/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011224.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
               Monday, December 24, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 250


APW LTD.: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. IN
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Settles Securities Litigations For $1.5 Million
CANADA: Gov't Liability For Disabled Veterans' Interest Payments Upheld

CHASE MANHATTAN: To Pay For Safety Deposit Boxes Lost in 9/11 Attack
CLICK COMMERCE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
COLORADO: Suit Challenging Parking Ticket System Allowed To Proceed
DILLARD'S INC.: Voluntarily Recalls 12,000 Pine Candles For Fire Hazard
FLORA-LITE CO.: Recalls 7,500 Christmas Lights For Possible Fire Hazard

ILLINOIS: University Sued For "Unfair" Sugar Bowl Ticket Distribution
KMART CORPORATION: Paying $6.8 M For Workers' Unpaid Vacation Wages
LTD COMMODITIES: Voluntarily Recalls 33,000 Lanterns For Injury Hazard
MENORAH GARDENS: Families Sued For Desecration of Relatives' Graves
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Delays Approval Pending Settlement Talks

ONYX ACCEPTANCE: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Business Practices Suit
OPTICAL CABLE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. Virginia
RADIAN GUARANTY: ALTA Files Suit Challenging Lien Protection Product
SANDBERG MANUFACTURER: Voluntarily Recalls 8,200 Children's Dressers
UNITED STATES: Chagos Islanders Sue Gov't For Human Rights Violations

WALGREEN CO.: Recalls 50,000 Glitter Candles For Possible Fire Hazard
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA


The AARP Foundation has joined as co-counsel in a class action against
insurance giant AllState Insurance Company, charging the Company with
violating federal age discrimination and pension laws in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Twenty-nine terminated Allstate agents, acting for 6,400 company
agents, filed the suit, which alleges that the Company severed
employment contracts with 6,400 company agents, seeking to deprive the
agents of their benefits and purge older workers from its ranks. These
actions violated the company's statutory obligations under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), according to the suit.

The suit also alleges that the Company terminated their employment
contracts in order to deprive them of their pensions and other
benefits. The plaintiff agents also asserted that the Company had
another motive -- to weed out older agents and eventually replace them
with younger employees.

AARP's Director of Policy and Strategy John C. Rother said, "Allstate
pressured thousands of loyal long-time employees to give up their
benefits - and their futures.We joined as co-counsel to right a wrong,
spotlight these blatant actions and send a message to other employers
who might consider similar actions."  AARP Foundation attorneys have
joined with the two law firms representing the plaintiffs, Sprenger &
Lang PLLC and Zevnik Horton LLP, to serve as co-counsel.

The suit further argues that throughout the 1990s the Company
unsuccessfully sought to persuade its employee agents to relinquish
their protected status as employees and convert to independent status.
The real goal of what was actually a mass termination plan was
allegedly to save the company more than $200 million annually. But the
plaintiffs state that only a few agents were willing to give up their
employment status, and the generous benefit package that went with it.

So, in November 1999, the suit alleges, the Company took a more direct
and illegal approach. The company announced that the agents would
basically be terminated and would only be allowed to remain with the
company as "independent contractors" if they waived their right to
bring a lawsuit. According to the complaint, the Company's actions led
more than 99 percent of its employee agents to sign the release, a
release that allegedly violates ERISA and ADEA and is unenforceable.

The plaintiffs say that the second reason for the termination program
was to transform the sales force from one in which approximately 90
percent were over 40 to one infused with younger agents and other sales
personnel. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has
issued a determination that the Company engaged in "threats, coercion
and intimidation" and that forcing the agents to sign the release
violated the ADEA.

The complaint has been assigned to Judge John P. Fullam in
Pennsylvania. On October 30, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking court
certification of proposed class and subclasses in the case.

