Sen. Nickles, a former businessman, said, "There is no
question asbestos litigation is a serious deterrent to economic
growth."  

Sen. Nickles held a Senate Budget Committee hearing on that aspect last
month.  His bill would use criteria approved by the American Medical
Association to establish whether someone is sick enough to sue.  It
would also put on hold the statute of limitations until a physical
impairment is discovered, a provision aimed at preventing a rush to
file claims over fear that the right to file suit might expire before
illness develops.  The bill prohibits "venue shopping" in courts, with
the exception of cancer patients diagnosed with a life expectancy of
less than three years.

Michael Baroody, executive vice-president of the National Association
of Manufacturers, welcomed Sen. Nickles' effort, saying it "brings the
stars into even closer alignment for passage of long-needed reform
legislation."  Mr. Baroody chairs the Asbestos Alliance, an industry
group that favors setting medical criteria to root out frivolous
lawsuits.

However, Damon Silvers, counsel for the AFL-CIO and an advocate of an
asbestos victims trust fund, said the Nickles bill was harmful to
victims who could not meet the specific medical criteria for suing.  
"We estimate that more than a million people who have been injured
would not get any compensation" under such a medical criteria system,
Mr. Silvers said.

In the House, Reps. Chris Cannon, a Utah Republican, and Cal Dooley, a
California Democrat, are also drafting an asbestos bill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 50 Years Later, Asbestos Exposure Destroying Lives
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry and David Thiele share boyhood memories of burying themselves up
to their necks in the pile of scrap ore outside the northeast
Minneapolis factory.  Mary Mattera and Glen Martner say they played in
the same vermiculite with their sisters nearly a half century ago.  For
some 40 years, kids played at that pile.

Nobody told them that microscopic asbestos fibers in the ore could
embed in their lungs.  No one knew that, decades later, the tiny toxins
would link their lives in a slowly unfolding nightmare.  At least nine
people who played in the pile, as well as two of their parents, are
dead or sick from asbestos-related respiratory diseases, according to
lawyers and family members.  When the Minnesota Department of Health
finishes a survey of 6,000 neighborhood residents, the toll could rise.

Discovery of the illnesses is stirring anger and anxiety among scores
of present and former residents who played in the ore, who spread it
along base paths of a ball field, or who put in their driveways and
gardens.  Some of them have disabling lung ailments.  Some have
abnormal X-rays.  Others worry they'll be next.

"It's kind of like having a bomb strapped to you," said David Thiele,
51, of Faribault, who has lung scarring but no symptoms.  "You just
don't know when it's set to go off."

The Western Mineral Products Co. operated the plant between Madison and
Jefferson Sts. for decades, heating the vermiculite to 2,000 degrees
until it popped into granules, which it sold as Zonolite attic
insulation.  W.R. Grace & Co. bought the Montana vermiculite mining
operation in 1963 as well as dozens of processing plants nationwide,
including the one in Minneapolis.

Now-bankrupt Grace calls it "a real tragedy" that many of its workers
were sickened or killed by asbestos-related illnesses.  Grace
executives blame inadequate science that failed to alert regulators to
the need for tougher exposure limits.  Grace executives also have said
that nearly all of the asbestos contaminant was eliminated during
processing, and that they have yet to see proof that anyone in the
neighborhood has gotten sick from the pile.

However, interviews with Twin Cities lawyers, public health experts,
the victims and their family members show the evidence is mounting.  
One telltale sign may be the mesotheliomas.  In 1998, Mr. Mattera's
sister, Karen Asmussen, died at age 57 of the disease, a rare, fast-
moving cancer of the lining of the lungs that is almost always caused
by asbestos exposure.  Mr. Mattera said that while living nearby from
1948 to 1958, Ms. Asmussen walked through dust from the plant to and
from school and played in the pile during visits to her grandmother's
home a block away.  When Ms. Asmussen's husband hugged her on
Valentine's Day in 1997, Mattera said, her sister felt the first pain
from what was soon identified as a tumor in her chest.  

Ms. Asmussen's son, Guy, of Isanti, said doctors removed one of her
lungs but the cancer spread to the other one.  "She was connected to a
(oxygen) tank for the last four months of her life," he said.

"Towards the end it was miserable, terrible," Mr. Mattera said.  "It
was just painful to breathe."

Mr. Martner, a retired engineer in Fontana, Calif., said he and his
sister, Carolyn Ellingson, played in the pile when their family lived
across the street from the plant from 1948 to 1956.  Ms. Ellingson, a
San Francisco artist, died last spring of mesothelioma at age 64.  
"When Carolyn was very sick and went into the hospital, the doctors
suspected right away that it was asbestos-related," Mr. Martner said.  
"Everybody that played in that is at risk . I have a mass on my lung."

Elwin Thiele, 78, and his wife, Jacqueline, 76, lived across the street
from the plant for 48 years. Hastings lawyer Rick LaVerdiere said their
three children -- David, Terry, and Lynette Nickelson -- played in the
scrap pile.  Mr. LaVerdiere said all five of the Thieles have calcified
plaque in the lining of their lungs -- a condition that usually appears
only if "someone had a tremendous amount of exposure to asbestos over a
long period of time or a long time ago."  He said Elwin and Terry
Thiele also have asbestosis -- a more advanced asbestos disease that
restricts breathing, sometimes lethally.

