---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, August 27, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 169

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: WA Court Grants Final Approval To Sex Bias Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
AMERICAN HOME: Kentucky Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Diet Drug Fen-Phen
APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Attorney Reveals Firms Named in Suit
BOEING COMPANY: Former Boeing Workers Prepare Age Discrimination Suit

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Indians Sue Church Schools Over Child Sexual Abuse
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Thousands Eligible In Pipeline Spill Suit Settlement
FAX.COM: Sued Over Unwanted Fax Advertisements in California Court
FLORIDA: Court Throws Out One-Half Of Suit Over Emissions Fee Rule

FLORIDA: Lawsuit Seeks Relief From Hot Summers For Inmates On Death Row
FLORIDA PROGRESS: Trial in Age Discrimination Suit Commenced July 2002
GEORGIA PACIFIC: GA Court Grants, Denies In Part Summary Judgment
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Paxil TV Ads Ban Delayed Two Weeks As FDA Files Brief
HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Agrees To Settle Fraud Suit Filed By Doctors

INTERNATIONAL GAME: NV Court Refuses To Certify RICO Violations Suit
IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement of Zip Drive Suit Granted Final Approval
LOBLAWS GROCERY: Initiating Refunds, Apology In Hepatitis "A" Scare
LOUISIANA: Residents, Officials Ask for Explanations for Road Closure
MEXICAN BRACEROS: Ex-Farm Workers Stage Protest While Awaiting Ruling

NEW JERSEY: Turnpike Motorists To Settle Profiling Lawsuit For $250,000
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Filed by Florida Internet Provider
SOUTH CAROLINA: Advocacy Group Sues For Violations Of Disabilities Act
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Court Considers Certification For Desecration Suit
UNITED COMPANIES: Court Approves $20.5M Securities Suit Settlement

UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Seek Settlements From 1999 Bias Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
AON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. AK

CORRPRO COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
CRYOLIFE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
DUANE READE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in IL
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Suit

ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in CA
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARTHA STEWART: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: WA Court Grants Final Approval To Sex Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Washington DC granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action filed against American
Express Financial Advisors (AEFA) by sixteen former and current female
financial advisors.

The suit was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), including class claims on behalf of all women advisors at AEFA,
alleging that they and other women were discriminated against in
hiring, assignment of work, distribution of leads, training and
promotions.  All of the charges were consolidated with the EEOC in         
Minnesota.

Although AEFA felt it had meritorious defenses to all the claims, the
prospect of a long and protracted litigation and the attendant
publicity led it to conclude that settlement was a more prudent course
of action.

After two years of negotiation, AEFA entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs' counsel to settle all the claims.  Under the
proposed settlement, AEFA will pay $31,000,000 into a fund for
distribution to a potential class consisting of approximately 4,000
current and former advisors.  AEFA has also agreed to certain
affirmative relief such as appointing an internal diversity officer,
changing its process for assigning client accounts and leads, and
diversity training.

In order to have a binding settlement on all potential class members,
plaintiffs' counsel filed a class action in Washington DC, in January
2002.  The proposed settlement agreement was filed with the court
shortly thereafter.  In June 2002, the court gave final approval to the
settlement and the matter is now resolved.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company faces several securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story, the suits
were filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company securities
between July 18, 1999 and July 17, 2001, inclusive.  The suits name as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Kenneth I. Chenault,

     (2) Harvey Golub,

     (3) David R. Hubers and

     (4) James M. Cracchiolo

The actions charge 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.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the suits and
intends to defend the suits vigorously.


AMERICAN HOME: Kentucky Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Diet Drug Fen-Phen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed Kentucky class action against American Home Products and A.
H. Robins Co., makers of the diet pill combination known as "Fen-Phen,"
cannot proceed because there has been no claim of an actual injury, the
Supreme Court ruled, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Elma Rae Wood, who sued in Jefferson County Circuit Court for herself
and others who took the drugs, claimed she was exposed to hazardous
substances by the marketing of the drug by the two companies.  The
drugs, which also were known as Pondimin and Redux or fenfluramine,
were withdrawn in 1997.