APW LTD.: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
Ademi & O'Reilly initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf
of purchasers of APW Ltd.'s (NASDAQ: APW) from September 26,2001 to
March 20,2001.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to
the market. Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants
repeatedly issued statements indicating that, among other things, the
Company was growing at a rapid pace, due, in significant part, to
strong demand for its product offerings by its customers.

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things, they failed to disclose or
misrepresented that:

     (1) in fact, the Company was experiencing decreased demand for its
         products as its primary customers were substantially
         decreasing their orders;

     (2) due to the declining demand, customers were overstocked with
         the Company's products and, accordingly, would be decreasing
         their orders in the future while they worked down their
         bloated inventories; and

     (3) in response to these negative factors, the Company was
         attempting to slash costs and, in this regard, had started to
         reduce its workforce.

On March 20, 2001, defendants finally disclosed this information and
reported that the Company's sales growth had slowed dramatically and
reported a loss of$0.15 per share, compared to analysts' expectations
of a $0.27 per share profit. Defendants also disclosed that the
Company's reduced performance, combined with other factors, caused the
it to be in breach of certain covenants in its credit agreement.

In response to this announcement, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped from $20.65 per share on March 20, 2001, to close at
$7.39 per share on March 21, 2001. Prior to this disclosure, Company
insiders were able to sell shares of their personally held stock and
the Company was able to complete its acquisition of Mayville Metal
Products, which was partially paid for using the Company's stock as

For more information, contact Ademi & O'Reilly by Mail: 3181 South 27th
Street, Milwaukee, WI, 53215 or by Phone: 414.671.1000

BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. IN
Weiss and Yourman commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of Brightpoint, Inc. (Nasdaq: CELL) common stock between
January 29, 1999 and November 13, 2001, inclusive against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  

The suit charges that the the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The
action arises from damages incurred by the class as a result of a
scheme and common course of conduct by defendants that operated as a
fraud and deceit on the class during the Class Period. Defendants'
scheme included rendering false and misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning the financial condition, accounting methodologies
and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial
benefits that would inure to the Company and its shareholders.

As a result, in November 13, 2001, the Company announced that in
response to a subpoena issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission
and a subsequent review by their outside auditors, the Company would
restate its annual financial statements for 1998, 1999, 2000, and the
interim periods of 2001.

For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Jennifer Williams by
Phone: 1.800.437.7918 or by E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com  

CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Settles Securities Litigations For $1.5 Million
California Amplifier Inc. (Nasdaq: CAMP) has reached agreements worth
$1.5 million to settle various litigation matters pending against the
Company, which includes:

     (1) twenty independent putative class actions filed in federal
         court regarding the announcement on March 29, 2001 of the
         resignation of the Company's controller and the overstatement
         of net income for the fiscal year ended February 26, 2000 and
         the subsequent restatement of fiscal year 2000 and the interim
         periods of fiscal years 2001;

     (2) a shareholder derivative suit, entitled Charles Medalie v.
         California Amplifier, Inc. filed in Los Angeles Superior
         Court; and

     (3) a rescission suit filed in the United States District Court,
         Central District of California, Western Division by the
         insurance company providing coverage applicable to the class
         action and derivative suit.

Under terms of the settlements, the Company's primary directors and
officers liability insurance carrier will pay $575,000 to the
plaintiffs and withdraw its rescission action, and the Company will pay
$925,000 to the plaintiffs. In addition, the Company has the option to
issue up to $500,000 of its payment in the form of common stock in lieu
of cash. The settlements will result in a pre-tax charge of $925,000 to
the Company's fiscal year 2002 third quarter statement of operations.

Fred Sturm, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, "We
believed we had meritorious defenses to these lawsuits. However, the
resolution of these various lawsuits was in the best interest of our
stockholders, as the risks and costs to litigate these suits as well as
the resource commitment by key executives would have far outweighed the
cost of settlement. These settlements resolve all pending litigation
related to the Company's recent financial restatements. California
Amplifier continues to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation into
these restatements."