"It's incredible," Mr. LaVerdiere said.  "You've got an entire family,
and the only known exposure was living near the plant and being in the
piles as children.  That kind of evidence says that even non-
occupational exposure to their products can produce disease."

Elwin (Tip) Thiele, a retired cabinetmaker, was rushed to a hospital
earlier this month with severe chest pains.  He was informed that his
lungs were deteriorating and was given pain-killing morphine during a
two-day hospital stay.  "It seems like it's closing in on me," he said
after another doctor's visit last week.

Terry Thiele, 56, a retired phone technician, estimates he played in
the pile 50 times.  He said his doctor first noticed a shadow on his
chest X-ray 13 years ago.  Now, he said, the scarring on his X-ray
"looks like a patchwork quilt" and his asbestosis frequently leaves him
short of breath.

Peter Stasica of Coon Rapids said his 38-year-old brother, Jeff, who
frolicked with him on the pile 30 years ago, has "tumors all over his
lungs."  John Dordan, 55, of Milaca, said he played in the pile and in
the boxcars that carried raw asbestos to the plant, where his father
worked.  He said his father died of an asbestos-related disease, and
his doctor says he has a "blotch" on his chest X-ray.

Public health experts say the northeast Minneapolis situation appears
to be shaping into a smaller-scale version of the horrors that have
ravaged Libby, Montana, where the ore was mined for more than 60 years.  
Published reports say more than 200 miners have died and more than 800
other people have lung diseases.  The Environmental Protection Agency
has conducted major cleanups in both Libby and northeast Minneapolis
over the past three years.

The neighborhood exposures in Minneapolis surfaced in early 2000, when
public health officials learned that Harris Jorgensen, who had played
on the scrap pile as a child, had died of lung cancer in 1991 at age
44.  Jorgensen got a court settlement from W.R. Grace, though the firm
admitted to no liability.

Aubrey Miller, then a Denver-based epidemiologist with the US Public
Health Service who was assessing the damage in Libby, said that
Jorgensen's case "told me we've got a big problem all over the country.
That's when we went crazy, started informing other regions, started
looking into where this stuff was sent."

Most of the nation's asbestos exposures can be traced, in part, to
researchers' failure to home in on the dangers until the early 1960s,
and the government's sluggish moves to regulate asbestos.  The death
toll from asbestos exposure among American workers is projected to
reach 500,000 in the coming years.

However, public health officials say the asbestos-related illnesses
among non-workers in Libby and Minneapolis are extraordinary and may
mark a new chapter in American environmental health.  In Libby, more
than two-thirds of roughly 1,250 area residents found to have lung
abnormalities in a screening by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry "had no occupational exposure at all."

Besides the illnesses among families that lived near the Minneapolis
plant, the Star Tribune reported three years ago that asbestos
contributed to the deaths of at least 10 workers at a second plant 13
blocks from the Grace factory that also processed Libby ore.  Two
sisters who grew up across the street from that plant, operated until
1971 by the B.F. Nelson Co., died of asbestos-related diseases, and a
third has lung problems.

William Corcoran, Grace's vice president for public and regulatory
affairs, said Grace takes responsibility for the deaths of its former
workers.  However, he contended that nearly all the illnesses in Libby
-- and the company argues that the death toll is far lower than
reported -- involved Grace workers or their family members who were
exposed to dust they brought home on their clothes.

Grace has yet to see sufficient information about the Minneapolis
cases, he said, "to draw any firm conclusions about the illnesses these
individuals may have or the causes of those illnesses."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: State Court Judge Jaffe Admits Guilt for Extortion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A chastened Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph A. Jaffe wiped
away tears yesterday as he admitted extorting $13,000 in cash from an
attorney whose law firm had 1,300 asbestos cases pending before him.  
Judge Jaffe, 53, of Upper St. Clair, sat beside his lawyer, Robert
Leight, and answered questions from Chief US District Judge Donetta W.
Ambrose, who addressed him as "Mr. Jaffe."

Judge Jaffe's appearance in US District Court marked the first time a
sitting Allegheny County Common Pleas judge has pleaded guilty to a
federal crime.  He admitted violating the Hobbs Act, a federal law that
prohibits public officials from using their official power to obtain
property or services.  He pleaded guilty to the first charge in an
indictment handed up by a grand jury on Oct. 16, 2002.  During the
hearing, Judge Jaffe frequently responded, "Yes, your honor."  His face
turned red as he acknowledged his actions, signed his guilty plea and
wept.

Dressed in a gray suit, Judge Jaffe told the judge he was under the
care of a therapist and taking an anti-depressant medication for severe
depression.  He admitted that he showed a list of his personal debts to
Joel Persky, a partner in the law firm of Goldberg, Persky Jennings &
White.  The debts included a $4,200 vacation to Hilton Head, SC,
medical bills and a court judgment of $2,000.  

Mr. Persky reported the solicitation to the FBI and cooperated with
federal authorities, who recorded all of the men's subsequent meetings.  
Judge Jaffe also admitted promising Mr. Persky "unlimited access" to
him in exchange for the money and to hold certain defendants liable in
asbestos cases if Mr. Persky wanted them to remain on the hook.