In November 1999, American Home Products settled a national class
action for allegations of physical injuries caused by taking the drugs,
and the firm provided medical screening to detect future health
problems.

Ms. Wood and others declined to take part in the settlement because it
excluded claims for primary pulmonary hypertension.  In the Kentucky
suit, the plaintiffs also asked for a medical monitoring program to
detect possible health problems among people who took the drugs, a fund
to pay for the monitoring, reimbursement of the cost of the drugs and
punitive damages.  Some studies connected fen-phen to problems with the
heart valve.

Justice William Graves, who wrote the unanimous opinion, said Ms. Wood
offered no proof she suffered any injury from taking the drugs.  "This
court has consistently held that a cause of action in tort requires a
present physical injury to the plaintiff," Justice Graves wrote.


APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Attorney Reveals Firms Named in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Fagan, the lawyer leading the apartheid reparations class
action, read a Who's Who of US and European industry in court as he
recited the companies who have been and will be defendants in the
multibillion-dollar lawsuit brought by South African apartheid victims,
Agence France-Presse reports.

Mr. Fagan told the federal court in Manhattan that all the companies,
most of them financial institutions, will be served papers by the end
of the month.  Mr. Fagan is well known as the lawyer who netted a $1.25
payout in 1998, from Swiss banks for Holocaust survivors.

Judge Richard Casey gave Mr. Fagan until September 13 to file a motion
for consolidating all the cases, after which the motion would be
debated in a series of hearings ending in late November.  Among the
defendants already served are:

     (1) Citigroup (US),

     (2) IBM (US),

     (3) UBS (Switzerland),

     (4) Credit Suisse (Switzerland),

     (5) Commerzbank (Germany),

     (6) Dresdner Bank (Germany), and

     (7) Deutsche Bank (Germany)

Some of the prominent names on the list read off by Mr Fagan are:

     (i) auto giants - Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Volkswagen;

    (ii) major oil companies - Mobil, Caltex and Royal Dutch Shell;

   (iii) British banks - National Westminster, Barclays and Standard
         Chartered;

    (iv) French banks - Credit Lyonnais and Indo-Suez; and

     (v) Swiss food giant, Nestle

Mr. Fagan argues that the charges against the multiple defendants rest
on a common foundation; that they supplied either equipment or money to
a political system, knowing that the system would use them to oppress
people.

The class action has been filed under the Alien Tort Statute, under
which alleged victims of human rights abuses, perpetrated in other
countries by non-US citizens or corporations, can file in US courts.  
The lawsuit is being closely monitored in industry circles, amid
concerns that it could trigger a wave of similar lawsuits against other
multinationals that have operated in countries with poor human rights
records.

The trial is not expected to begin for around six months.  The five
initial plaintiffs, expected to rise in number, have highlighted
gross human rights violations, such as torture or murder in their
claims.  Their main challenge will be to persuade the court of the
defendants' intent to cause human rights violations.

Behind the scenes, divisions are widening between Mr. Fagan's team and
another alliance representing victims, which accuses Mr. Fagan of
steamrolling claims through and raising expectations of large payouts.


BOEING COMPANY: Former Boeing Workers Prepare Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former nonunion Boeing Co. workers is preparing to file a
age discrimination class action, alleging that the Company's retention-
rating system was used to weed out older, better-paid employees, the
Seattle Times reports.

According to a Dow Jones International News report, the Company halted
its retention-rating system in 1999, after receiving numerous reports
of dissatisfied workers, but resurrected the system last autumn after
announcing it would cut as many as 30,000 jobs nationwide.

The Company told the Seattle Times that it enforces a no-discrimination
policy and defended its performance assessments as fair.  It said every
rating given by a supervisor is reviewed by two separate groups of
higher-level managers.

According to the newspaper, the Company said it voluntarily
investigated nearly 90 age-discrimination complaints by laid-off
workers with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Washington State Human Rights Commission, but found no merit in any of
them.