The Company designs, markets and manufactures a broad line of
integrated microwave fixed point solutions used primarily in
conjunction with satellite and terrestrial broadband applications.

CANADA: Gov't Liability For Disabled Veterans' Interest Payments Upheld
The Ontario Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision holding
the Canadian government liable for payment of interest on accounts held
in trust for institutionalized, mentally incompetent veterans.

Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of the 40-member National Council of Veteran
Associations, stated today that his organization had "mixed feelings"
about the judgment, stating that he had not seen the decision of Chief
Justice Roy McMurtry.  Mr. Chadderton said, "We are pleased that the
court has recognized that the Government does have some responsibility,
based presumably on improper record-keeping and a misinterpretation of
the law."

He stated that, on the other hand, the class action appeal, which
apparently would require payments of interest going back to the end of
World War I, was far too broad in its scope. In this regard, he
explained "The Pension Act is intended to provide compensation for
members of the military forces, their spouses and, in some instances,
their children. We fail to find, however, any responsibility in the
legislation for distant cousins, although the class action lawyers
stated, from the commencement of this trial several years ago, that
cousins and other degrees of relationship would be considered."

In commenting further, Mr. Chadderton made reference to a letter he had
written to Veterans Affairs Minister Ron Duhamel last April 20, 2001,
in which he suggested that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal
before the Ontario courts, the Government should establish what he
termed a "review procedure" which would assure that legitimate claims
could be the subject of review.

He stated that his veterans group was in favor of eliminating the
existing January 1, 1990 deadline on the payment of interest. This
would leave open an adjudicative process under which claims could be
paid retroactively to veterans who were alive, to their widows, and to
what he termed a "principal beneficiary."

CHASE MANHATTAN: To Pay For Safety Deposit Boxes Lost in 9/11 Attack
Chase Manhattan Bank has recovered a number of safety deposit boxes
lost during the September 11 terrorist attacks and will contact
customers to "view the contents of their box."  The Company will also
pursue "compensation for items that were destroyed."

Customers who filed a class action early this month in the Manhattan
Supreme Court, alleging the bank failed to take adequate steps to
recover valuables left in the vault welcomed the news positively.  
Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch, the firm who filed the suit, said in a
statement "This is a very positive and we believe overdue step forward
for Chase's customers and is in contrast to the limited information
Chase had provided to our clients since the tragic and extraordinary
events of September 11."

Lead plaintiff Sylvia Yamamura initiated the suit.  She had deposited
jewelry and other heirlooms that had been in her family for generations
in the Bank's safety deposit boxes.  After the attacks, the Bank
reportedly advised her that the boxes had been located and that it
would be recovered.  The Bank later sent her a letter saying it was
"abandoning" efforts to recover their valuables stating that the boxes
were "unrecoverable because of structural damage to the vault."  She
also alleged that the Bank was successful in recovering "significant
sums of cash" that had been stored in 5 World Trade Center but was
"simply unwilling to make the same effort and undertake the same
expense to recover" irreplaceable possessions of the members of the
class action.  

Mrs. Yamamura welcomed the Company's initiative, saying the suit was
making significant progress, "First, I believe the suit has cleared the
way for safe deposit box holders, as a group, to get answers from
Chase. I feel our suit has ended the `Wall of Silence' that I faced and
I believe many of us faced from Chase. "I think our suit has allowed
safe deposit box holders to come together as a group and have leverage
with Chase we could not have had as individuals."

Mr. Wollmuth added, "It is promising that Chase has agreed to pursue
compensation. That it has denied liability is irrelevant from our
perspective. We think they are liable. For their customers' sake, I
hope that issue never need be decided. The fact of a compensation plan
is only half the question, however. The real issues are: What will
compensation be paid for, what level of proof of loss is required and
who will decide whether that level of proof has been met. To allow
Chase to decide those issues itself, in my opinion, would be to let the
wolf guard the chicken coop."