Federal authorities stopped Judge Jaffe outside of Persky's Squirrel
Hill home on Aug. 7, 2002 and retrieved an envelope containing the cash
from Mr. Persky.  At a news conference following Jaffe's hearing, US
Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said the FBI is continuing to investigate
reports that he accepted referral fees from lawyers in exchange for
steering cases to them.  The code of judicial conduct prohibits judges
from accepting such fees.

Judge Jaffe, who remains free on a $15,000 recognizance bond, will be
sentenced May 16.  He faces a prison term ranging from two years to 30
months at a minimum-security prison.  Ambrose can impose a stiffer
sentence.  Kenneth McCabe, special agent in charge of the FBI's
Pittsburgh division, thanked Mr. Persky for coming forward.

"Sometimes you need to do the right thing, even if it's not the most
convenient thing," Mr. Persky said.

During the news conference, Mr. Buchanan acknowledged that lawyer Edwin
H. Beachler did not notify authorities that Judge Jaffe had solicited
money from him last summer.  Mr. Beachler's firm of Caroselli,
Beachler, Conboy & McTiernan had several hundred asbestos cases pending
before Judge Jaffe.  Last summer, Mr. Beachler gave Jaffe a check for
$12,500 after the judge showed him the same list of personal debts Mr.
Persky saw.  The code of conduct for lawyers requires them to notify
authorities of any unethical conduct by fellow lawyers or judges.

Mr. Buchanan insisted Mr. Beachler was a victim of Judge Jaffe's
misconduct and that he cooperated with federal authorities once they
approached him.  If Judge Jaffe had gone to trial, Mr. Beachler would
have testified against him, Mr. Buchanan said.  Judge Jaffe never
cashed Mr. Beachler's check and the lawyer never received anything in
return for it, Mr. Buchanan said.  Any sanctions against Mr. Beachler,
Mr. Buchanan said, should come from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
an arm of the state Supreme Court that investigates and prosecutes
lawyers accused of misconduct.

Art Heinz, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania
Courts, said the guilty plea does not affect Judge Jaffe's status.  The
judge was suspended without pay by the Court of Judicial Discipline on
Jan. 15 but his medical benefits remain in effect.  Judge Jaffe's
annual salary was $121,225.

Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board,
which prosecutes judges accused of wrongdoing, said the board's
investigation into Judge Jaffe's conduct was continuing.  In the past,
the conduct board has usually waited until a judge was sentenced before
asking the state Court of Judicial Discipline to remove that judge from
office.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mayor Archer Fights Exploitative Asbestos Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After eight years as mayor of Detroit, you might think Dennis Archer
had seen enough squabbling and petty infighting to last a lifetime.  
However, as president-elect of the American Bar Association (ABA), he
continues to prod the nation's lawyers into tackling the biggest, most
contentious legal issue in America today.

In Seattle, at Mr. Archer's urging, the ABA voted to recommend that
Congress place limits on who can sue over exposure to cancer-causing
asbestos.  The ABA plan, approved by 70 percent of delegates, sets
medical standards to differentiate between people who are seriously
sick and those who are not.  For 20 years, the ABA, the US Supreme
Court and Congress have been yelping about an asbestos crisis that has
bankrupted scores of companies and put as many as 120,000 people out of
work.  

"Despite all that, nobody went to work on it," Mr. Archer declared.  
That changed in November, when he asked the ABA for authority to create
a commission to study the asbestos issue and propose solutions.

"I got a lot of grief. People said, 'Wait, don't pass this now,'" Mr.
Archer said, noting that plaintiffs' attorneys have reaped huge fees
from the $54,000,000,000 paid to asbestos claimants since the 1970s.

So why did Mr. Archer, 61, who became chairman of the Dickinson Wright
law firm in January 2002 after deciding not to seek a third term as
mayor, decide to push the asbestos issue right away?  He doesn't become
ABA president until August.

He had watched the crisis grow, he said. "I became even more concerned
when a great company like Federal-Mogul of Southfield went into
bankruptcy, not from exposing workers in Michigan to asbestos, but
because it had acquired a British company," he continued.

Mr. Archer also said that Congress appears poised to consider asbestos
reform this year, and that "the ABA should have a seat at the table."  
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing March 5 on asbestos.  

More than 200,000 asbestos cases clog the dockets of US courts today.  
More than 60 companies, including Federal-Mogul, have filed for
bankruptcy under the weight of asbestos claims.

Hundreds of other companies are defendants in lawsuits, among them
General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, and Dow
Chemical Co. Fear of big damage awards is dragging down the stock
prices of many industrial firms.

The US Supreme Court, as recently as three months ago, has issued
ominous warnings about the crisis, urging Congress to do something
about it, but until now, Congress hasn't.  It's a touchy issue for
Congress, and not only because trial lawyers are a powerful lobby.  
Many people have suffered terrible illness and died awful deaths due to
asbestos.  Victims are powerful witnesses, and legislators are
reluctant to appear unsympathetic by nickel-and-diming them over
damages.