A senior attorney for AARP's litigation unit said that percentage-based
rankings similar to the Company's often have been used to mete out the
harshest evaluations to older workers, the newspaper reported.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,000 residents have hired attorneys in the wake of the train
derailment near Minot, North Dakota, and lawyers are planning to file
dozens of lawsuits against the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.  A class action was filed one week after the
derailment.

The derailment took place on January 18 on the west edge of the city of
Minot, and resulted in a spill of an estimated 250,000 gallons of
anhydrous ammonia, which sent a cloud of the farm fertilizer over the
city, killing one man.

Canadian Pacific officials declined to comment about the specifics in
the wreck, but said the derailment was unprecedented.  Fargo attorney
Jeff Bredahl, who represents about 100 people in Minot, including his
fathers, said "the track conditions were shocking."

Since January 18, the railroad has paid more than 22,000 claims to area
residents for medical bills, lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses.  
Some residents received money for more than one type of claim.

A class action was filed in the US District Court in Bismarck, one week
after the derailment and now includes about 800 people, according to
Fargo attorney Mike Miller.  The case has moved quickly because
Canadian Pacific asked the law firm to make a settlement offer by the
end of this month.

Mr. Miller said his clients have "suggested they are interested in
getting all this resolved, if they can work out a settlement that
targets everyone in the class."  The lawsuit targets Canadian Pacific,
but Mr. Miller said it also might include tank-car manufacturers.

The part of the track where the train derailed had been patched in a
temporary repair job 18 months before the accident.  Attorney Jeff
Bredahl said the railroad knew about the track problems at the crash
site, but failed to make the permanent repairs.

Other lawyers from Fargo, Minneapolis and Minot have hired experts to
look at factors that contributed to the wreck.  The National
Transportation Safety Board is not expected to release its final report
on the derailment until early next year.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Indians Sue Church Schools Over Child Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For an idea of just how stiff a price the Catholic Church in the United
States may yet pay for the actions of priests who sexually abused
children, one need only look northward to Canada.  There, according to
the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a tale of ecclesiastical abuse, repentance
and bankruptcy may offer lessons.

Starting in the 1880s, Canadian authorities decided to ship thousands
of Indian children to boarding schools.  The goal was to force them to
acculturate, lose their old ways and embrace the ruling culture.  This,
they argued, would be progress.  But no amount of progress was worth
the pain those Indian children endured.

Four churches: Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and United Church
of Christ, operated the boarding schools on a contractual basis with
the Canadian government.  About 100,000 children attended the schools.  
What happened to them, under the care of the supposed servants of God,
has resulted in a multibillion-dollar class action that could bankrupt
the four churches.

In the early 1990s a group of Canadian Indians led by Phil Fontaine,
former grand chief of the assembly of First Nations, came forward with
reports of generations of family members being sexually, physically and
emotionally abused by priests and other workers at the church schools.

The revelations led to a series of lawsuits against the churches.  The
Canadian government ruled that the churches were liable for 30 percent
of the damages arising from the lawsuits.  Since then the four churches
all claim they may go bankrupt if forced to pay out the settlements.

Some churches are selling buildings, silver and other assets to pay
their legal bills.  The Diocese of Cariboo in British Columbia, shut
down because it could not pay its legal bills.

The case has divided Canadians.  Some are angry that their organized
church may go bankrupt because of a group of Indians who may or may not
have been abused decades ago.  Others are concerned that their lawyers
are cynically driving up the costs of the lawsuits and reaping most of
the settlements.

There is disillusionment and disbelief among those parishioners who
remain faithful to the churches.  "There is a lot of denial, people
thinking `this is a bad dream.'"  Bishop Duncan B. Wallace, an Anglican
bishop, said during an interview with The New York Times.  "But I told
a priest recently, `When your rectory gets sold out from under you and
you are living in the street, maybe you will understand this is for
real.'"

Creditably, all four churches have embarked on healing programs, in
addition to paying settlements.  The Anglicans, for example, have
launched The New Agape, a healing program that includes church
participation in tribal councils, a traveling exhibit of life in the
Indian schools and a claims processing office.

The Canadian Catholic church, soon after the abuse scandals became
public, responded by adopting stricter guidelines for reporting of
sexual abuse.