CLICK COMMERCE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Click Commerce, Inc. (NASDAQ: CKCM) common stock from
June 26,2000 to December 6,2000.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In June 2000, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $10 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The suit further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

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

For more information, contact Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY, 10017 by Phone: 310.209.2468 by Fax: 310.209.2087
or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

COLORADO: Suit Challenging Parking Ticket System Allowed To Proceed
A federal class action challenging the constitutionality of Denver,
Colorado's automatic late fee on parking tickets will be allowed to
proceed, the Associated Press recently reported.  U.S. District
Magistrate Judge Patricia Coan last week dismissed parts of a lawsuit
filed on behalf of two Colorado Springs residents, but she allowed the
lawsuit to continue based on the 14th Amendment's due process

Attorneys Rob Carey and Leif Garrison of Colorado Springs contend that
Denver's parking tickets do not provide information about challenging
the ticket in a hearing.  Instead, the slip states the $20 parking fine
is doubled if not paid in 20 days.  With 630,000 parking tickets issued
each year, the attorneys estimate as much as $20 million might be at
stake.  Official figures have not been released.

"That's why we have juries," Denver City Attorney Wally Wortham said.
"All the order says is that there is a genuine issue of fact to go to
trial.  The ultimate outcome is still at issue.  We've won more than
half of the cases that have gone to trial."

Terri Rector and Damian Spencer, who were ticketed while in Denver, are
seeking class-action status for their lawsuit.  Ms. Rector paid her
ticket right away while Mr. Spencer paid his ticket and a $20 late fee.
Ms. Rector's car was ticketed six times and booted once in a two-year
period.  Mr. Spencer's vehicle was ticketed twice.

"You can't try to scare people away from exercising their
constitutional rights, in this case a right to a hearing to argue your
case," Mr. Carey said.  "The government has to prove its case in court
before it can take people's money.  The government must tell people
they have the right to a hearing before a late fee can be tacked on or,
in this case, their fine is doubled."

Parking tickets in Colorado Springs state that a violator must either
contest the ticket or pay it within 21 days.  If neither is done, then
the fine is doubled.

DILLARD'S INC.: Voluntarily Recalls 12,000 Pine Candles For Fire Hazard
Dillard's Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 12,000 Pine Tree
Candles. The candles can collapse, causing the flame to spread and
ignite decorative glitter and paint, which poses a fire hazard to
consumers. The Company has received one report of a candle that
collapsed and spread the flame. No injuries or property damage were

The Pine Tree Candles come in the shape of pine trees, and come in two
sizes, tall and short. The tall candle is approximately 9 1/2 inches
tall and 6 inches wide, and the short candle is approximately 8 inches
tall and 5 1/2 inches wide. A label on the side of both candles reads
"Noble Excellence." There is also a sticker on the bottom of the tall
candle that reads "127CD109," and a sticker on the bottom of the short
candle that reads "127CD108." Company stores nationwide sold the
candles from October 20, 2001 through December 12, 2001 for between $12
(short candle) and $15 (tall candle).

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800.235.9660
between 9 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday.

FLORA-LITE CO.: Recalls 7,500 Christmas Lights For Possible Fire Hazard
Flora-Lite Co. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 7,500 strings of Christmas
lights. The lights' wires can be easily pulled out of the plugs and
light sockets. The lights could pose electrocution and electric shock
hazards to consumers and could pose a fire hazard.  CPSC and the
Company are not aware of any injuries or incidents associated with
these Christmas lights. This recall is being conducted to prevent

The "Rice Lights" are 22-feet long with 140 non-replaceable miniature
lights on each string. They have multicolor bulbs with green wire,
clear bulbs with white wire, or clear bulbs with green wire. The fused
plug reads "TING SHEN," and "TS-20." The lights have a push-button
control box that allows for eight different lighting effects, including
"CHASING FLASH," "SLOW FADE" and "STEADY ON." There is no mark of an
independent testing laboratory. The packaging is a green box that
included the writing, "Rice Lights," "Flora-Lite Co., Clearwater, FL"
and "Made in China." Specialty garden stores nationwide sold these
Christmas light sets from June 2001 through December 2001 for about

For further details, contact Flora-Lite Co. by Phone: 800.411.7381
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.