What has catapulted asbestos into a litigation crisis is not the
legitimate suffering of the seriously ill, but the explosion of
lawsuits driven by for-profit "screening" companies that actively
solicit non-sick or mildly sick workers who might have been exposed to
asbestos in the past.

Asbestos was commonly used as a fire retardant in insulation and
construction until it was linked to respiratory illness and cancer.  
Industries stopped using it in the 1970s, but some asbestos-related
cancer has a long latency period, up to 40 years.  By inducing people
with free X-rays and promotional ads that declare "You May Have Million
$ Lungs," the screening firms have directed thousands of plaintiffs to
lawyers who then sued seeking damages for fear of cancer.

Mary Alexander, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America, argued that the ABA proposal would close courts to 90 percent
of people who have sued. "Those who are sick but not dying would be
denied," she said.

The ABA study group appointed by Mr. Archer, however, found egregious
examples of doctors for screening firms who either declared every
person they examined to be ill or who stated that they were paid more
for positive findings of illness than for negative results.

Mr. Archer, a plaintiff's attorney for 15 years early in his career,
describes the ABA approach as a "win-win."  It would clear courts of
asbestos cases filed by the non-sick, provide faster relief for the
seriously ill and defer, but not deny, the right of people to sue if
they get seriously ill in the future.  He knows the ABA's suggested
standard will be debated fiercely and amended plenty in Congress.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retiree Dies Due to Asbestos Related Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A retired fireman developed cancer and died following years of exposure
to asbestos.  Former boiler engineer Arthur Wood, aged 72, of
Warrington Road, Leigh, had stripped and maintained coal mine boilers
across Leigh for the National Coal Board for 14 years before becoming a
fireman at Leigh fire station in 1959.

Mr. Wood worked at the station for 25 years before his health began to
deteriorate two years ago. He was diagnosed with cancer in October 2001
after "significant exposure to asbestos in confined spaces." He died in
December.  

Bolton Coroner Jennifer Leeming recorded a verdict that the cause of
death was an industrial disease.  She said, "Clearly he contracted it
as a result of exposure to asbestos.  The community has got cause to be
grateful to Mr. Wood for his services as a fireman over the years."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Moves to Settle Asbestos Related Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ABB's Combustion Engineering division has filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection as part of a 'pre-packaged' $1,200,000,000
(P750,000,000) deal with more than 100,000 claimants.  The asbestos
issue has threatened to place more pressure on ABB when it has already
been forced to sell assets and focus on power and automation
technology.

Analysts said the bankruptcy move gave ABB some breathing space as it
restructures its global operations involving 146,000 staff in 100
countries.  Stock markets worldwide had become increasingly nervous
about the scale of the asbestos claims it inherited when it bought
Combustion Engineering, a manufacturer of industrial boilers, in 1990.

ABB posted a record loss of $691,000,000 for 2001 and has yet to report
results for last year.  It is weighed down by debts of $9 billion,
which it is hoping to cut by slashing $800,000,000 of costs through job
cuts and sell-offs.



ASBESTOS ALERT: DaimlerChrysler Corp. Battles Asbestos Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in the automotive industry, DaimlerChrysler
(primarily DaimlerChrysler Corporation) experienced a growing number of
lawsuits which seek compensatory and punitive damages for illnesses
alleged to have resulted from direct and indirect exposure to asbestos
used in certain components (principally brake pads).  Typically, these
suits name many other corporate defendants and may also include claims
of exposure to a variety of non-automotive asbestos products.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation believes that many of these lawsuits
involve unsubstantiated illnesses or assert only tenuous
connections with components in its vehicles.  It is possible, however,
that the number of these lawsuits will continue to grow and that the
company could incur significant costs in the future in resolving these
lawsuits.

Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of
individual matters is not predictable with assurance.  It is reasonably
possible that the final resolution of some of these matters could
require DaimlerChrysler to make expenditures, in excess of established
reserves, over an extended period of time and in a range of amounts
that cannot be reasonably estimated.  Although the final resolution of
any such matters could have a material effect on DaimlerChrysler's
consolidated operating results for a particular reporting period,
DaimlerChrysler believes that it should not materially affect its
consolidated financial position.


COMPANY PROFILE

DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE: DCX)
Epplestrasse 225
70546 Stuttgart, Germany      
Phone: +49-711-17-0
Fax: +49-711-17-94075
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com
  
Employees                    : 372,470
Revenue                      : $156,838,000,000
Net Income                   : $4,947,000,000
Assets                       : --
Liabilities                  : --
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: DaimlerChrysler is the world's #3 carmaker in sales
(behind General Motors and Ford).  Formed by the $37 billion
acquisition of Chrysler by Germany's Daimler-Benz in 1998, the company
makes about 4.7 million vehicles a year.  Chrysler's brands include
Dodge, Eagle, Jeep, and Plymouth vehicles, the Mercedes brand is
limited to luxury sedans, commercial vehicles, and SUVs.  Also,
DaimlerChrysler's Freightliner unit is the US's #1 heavy-truck maker.  
The car maker, also has a 10% stake in Hyundai Motor and a 37% stake in
Mitsubishi Motors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos at Hotel Spawns Investigations
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal and state regulators have opened investigations into the
release of asbestos at the Doubletree Club Hotel in Norfolk, Virginia.  
The hotel at Military Circle Shopping Center remains closed as work
crews clean up contamination by the cancer-causing substance.