COLONIAL PIPELINE: Thousands Eligible In Pipeline Spill Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Several thousand people could take part in a $9 million settlement
resulting from a 1997 gasoline leak in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana,
after a federal judge decided recently who may make claims in the case,
according to a report by The Baton Rouge Advocate.

US District Court Judge James Brady's decision moves the class action
settlement in the Colonial Pipeline spill close to completion.  Judge
Brady already has given preliminary approval to the terms of the
settlement.  He has set a hearing for December 5 to make the agreement
final.

If for some reason, final approval is not given the settlement, Judge
Brady said the approval of the class action group would be rescinded,
and the case would move toward trial.

The exact number of people who may take part in the settlement is still
unclear, but attorneys and settlement documents estimate several
thousand are eligible.  The settlement comprehends 10 lawsuits filed by
residents in the area of Darling Creek, which joins the Amite River a
few miles south of the Louisiana 10 bridge.  This is the area in which
the gasoline leak, caused by corrosion in the pipeline, took place,
causing extensive soil and groundwater contamination on its way to
Darling Creek, according to the lawsuits.  Colonial runs the pipeline
from Texas to New York harbor.

A plume of gasoline, including leaded gasoline, extended from 7,000
feet to as far as five miles from the leak site, according to the
lawsuits and settlement.  "We have a really good database as to where
the leak went and how far it will likely migrate," said Leonard
Kilgore, one of Colonial's attorneys.  "All known contamination and all
future contamination as a result of migration should be included in the
boundaries."  The group of people eligible to make claims all live
within five miles of the site, Mr. Kilgore said.

The December 2, 1997, spill also was the subject of a lawsuit filed in
Atlanta by the US Justice Department, and is still pending in federal
court in Atlanta.  The Justice Department lawsuit was filed on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and claims the Company violated
the federal Clean Water Act by spilling about three million gallons of
oil and petroleum products from its 5,300-mile pipeline system.

The lawsuit says pipeline corrosion, mechanical damage and operator
error have resulted in numerous spills in the past 20 years in
Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey.


FAX.COM: Sued Over Unwanted Fax Advertisements in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fed up with unwanted ads for phone accessories, credit services and
stock tips that enter his life on his fax machine, a Silicon Valley
executive sued Fax.com, a company that sends bulk faxes, demanding $2.2
trillion in damages, according to the Associated Press Newswires.

While the amount may seem very much inflated, technology entrepreneur
Steven Kirsch believes that is the amount consumers should get if the
penalty is assessed for each and every fax, and the damages are tripled
as the federal law allows.  The lawsuits are seeking class action
status.

Mr. Kirsch said the torrent of ads he received last fall did not even
bear a telephone number he could call in order to request that his fax
number be removed.  "This has been going on for years," said Mr.
Kirsch, founder and chief executive of Propel Software Corp. in San
Jose.  "But lately it has become more of a science, and both spam e-
mails and spam faxes have begun to be more of a problem."

Mr. Kirsch filed the lawsuits in Santa Clara County Superior Court and
US District Court in San Francisco.  Both target Fax.com, an Aliso
Viejo, California-based company that sends bulk fax advertisements, and
has as many as 10,000 advertisers.  The state lawsuit also names Cox
Business Services, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Cox Communications
Inc., because Fax.com uses network equipment it bought from Cox.

Fax.com's CEO Kevin Katz characterized the allegations as "unfounded
and absurd."  He said that anyone who does not want to receive
advertisements need only call a toll free number included on every fax,
in accordance with California law.

Mr. Kirsch's lawsuits are not the first attacks on bulk-fax
advertisers.  In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which lets junk fax recipients sue their senders for up
to $1,500 per fax.  To qualify as illegal, a fax must be unsolicited
and advertise some product or service for sale.

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission proposed a
$5.38 million fine against Fax.com, the largest ever by the Commission
for violations of the act.  The FCC claims Fax.com "engaged in a
pattern of deception to conceal its involvement in sending the
prohibited faxes, and that the company has not been forthcoming in its
dealings with the agency."