ILLINOIS: University Sued For "Unfair" Sugar Bowl Ticket Distribution
The University of Illinois faces a class action suit filed in Baton
Rouge State Court by three Louisiana residents who were disgruntled
with the school's handling of Internet ticket sales for the Sugar Bowl
game against LSU on January 1 on behalf of those who bought a ticket on
the Illinois website and received a confirmation number, only to be
told later that a ticket was unavailable.

Martin Levert, Rusty Landeche and R. Bruce Macmurdo said they thought
they had Illinois tickets secured through the University's online
ticket office. They later learned that the University could not
accommodate their ticket requests because of high demand by donors,
students and season-ticket holders, according to an Associated Press

Illinois spokesman Kent Brown denied the charges and said the
University stands by its ticket distribution system.  He said the
school gave first priority to scholarship donors and season ticket
holders, "not LSU fans who tried to back door the system."

A disclaimer on the school's Web sites states that an order doesn't
guarantee tickets. It also explains the school's order of priority for
ticket allocation. According to Robin Kaler, assistant chancellor for
public affairs at the University, "The University distributes tickets
(according to) a well-advertised priority system."

Each school was allotted 15,000 tickets for the game, the first Sugar
Bowl since 1987 for LSU. LSU is using a lottery system to allocate its
15,000 tickets; the university received requests from 35,000 season-
ticket holders.

KMART CORPORATION: Paying $6.8 M For Workers' Unpaid Vacation Wages
Kmart Corporation is paying $6.8 million to more than 2,300 former
employees in West Virginia who sued the Troy-based retailer for unpaid
vacation wages, according to a recent Associated Press report.
Attorneys representing the former employees in the seven-year-old
class action lawsuit said the workers will receive amounts ranging from
several hundred dollars to more than $30,000, with an average payout of
around $3,000.

Judge David Sanders of the Berkeley County Circuit Court signed an
order last month approving the judgment, which includes an unspecified
amount of damages.   David Hammer, an attorney for the workers, said
the Company paid the $6.8 million this week.  Along with damages, the
payout represents vacation pay earned by West Virginians who worked
more than one year for the retailer between 1989 and 1999.  The chain
has 18 stores in the state.

According to the lawsuit, the Company broke state law by failing to pay
the workers for unused vacation time when they left the company's
employ.  "Earned wages must be paid, and employers who cheat their
employees must be held accountable," Mr. Hammer said.

"Corporations like to speak in terms of `family values,' but Kmart
chose to fight paying earned vacation pay for seven years," Robert
Schiavoni, a lawyer for the workers said.  "Kmart finally got what it
deserved, and, thankfully, so will their former employees."

Berkeley County residents Christine Remsberg and Sandra Skal filed the
suit in 1994.  The case twice reached the state Supreme Court before
Judge Sanders approved the final judgment.  The lawsuit applies only to
employees who worked at West Virginia stores. The Company must also pay
$155,000 in plaintiff attorney fees, Judge Sanders ruled.

LTD COMMODITIES: Voluntarily Recalls 33,000 Lanterns For Injury Hazard
LTD Commodities Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 33,000 Snowman Holiday
Porcelain Lanterns. These snowman lanterns can crack or catch fire due
to excessive heat from the tealight candles, which poses a risk of
injury to consumers.  The Company has received 18 reports of the
snowman lanterns cracking or catching on fire, including one consumer
who suffered a burn to her finger.