Spokespeople with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry would confirm only that the
agencies have launched inquiries into the release.  Neither could
estimate how long those studies might take.  However, Norfolk officials
said the contamination of the 15-story, 208-room hotel is extensive.

"This is a large event," Lt. Garry Windley, a spokesman for Norfolk
Fire-Rescue, said.  "It's a huge cleanup."

According to Doubletree, a contractor's crew disturbed a surface
containing asbestos while refinishing walls on the hotel's third floor.  
The company did not disclose the name of the contractor or how the
disturbance occurred.  However, Mr. Windley said workers became
concerned about the amount of dust in the air and wanted it checked for
asbestos.

"They were working for a while without knowing it," he said.  Mr.
Windley did not know what kind of protective equipment the crew was
using.  EPA, the labor and industry department, which runs the state's
occupational safety and health program, and Norfolk Fire-Rescue were
called to check the release, Mr. Windley said.

The Doubletree shut down and paid for about 100 guests to go to nearby
hotels, and tests confirmed the presence of asbestos.  Military Circle
was never closed, although the doors connecting it directly to the
hotel were locked when the Doubletree shut down.  Air on the third
floor of the hotel had more than four times the acceptable limit of
asbestos.  Mr. Windley said subsequent analysis also detected the
substance on floors two through 15.  "It was carried throughout the
hotel from work done on the third floor," he said.

The third, fourth and fifth floors had been closed to guests due to
renovations when the release occurred.  Doubletree manager Mike Milenko
said further tests are pending, but initial tests on other floors
suggested that asbestos was within acceptable levels.  "The only floors
that tested high were unoccupied," he said.

The Doubletree has no record of building code violations, according to
Norfolk city officials.

Asbestos can cause cancer and other health problems when inhaled, and
has been banned for many uses in the past three decades.  The substance
is not necessarily harmful as long as it is not airborne.  Asbestos
can, however, be released from deteriorating or damaged materials like
insulation, acoustical materials or floor tiles, which were often
installed in older buildings.  Typically, asbestos abatement is handled
by cleaning the air and surfaces in part of the contaminated area, then
sealing it off and moving along to the next piece of the job.

Mr. Milenko said that early estimates that the Doubletree will be shut
down until at least the end of the month were a guess, and that he
could not predict how long the closure might last.  He said he is not
sure whether the hotel's owners, Norfolk Hotel LLC of New York, have
insurance that would cover the loss of business during such an event.

"I'm sure they'll explore what the policy covers," he said.

Neither the EPA nor the labor and industry department would speculate
on the outcome of their investigations.  However, a party found
negligent in an asbestos release could face legal action by regulators
or exposed workers.  The EPA said that in December, for instance, a
Connecticut contractor was sentenced to three years' probation and
forced to pay $132,300 in cleanup costs and expenses for employee
medical monitoring after improperly handling asbestos abatement while
demolishing a building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Emmett J. Bean Workers Fear Exposure To Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As the massive renovation of the Emmett J. Bean Center in Lawrence,
Washington DC winds down, some workers there say they fear the
government's handling of the project may have exposed them to dangerous
levels of asbestos.  More than a dozen current and former workers have
been found at the building who said they suffered serious respiratory
problems during the construction.

In at least one case, a longtime defense department worker, Andy
Robbins, was approved for worker's compensation with a diagnosis of
exposure to asbestos.  "I was sick," Mr. Robbins, who worked for 25
years as an accountant on the third floor, said.  "There were people up
there that I thought were going to die on the spot."

Officials with both the Defense Finance and Accounting Service -- the
building's main tenant -- and the General Services Administration,
which owns the building, insisted that workers were not put at risk.  
"We've got air monitoring that we've done that shows everything we've
done has been within EPA guidelines," said Michelle Majka, the GSA's
project manager on the renovation.

However, workers contend there were conflicting lab results, faulty
asbestos-abatement procedures and other inconsistencies that raised
concerns about excessive asbestos levels.  The center, also known as
the Finance Center or Building One, is the federal government's second-
largest building, after the Pentagon.  Located at 56th Street and Post
Road, it houses about 4,000 federal employees.

Five years ago, GSA began a taxpayer-funded renovation project worth
$123,000,000 on the aging complex.  Most of the employees continued to
work at their desks as construction crews worked nearby.  By early
2000, some employees began complaining of breathing problems.

"It was like I couldn't stop coughing," said Jim Crews, chief of the
finance service's Budget Execution Reports Division, who supervised
about 20 employees at the center.  

Lou Mendyk, a financial management specialist, said employees could see
thick dust accumulating in their work areas.  "During the day when
(construction workers) were on the roof, you could see some of it
floating down," Mr. Mendyk said.  "Everyone talked about it.  Everyone
was concerned."

Mr. Majka said asbestos removal was done in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency regulations, with airtight containment
areas bordered by construction barriers.  However, workers question
whether containment procedures were proper and whether all asbestos was
identified. Robbins and several others took their concerns to building
officials and an Indianapolis inspector, who cited tests that were
negative for asbestos.