The law has seen mixed results in court.  In some cases, courts have
awarded damages to junk-fax recipients.  A federal judge in Texas last
August ordred American Blast Fax Inc. to pay the state nearly $500,000
for sending unsolicited faxes.  The Texas Attorney General's office,
which brought that case, had itself received more than 200 unsolicited
fax ads from the company.

However, in a lawsuit in Missouri against Fax.com, a federal judge
ruled in March that unsolicited fax ads amount to constitutionally
protected free speech.


FLORIDA: Court Throws Out One-Half Of Suit Over Emissions Fee Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Supreme Court threw out half of a lawsuit challenging a $10
fee for auto emissions tests that used to be required for six counties,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Because an agency regulation was involved rather than a statute, the
fee challenge should have gone through administrative channels rather
than directly to court, Justice Peggy Quince wrote for the court.  The
opinion was unanimous, with the exception of Justice R. Fred Lewis, who
agreed only with the result.

From 1991 through 2000, an estimated five million people in three
counties in South Florida, two counties in the Tampa Bay area and
Jacksonville had to get their cars tested for tailpipe-emitted
pollution.  The test cost $10.  The lawsuit argued that the emissions
testing law put a $10 cap on the fee and directed the Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to charge no more than the cost of
administration.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Jacksonville lawyer Alan Wachs, filed a
class action seeking a refund of about $47 million for the years
1994 through 1997.  If it had been successful, refunds would have
varied from county to county and could have ranged from just a couple
of dollars to $12, he said.

In 1998, the law was changed and the $10 fee was specifically embodied
in the law.  Mr. Wachs amended the lawsuit to challenge the law itself.
The recent Supreme Court ruling does not affect the second count of the
lawsuit which sets forth this challenge.   That part of the lawsuit,
covering the period 1998 through 2000, is still pending in the trial
court.


FLORIDA: Lawsuit Seeks Relief From Hot Summers For Inmates On Death Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Men standing in toilets. An image part of the standard tableau along
death row during sticky, hot Florida summers, prisoner advocates say,
according to a recent report by the Washington Post.

The men climb into their commodes in an effort to escape temperatures
that routinely top 100 degrees in their cells, which are not air-
conditioned, according to a class action working its way through the
Florida federal courts.

The lawsuit, originally filed by convicted murderers William Kelley and
Jim E. Chandler, says inmates are subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment.  "The United States openly condemns other countries for
conditions like this," said Randall Berg, an attorney with the Miami-
based Florida Justice Institute, which is arguing the case on behalf of
more than 370 death row inmates.  "These are human beings, after all."

Florida prison officials dispute the Institute's contentions, saying
death row cells at the Union Correctional Institution, near Raiford in
northern Florida, are well-ventilated.  "It is not any hotter on death
row than it is for inmates that have outside work assignments or the
number of Floridians that do not have air conditioning in their homes,"
said spokesman Sterling Ivey.

Nonetheless, a federal judge heard testimony in the case last month,
and has given attorneys for both sides two months to submit more legal
arguments in writing.  Mr. Berg, the inmates' attorney, does not expect
a ruling until December, well past the heat waves.


FLORIDA PROGRESS: Trial in Age Discrimination Suit Commenced July 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the age discrimination class action filed against Florida
Progress Corporation and Florida Power commenced in July 22,2002 in
Florida federal court.

The number of plaintiffs in the suit remains at 116, but four of those
plaintiffs have had their federal claims dismissed and 74 others have
had their state age claims dismissed.  While no dollar amount was
requested, each plaintiff seeks back pay, reinstatement or front pay
through their projected dates of normal retirement, costs and
attorneys' fees.  

In October 1996, the federal court approved an agreement between the
parties to provisionally certify this case as a class action under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Florida Power filed a motion to
decertify the class and in August 1999, the court granted Florida
Power's motion.  

In October 1999, the judge certified the question of whether the case
should be tried as a class action to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals for immediate appellate review.  In December 1999, the Court of
Appeals agreed to review the judge's order decertifying the class.

In anticipation of a potential ruling decertifying the case as a class
action, plaintiffs filed a virtually identical lawsuit, which
identified all opt-in plaintiffs as named plaintiffs.  In July 2001,
the Appeals Court ruled that as a matter of law, disparate claims
cannot be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADEA).  