The recalled Holiday Porcelain Votive Lanterns are shaped like a
snowman and have a white body, brown, tree-limb-like arms, an orange
nose and a black hat. A votive tealight candle illuminates the snowman
from inside, which can be seen through holes in the body, the face, and
hat. The lanterns have a product code number of HVO-MAN 102723-01, and
have a label on the bottom of the snowman that reads in part, "WARNING:
This item becomes extremely hot during use" and "MADE IN CHINA." The
Company sold these lanterns through their mail-order catalogs between
September 2001 and November 2001 for about $4.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 866.736.3654 between
7:30 am and 4 pm CT Monday through Friday for information about
returning the product for a full refund.

MENORAH GARDENS: Families Sued For Desecration of Relatives' Graves
Families who buried their loved ones in the Menorah Gardens & Funeral
Chapels in West Palm Beach have filed a class action against the
Cemetery and its owner Service Corporation International (SCI),
accusing the Company of desecrating the graves of their relatives.

About 1,000 people could become class members in the suit, which
alleged that the Company dug up and dumped dead bodies in the woods,
buried them in wrong graves or buried them in vaults on top of each
other, instead of side by side as the families requested, according to
an Associated Press report

Attorneys for the plaintiff presented in court grisly photos and video
footage of crushed burial vaults and human remains discarded in the
woods.  They also showed internal documents that showed the defendants
were aware of the desecrations. Remarks in a burial book, obtained from
former employees included "no room for spouse", "move Mrs. Kolin", "dig
this grave double deep" and "Where are Lippitis and who are Haskells
and are they both deceased? Move Haskell marker."

Co-counsel Neal Hirschfield said, "We've investigated allegations that
we thought too heinous to be accurate, too horrible to be true over the
last several years.there are several hundred people who have purchased
graves, premium contracts purchased years ago, that do not have a place
to be laid to rest."

Company officials have denied the charges.  SCI president and chief
operating officer Jerald J. Pullins told the Associated Press, "These
allegations are completely contrary to our policies and procedures.  
We're taking these allegations seriously and are conducting an internal
investigation." The State Attorney General's office is also
investigating the Company and four other South Florida cemeteries
owned by SCI.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Delays Approval Pending Settlement Talks
Baltimore Federal Judge J. Frederick Motz has agreed to delay his
decision on whether to give preliminary approval to the agreement
proposed by Microsoft Corporation to settle hundreds of private class
actions accusing the software giant of overcharging customers on
Windows software and abusing its monopoly power.

The settlement proposes to give $1 billion in cash, software, computers
and training to the nation's poorest schools.  The Company said the
settlement will bridge the "digital divide" in education and provide
the beneficiary schools with technology that otherwise would not be
available to them.

The settlement, however, raised a howl of protests from experts,
educators, and competitors, most significantly, Apple Corporation, who
has held a slim edge over the Company in the educational sector.  The
settlement reportedly was not harsh enough to punish the Company's
"anti-competitive" activities, and would allow Microsoft to further
entrench itself in a sector where its rivals still give it a good

Judge Motz has said he was unsure what to decide, and urged both
parties in the litigation to meet with outside mediator Kenneth
Feinberg, a Washington lawyer recently tasked to take charge of
compensation for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack.

In a brief statement Thursday, Judge Motz said he would not issue his
opinion on the proposed settlement until January 10 while the various
sides meet to discuss the settlement proposal. He had originally said
he would release an opinion by mid-December.

ONYX ACCEPTANCE: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Business Practices Suit
Onyx Acceptance Corporation (Nasdaq: ONYX) prevailed after San Diego
Superior Court Judge Charles Hayes issued a decision after a three-week
bench trial that vindicates the common practice of finance companies
paying a dealer spread, also known as "dealer participation," to
originating motor vehicle dealers in connection with the assignment of
installment sale contracts.

The action had been brought as a class action under California's
expansive Unfair Competition Law as well as California's Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act. In a ten-page decision, Judge Hayes
concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the business
practices of the Company as being unfair, unlawful, fraudulent or
deceptive within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the
California Business and Professions Code or contrary to the Rees-
Levering Act.