When Mr. Robbins took his own sample of ceiling material, two separate
labs confirmed his suspicion of asbestos - a finding later also
confirmed by the city.  Mr. Majka, however, said workers were kept safe
because the entire building was treated in accordance with asbestos-
abatement standards.

Since the symptoms of excessive asbestos exposure can take decades to
show up, some workers fear they might never find out who's right in the
dispute.  Meanwhile, they're back to work in their newly renovated
offices.  "I think until people start dying off and basically autopsies
are done and asbestos is found, we might not know the truth 'til then,"
Mr. Crews said.



ASBESTOS ALERT: Flowserve Corporation Notes Asbestos Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS) is a defendant in numerous pending
lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that seek
to recover damages for alleged personal injury allegedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured and/or
distributed by the Company.

All such products were used within self-contained process equipment,
and management does not believe that there was any emission of ambient
asbestos-containing fiber during the use of this equipment.


COMPANY PROFILE

Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS)
222 W. Las Colinas Blvd., Ste. 1500
Irving, TX 75039    
Phone: 972-443-6500
Fax: 972-443-6800
http://www.flowserve.com
  
Employees                  : 11,000
Revenue                    : $2,251,300,000
Net Income                 : $53,000,000
Assets                     : --
Liabilities                : --
(Preliminary Report as of December 31, 2002)

Description: Flowserve makes pumps, valves, and mechanical seals. The
acquisition of Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps (IDP) from Ingersoll-Rand made
Flowserve the world's largest provider of pumps for the chemical,
petroleum, and power industries.  Flowserve's flow solutions division
offers mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs
that make pumps, compressors, and mixers.  Its flow control division
makes valves, actuators, and related equipment that control the flow of
liquids and gases.  Although its products are found around the world,
the US accounts for more than 50% of sales.  Flowserve is buying
Invensys' flow control division.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay on Suits V. Halliburton Extended to March 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) announced following a hearing in the Harbison-
Walker bankruptcy case that the court's temporary restraining order has
been continued until March 21.  This restraining order was originally
entered on February 14, 2002, staying more than 200,000 pending
asbestos claims against Halliburton's subsidiary DII Industries, LLC
(DII).

The court also ruled Halliburton must file an affidavit stating
settlement agreements have been signed by attorneys representing 75% of
DII's current asbestos claimants by March 14, 2003.  If this deadline
is not met, the court will hear oral arguments presented by both sides
on March 21, on a motion to lift the stay.  While there can be no
assurance that formal agreements will be reached or that the stay would
be continued following oral arguments, Halliburton already has
preliminary agreements with attorneys representing more than 90% of
claimants and believes that settlement agreements with the required 75%
of claimants can be completed prior to the deadline.

On December 18, 2002, Halliburton announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to achieve a global settlement of its asbestos
claims.  The agreement contemplated that Halliburton would conduct due
diligence on the asbestos claims, and that DII and attorneys for the
asbestos claimants would use reasonable efforts to execute definitive
settlement agreements.  While all the required settlement agreements
have not yet been executed, Halliburton and attorneys for certain of
the asbestos claimants have now reached agreement on what they believe
will be a template for such settlement agreements.  These agreements
are subject to a number of conditions, including agreement on a Chapter
11 plan of reorganization for certain Halliburton subsidiaries,
including DII, approval by 75% of current asbestos claimants to the
plan of reorganization, the negotiation of financing acceptable to
Halliburton; approval by Halliburton's board of directors and
confirmation of the plan of reorganization by a bankruptcy court.  The
template settlement agreement also grants the claimants' attorneys a
right to terminate the definitive settlement agreement on ten days'
notice if Halliburton's DII subsidiary does not file a plan of
reorganization under the bankruptcy code on or before April 1.

Halliburton is conducting due diligence on the asbestos claims, which
is not expected to be completed by April 1.  Therefore, Halliburton
does not expect its subsidiary to file a plan of reorganization prior
to April 1.  Although there can be no assurances, Halliburton does not
believe the claimants' attorneys will terminate the settlement
agreements on April 1 as long as adequate progress is being made toward
a Chapter 11 filing.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Oil States Subsidiaries Face Asbestos Related Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil States International is aware that certain energy service companies
that have used asbestos in the past in connection with the manufacture
of equipment or otherwise in the operation of their business have
become the subject of increased asbestos related litigation.

Since September 30, 2001, subsidiaries of the Company have been named
as defendants in two cases by plaintiffs seeking damages, including
punitive damages, alleging that certain of its subsidiaries have
responsibility for two individuals developing mesothelioma as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

Although these are the only cases that management is aware that are
pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries involving
allegations relating to asbestos exposure, there can be no assurance
that other asbestos related claims will not be made.  Based on its
preliminary investigation, these two cases or future claims relating to
asbestos exposure will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


COMPANY PROFILE

Oil States International, Inc. (NYSE: OIS)
3 Allen Center, 333 Clay St., Ste. 3460
Houston, TX 77002    
Phone: 713-652-0582
Fax: 713-652-0499
http://www.oilstatesintl.com
    
Employees                : 3,216
Revenue                  : $616,800,000
Net Income               : $39,700,000
Assets                   : --
Liabilities              : --
(Preliminary Report as of Dec 31, 2002)