This ruling has the effect of decertifying the case as a class action.  
On October 3, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a petition in the United
States Supreme Court, requesting a hearing of the case, on the issue of
whether disparate claims can be brought under the ADEA.

On December 3, 2001, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the
case.  Oral arguments on the issue were held on March 20, 2002.  On
April 1, 2002, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam affirmed order in
the case stating they had improvidently granted the oral argument and
they would uphold the ruling of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  
Therefore, the case will remain decertified.

As a result of the decertification, the trial court has grouped the
plaintiffs cases to be tried.  The trial for the first set of twelve
plaintiffs began on July 22, 2002.  The jury entered a verdict in favor
of Florida Power in that trial on August 9, 2002.  The other
plaintiffs' trial dates have not been set.  

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.  There can be no
assurance that this litigation will be settled, or if settled, that the
settlement will not exceed $5 million.  Additionally, the ultimate
outcome, if all cases are litigated, cannot presently be determined.


GEORGIA PACIFIC: GA Court Grants, Denies In Part Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motions of both
the plaintiffs and defendants in the class action pending against
Georgia Pacific Corporation, alleging claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA.

The suit, which names the Company and the Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Salaried Employees Retirement Plan as defendants, seeks recovery of
alleged underpayments of lump-sum benefits to persons taking early
retirement from the Company, together with interest, attorney's fees,
and costs.

The court later granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in
March 1999.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit later reversed the ruling in August 2000 and remanded the case
for further proceedings, holding that the terms of the Plan required a
calculation of lump-sum benefits that could result in additional
payments to members of the class.

In September 2000, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc with the Eleventh Circuit, which was denied.  The
defendants also filed a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court in January 2001, which was denied.

In March 2002, the district court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the summary judgment motions of both the plaintiff
class and the defendants.  In addition, the order remanded some issues
to the Plan administrator for interpretation and specified that the
parties must file another proposed order implementing these rulings
within a certain time period.

The Company has determined that, in all likelihood, damages will be
awarded to the plaintiff class, which will require the Plan to make
additional payments to members of the class, and may in turn affect the
Company's net periodic pension cost and obligation to fund the plan
over time.

The Company has identified a minimum amount of damages the Plan likely
will be required to pay, which should not result in a material impact
on the Company's funding obligation or results of operations.  However
it is impossible to determine with any certainty whether the Plan will
be required to pay any additional damages and, if so, in what amount.

In the event that damages above the minimum amount are awarded, it
could have a material effect on the Company's net periodic pension cost
and funding obligation.  The defendants are engaged in discussions and
negotiations with the plaintiff class for purposes of submitting a
proposed order to the court in accordance with the mandate of the March
2002 order.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Paxil TV Ads Ban Delayed Two Weeks As FDA Files Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A court-ordered deadline to pull national TV commercials that claim the
anti-depressant Paxil is not habit-forming, was delayed from September
1 to September 12, an attorney involved in the case said, according to
the Associated Press Newswires.  The postponement is aimed at giving
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) time to file a brief
supporting the ads.

The stay came in a response to a "statement of interest" brief from the
FDA, asking US District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer to rescind a
decision that grew out of a civil lawsuit.  FDA officials said they
were concerned the ruling improperly interferes with the way the agency
regulates drugs and drug companies.

The judge's decision to delay the ban came during a conference call
with the parties involved, said Karen Barth, an attorney for the
plaintiffs suing the makers of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline.  A new brief
from the FDA is due September 5.  The plaintiffs then have until
September 12 to file a response, Ms. Barth said.

The civil lawsuit against the makers of Paxil, GlaxoSmith, was filed on
behalf of 35 persons who claimed they suffered withdrawal symptoms such
as nausea, fever and "electric zaps" to their bodies.  In a filing last
week, the FDA said there often were side effects when patients stop
taking certain medications "abruptly," but the agency labels drugs as
habit-forming only when such drugs "cause drug-seeking behavior, often
with the user escalating the dose for psychological or physical
gratification."