Company CEO John W. Hall welcomed the decision, "When the class action
was initially filed, we stated that we were confident that the
plaintiffs' claims were unfounded and that we would ultimately prevail
in the litigation. It is unfortunate that the plaintiffs, fueled by
their attorneys, unnecessarily wasted taxpayer and shareholder money."

The Company is a specialized automobile finance company which provides
financing to franchised and select independent dealerships throughout
the United States.

OPTICAL CABLE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. Virginia
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Optical Cable Corporation
(NASDAQ:OCCF) common stock during the period between July 31, 2000 and
October 8, 2001, inclusive against the Company and Robert Kopstein, the
Company's president, chief executive officer and controlling

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10 (b) and
20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The suit alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
information that materially misstated the Company's condition and
prospects, and failed to disclose material information necessary to
make its prior statements not misleading.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants made numerous
positive statements as to the Company's business and financial health
prior to and during the class period yet failed to disclose to the
investing public Mr. Kopstein's use of his stock as collateral for
margin loans with various brokerage accounts he maintained to speculate
in technology stocks. Given his 96% control of the Company's common
stock, his use of stock as collateral created a significant risk that
large numbers of these shares could be seized and sold on the open
market by brokerage firms to cover Mr. Kopstein's trading losses.

According to the complaint, Mr. Kopstein had been cautioned by at least
one brokerage firm not to speculate by borrowing money against his
Company stock to invest in other technology company securities. His
speculation in other technology companies securities led to the margin
calls which then resulted in significant losses to the plaintiffs when
the brokerage firms seized his Company stock and dumped millions of
shares on the market at the same time, resulting in the severe
depression of the Company's stock price.

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1.888.551.9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.classlawyer.com

RADIAN GUARANTY: ALTA Files Suit Challenging Lien Protection Product
Radian Guaranty Co. faces a class action filed by the American Land
Title Association (ALTA) challenging its new Radian Lien Protection
product.  The two entitles are battling over whether the Company's new
mortgage pool guaranty product is in fact title insurance.

The suit is now pending in Orange County, California, on behalf of
ALTA's California members and also names ExpressClose.com and parent
company Radian Group as defendants.  The suit seeks an injunction
prohibiting the Company from selling the product in California and
monetary damages on behalf licensed title insurers and title insurance
agents in the state.

The suit alleges that the Company's sales of the product interfered
with the title companies' business relationships with mortgage lenders,
resulting in lost revenues and harm to those relationships, the title
industry and its products. The suit also alleges that the Company has
falsely advertised its product and seeks to require the Company to
replace its product and an earlier ExpressClose.com product with title
insurance policies.

The Company has reiterated that its new Radian Lien Protection product
is available to lenders throughout the United States. However, the
Company also announced its intention to withdraw its mortgage pool
insurance policy filed in connection with the product from the Florida
and Texas state insurance regulators.

ALTA EVP James R. Maher said title insurance companies "have no problem
competing for business" with other companies that comply with state
regulations that govern the title insurance industry, but the Company
isn't licensed to sell title insurance in any state where such a
license is required. "We are confident that a plain reading of both the
Radian policy form and the California statutory definition of title
insurance will lead the court to only one conclusion: That Radian is
issuing title insurance, is not licensed to do so, and cannot be so
licensed in California," Mr. Maher said.

ALTA also is charging that Florida's insurance regulators rejected the
Company's filing in that state because the product constituted title
insurance under Florida law and the Company is not licensed to issue
title insurance in Florida.

"Radian's actions in Florida appear to acknowledge the inherent
weakness of the company's position in that state and elsewhere. Their
contention that this coverage is mortgage guaranty insurance is
patently in error and clearly in violation of state law," Mr. Maher
said. He added the Company should comply with the regulatory
requirements of the title insurance industry if it intends to market
the Radian Lien Protection product.