Description: Oil States International lends a helping hand to oil and
gas drillers and producers.  The company provides tubular services and
offers casing, premium tubing, and line pipes.  Oil States' well site
services range from remote site accommodations to hydraulic well
control equipment.  The company also offers offshore products,
including flex-element technology and subsea pipeline products.  
Drilling its way into e-commerce, the firm has developed a portal for
ordering tubular products.  Founded in 1949 in Texas, Oil States
focuses on deepwater activities in major producing regions.  The
company is expanding its operations through acquisitions.  Chairman L.
E. Simmons owns 63% of the firm.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Pennzoil Joins Asbestos Premise-Owner Defendants List
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennzoil Quaker State Company is involved as a premise-owner defendant
in numerous asbestos lawsuits, pending primarily in Louisiana and West
Virginia.

The plaintiffs generally allege exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products while working on the premises of the premise-owner
defendants, and strict liability and negligence actions against the
premise-owner defendants, including the Company.  They do not allege
that the Company manufactures any products containing asbestos.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that asbestos-containing products sold,
distributed and supplied by the other defendants in the lawsuits were
defective and unreasonably dangerous and that those defendants were
thus negligent in failing to warn the plaintiffs of these dangers.  The
Company is contesting these actions vigorously.


ASBESTOS ALERT: United Tech Faces 850 Asbestos Cases, 16T Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other companies in recent years, United Technologies and its
subsidiaries have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into
certain of the Corporation's products or premises.  While the
Corporation has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of its historical
products, like those of many other manufacturers, have contained
components incorporating asbestos.  The Corporation has made no payment
in a substantial majority of the cases closed to date.  The remainder
of the resolved cases have settled for amounts that are not material to
the Corporation, and have been supported in part by insurance.  At
present, the Corporation is named in about 850 lawsuits involving
around 16,000 individual claimants.

More than 13,000 of these claimants are joined in seven lawsuits in
circuit court in various counties in Mississippi that were filed or
amended during 2002 to include the Corporation or certain of its
subsidiaries.  Each of these Mississippi lawsuits names from 200 to
more than 400 other companies as defendants along with the Corporation
or its subsidiaries.  The complaints do not identify any products of
the Corporation or its named subsidiaries, or specify the amount of
damages claimed.  Nor do they allege which claimants, if any, were
exposed to asbestos attributable to the Corporation's products or
premises, or the extent, if any, to which such claimants have been
harmed.  No discovery or other pretrial proceedings to develop such
information have yet occurred.

The Corporation does not believe that resolution of any of the
foregoing or any other legal matters will have a material adverse
effect upon the Corporation's competitive position, results of
operations, cash flows, or financial condition.  The Company said it's
one of more than 200 defendants and doesn't see a "material" cost from
the lawsuits.

"We've paid less than $4 million in (asbestos) claims since the mid-
1990s and have considerable insurance support," company spokesman Peter
Murphy said. "We believe in good disclosure."

Analyst notes today mentioned the disclosure, including a report from
Wachovia Securities' Sam Pearlstein.  He called the disclosure a
"surprise."  United Technologies, which also makes Sikorsky helicopters
and Pratt & Whitney jet engines, didn't say how much insurance coverage
it has or what, if any, products it made containing asbestos.

Asbestos, once used as an insulation and fireproofing material, has
been linked to respiratory illnesses and cancer.  Asbestos-related
personal-injury claims have forced more than 60 companies into
bankruptcy since 1982, including W.R. Grace Co. Pearlstein couldn't
immediately be reached to comment.  He rates United Technologies stock
as "outperform."

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERCO: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV 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 AMERCO (NASDAQ: UHAL) between
February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, inclusive.  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pivenlaw.com


CARREKER CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on
behalf of purchasers of Carreker Corporation (Nasdaq: CANIE) publicly
traded securities during the period between May 20, 1998 and December
10, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002.  
According to the complaint, throughout the class period, Carreker filed
financial statements with the SEC which represented that the Company
was consistently delivering numerous consecutive quarters of record,
double-digit growth, which the Company attributed to the strong demand
for its products and Carreker's business model.

In addition, according to the complaint, the Company expressly assured
investors of its "dedication to transparent reporting practices" and
highlighted the supposed "quality and integrity of (Carreker's)
accounting and corporate governance practices."  These statements were
materially false and misleading, according to the complaint, because
they failed to disclose that the Company had been improperly
recognizing revenues throughout the class period, thereby artificially
inflating its revenues, income and earnings per share.

On December 10, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was investigating whether revenues were improperly recognized
by being booked at once instead of ratably over a period of time, as
required by applicable generally accepted accounting principles.  This
belated disclosure severely and negatively impacted Carreker's stock
price, causing it to fall by 22.6% in one day on extremely heavy
trading volume, from a December 9 close of $5.08 per share to close at
$3.93 per share on December 10.

Subsequently, the SEC initiated an investigation, which is ongoing,
into the Company's accounting practices.  On January 28, 2003, the
Company announced that it will be restating the financial reports it
has filed since 1998.