"All we want is a level-playing field. If Radian wants to offer title
insurance, let them establish a qualifying company, pay our premium
taxes, and honor our reserving requirements. Then we can compete on
equal terms," he said.

ALTA said the Company's product is inferior to traditional title
insurance and more risky for lenders and borrowers because:

     (1) the indemnity coverage for lenders is limited;

     (2) the product doesn't provide legal defense for the lender in
         the event of a title claim;

     (3) it is issued without a "true" title searchl;

     (4) problems that could cloud the title aren't repaired; and

     (5) it uses credit scores to target the product only to preferred

ALTA also has challenged the Company's cost-reduction claims.  
According to ALTA, insurance regulators in several other states also
have or are expected to take action unfavorable to the Company's

SANDBERG MANUFACTURER: Voluntarily Recalls 8,200 Children's Dressers
Sandberg Manufacturer Co., is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 8,200
children's dressers. The dresser can tip over during use, posing a
serious injury hazard to consumers.  The Company and CPSC have received
one report of a dresser tipping over, though no one suffered injuries.

The recalled four-drawer children's dressers have the model number
(#26224) and production date (09-01 or older) located on the lower half
of the back of the dresser. The wooden dressers come in light brown or
off-white and have heart-shaped handles. Independent home furnishing
stores nationwide sold these dressers from July 1999 through November
2001 for about $230.

For more information, contact Sandberg Manufacturer Co. by Phone: 800.
498.2979 between 7:30 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday to receive
simple instructions for conducting an in-home repair.

UNITED STATES: Chagos Islanders Sue Gov't For Human Rights Violations
Indigenious people residing in Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands have
filed a class action against the United States government, alleging
genocide, torture and forced relocation when the US assumed control of
the islands in the 1960s.  

The suit was filed on behalf of more than 1,000 people who had lived in
the isolated chain of islands in the Indian Ocean until the United
States acquired control of the territory from British colonial rule in
1965, seeking millions of dollars of damages.

The plaintiffs charge that the agreement with the British says
"acquisition of Diego Garcia for defense purposes will imply
displacement of the whole of the existing population of the island."  
The US military and contract workers allegedly forced them from the
island in the late '60s and early '70s. The last movement of people was
accomplished by herding them onto boats loaded with horses and other
animals for a six-day voyage to Mauritius.

The United States uses the island, more than 1,000 miles from India,
Mauritius, Australia and the Gulf States, as a communications post and
refueling station.

WALGREEN CO.: Recalls 50,000 Glitter Candles For Possible Fire Hazard
Walgreen Co. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 50,500 Candele glitter
candles. The glitter on the candles can ignite, posing a fire hazard.  
The Company received one report of the glitter on the candle catching
fire. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

The pillar candles were sold in two sizes, three-inches high and six-
inches high. The candles are coated with glitter and come in three
colors - red, green and gold. The recalled candles have one of the
following item numbers printed on a label affixed to the bottom of the

     (1) 642413,

     (2) 642423,

     (3) 642424,

     (4) 642409,

     (5) 642410, and

     (6) 642411

The Company's stores nationwide sold the candles from August 2001
through December 2001 for between $3 and $4.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866.241.0105
between 8 am to 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.walgreens.com

XO COMMUNICATIONS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of XO Communications, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: XOXO) during the period of April 4, 2001 through
and including November 29, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
condition as well as its present and future business prospects.  In
particular, the suit alleges that the defendants misled the investing
public concerning the ability of the Company to survive until it would
be cash flow positive.

Throughout the class period, defendants stated that the Company would
be able to survive at least into the middle of 2003 without the need
for further financing. However, on November 29, 2001, defendants
announced a transaction where the shareholders' equity was destroyed in
exchange for an investment of $800 million. Trading in the Company's
stock was quickly halted.

For further details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888.844.5862
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:


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 2001.  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  * * *