For more details, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 800-601-4743
(toll-free) or 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.levylawfirm.com  


CORVIS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Corvis Corporation (NasdaqSC:CORV) securities between
August 22, 2000 and January 29, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10-b(5).  Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants
repeatedly issued false and misleading "Buy" recommendations on Corvis,
while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited
partnerships to sell their Corvis shares.

Moreover, the suit alleges that defendant Johnson had invested in the
limited partnerships which he privately advised to sell their Corvis
shares.  As a result of defendants' actions, the suit charges that
Corvis shares traded at artificially elevated prices during the class
period, and that plaintiff and the class were damaged.

For more details, contact Michael Braun or Patrice Bishop by Phone:
(888) 388-4605 or by E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.secfraud.com.  


LEXENT INC.: Beatie and Osborn Commences Investor Suit in DE Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beatie and Osborn LLP initiated a class action in the Delaware Chancery
Court on behalf of shareholders of Lexent, Inc. (Nasdaq NM: LXNT)
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction by
Lexent's management to take the Company private for $1.25 per share in
cash. The lawsuit names as defendants the Company and:

(1) Hugh J. O'Kane, Jr., and
  
(2) Kevin M. O'Kane

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the O'Kanes in connection
with their recent proposal to take the Company private.

For more details, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Benjamin D. Coleman by
Mail: 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10175 by Phone:
(800) 891-6305 by Fax: (212) 888-9664 by E-mail:
clientrelations@bandolaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bandolaw.com  


MOTOROLA INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) between
February 3, 2000 and May 14, 2001 against Motorola, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that Motorola, a global telecommunications business,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business which served to artificially inflate the price of
Motorola's common stock.  On February 3, 2000, Motorola issued a press
release in which it announced that Motorola would provide products and
services to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. ("Telsim"), a
Turkish cellular phone system operator controlled by Turkish citizen
Kemal Uzan, his sons Hakan and Cem, and various members of his
immediate family.  The press release, however, failed to disclose that
Motorola's deal with Telsim required Motorola to provide the Turkish
company with $1.7 billion in vendor financing.

On March 29, 2001, Motorola filed its Form Def 14A Proxy Statement with
the SEC in which the Company partially disclosed the magnitude of its
vendor financing commitments.  On April 6, 2001, shares of Motorola
stock dropped twenty three percent.  Six weeks later, Motorola revealed
that $728 million of the Telsim loan was past due and that Motorola
actually had loaned Telsim $2 billion in vendor financing -- $300
million more than had been disclosed.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (888) 873-3999 or
(404) 873-3900 by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


OWENS CORNING: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Owens Corning, Inc. (OTC BB:
OWENQ) between September 20, 1999 and October 5, 2000, inclusive.   

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division against certain officers
and directors of Owens Corning.  Due to the automatic stay proceedings
afforded by Owens Corning's bankruptcy filing, Owens Corning is not
named as a defendant in this action.

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


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Parametric Technology
Corporation (NASDAQ: PMTC) between October 19, 1999 and December 31,
2002, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

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


SPRINT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in KS Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Sprint Fon Group (NYSE: FON)
between February 1, 2001 and February 5, 2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas against Sprint Corporation, certain of its officers
and directors and Ernst & Young, LLP.

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


SPRINT CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Securities Suit in KS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of
Sprint FON Group (NYSE: FON) common stock and PCS Group (NYSE: PCS)
during the period between August 11, 2000 and February 13, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants, the Sprint Corporation, Ernst &
Young LLP, William Esrey and Ronald Lemay violated Sections 10(b),
14(a) 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.  Specifically, the Company's press
releases and SEC filings overstated the Company's earnings and net
assets by failing to reserve for the likely reversal of over $100
million in tax benefits attributable to highly questionable tax
shelters used by Sprint's executive officers and Defendants failed to
reveal that these tax shelters caused a conflict of interest between
the executives and Sprint and its accountants.

For more details, contact Robin Freeman or James Conway by Mail: 1690
Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403, by Phone:
1-888-256-0890 or by E-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com.  


UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Suit in TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of
purchasers of Unum Provident Corporation (NYSE: UNM) securities during
the period between May 7, 2001 and February 4, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Unum Provident and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unum
Provident provides group disability and special risk insurance, as well
as group life insurance, long-term care insurance, and payroll-deducted
voluntary benefits offered to employees at their work sites. Unum
Provident operates around the World.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused
Unum Provident's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  The
Company failed to properly record the impairment to its investments and
operated "long-term denial factories," causing the Company's financial
results to be inflated. As a result, the Company's shares traded at
inflated prices enabling Unum Provident to raise proceeds of $250
million on June 13, 2002 in its bond offering.

The lawsuit alleges that Unum Provident and its top officers inflated
the prices of the Company's securities in order to pursue an
accelerated securities sale program.  Defendants knew that by
concealing Unum Provident's true financial results they could foster
the perception in the business community that Unum Provident was a
"growth company," i.e., it was the only way Unum Provident could post
the revenue and earnings per share growth claimed by defendants.

On February 5, 2003, Unum Provident announced that it had recorded
investment losses of $93 million and also reported that it was
responding to Securities and Exchange Commission requests for
information relating to its investment disclosures.

For more details, contact Stephen G. Levy by Phone: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 800-601-4743
(toll-free) or 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.levylawfirm.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  * * *