Judge Pfaezler found that in other countries, labels on the drugs warn
of adverse reactions when use of the drug is discontinued.  Judge
Pfaelzer ruled last Monday that the commercials were "misleading and
created inaccurate expectations about the ease of withdrawal from the
drug."

The judge's ruling was preliminary and comes at an early stage of the
court proceedings.  A hearing has been set for October 7 to decide
whether the lawsuit should be converted to a nationwide class action,
plaintiffs' attorney Karen Barth said.


HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Agrees To Settle Fraud Suit Filed By Doctors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers has
agreed to settle a class action originated by an Illinois doctor who
complained that managed-care plans are not telling physicians upfront
how they will be paid, say sources close to the case, as reported by
the Chicago Tribune.

Doctors long have complained about the take-it-or-leave-it contracts
that they say do not always cover their costs.  The agreements, they
say, also have ramifications for consumers as well.  Physicians say
they must sometimes charge patients more to make up the difference and
earn a living.

Dr. Timothy Kaiser of Alton, Illinois, filed suit against Cigna Corp.
two years ago, alleging that Cigna and other preferred provider
organizations shortchange physicians by bundling fees, which reduces
their payments.  The lawsuit was granted class-action status last year.

"Insurers mislead physicians by not providing the terms and conditions
that they are actually going to employ, and they change them
arbitrarily without informing the physicians," said Dr. John Schneider,
president of the Illinois State Medical Society, encouraged its 15,000
members to join the class.  "If the insurers, who are handling the
money, and the physicians would work for the common interest of giving
appropriate care, it should not come to this."

Cigna's preferred provider organization, which was the subject of the
lawsuit, contracts with 300,000 physicians nationwide, Cigna said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they believe Cigna could be liable for
up to $200 million in reimbursements to doctors and other medical-care
providers, according to a draft of the settlement obtained by the
Tribune.  The settlement has yet to be approved by a federal judge.

Mr. Kaiser, alone, is expected to receive $20,000, according to the
draft.

Philadelphia-based Cigna acknowledged that settlement discussions were
in the works, but said there is "no conceivable way Cigna would enter
into an agreement that would cost the company $200 million," said
spokesman Wendell Potter.

"Although progress has been made, no final agreement has been reached
yet," Mr. Potter said.  "While there may be a draft, there is no final
agreement."

Cigna has agreed that, in the future, it will regularly update its Web
site to better inform doctors if its policies and procedures regarding
payments and certain coverage decisions change, the medical society's
letter sent to members says.

It is unclear whether the settlement could trigger other settlements
from other health insurance companies that are defendants in the case.  
Preferred provider organizations run by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Illinois, the state's largest health insurer, and St. Louis-based
Healthlink Inc. are also named in the lawsuit.

The remaining defendant insurers maintain that the allegations are
groundless, and they would not comment about a potential Cigna
settlement.  "As far as we are concerned, our practices are consistent
with our contracts," said Robert Kieckhefer, spokesman for Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Illinois.

Word of a possible settlement came as a relief to many physicians, who
have failed to convince state and federal lawmakers to enact measures
to prevent such contracting practices as part of managed-care reform
bills.  Without such legislation, doctors have instead sought to change
managed-care practices by way of the courts.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: NV Court Refuses To Certify RICO Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Nevada, Southern Division refused
to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against International
Game Technology, and several other public gaming corporations.

The consolidated suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in
fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play video
poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs
concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which there is an
opportunity to win on a given play.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust
enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, incidental and punitive
damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have stayed
the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  The defendants
filed their consolidated answer to the lawsuit in February 1998.

In November 2001, the court heard oral arguments regarding the issue of
certification of the plaintiff class.  In March 2002, the court
directed that certain merits discovery could proceed.  On June 21,
2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company is confident that the pending litigation will not have a
material effect on the Company's finances or results of operations.


IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement of Zip Drive Suit Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action filed against Iomega
Corporation, relating to the Company's Zip drives.

The suit was filed in September 1998, alleging that a defect in the
Company's Zip drives caused an abnormal clicking noise that may have
indicated damage to the Zip drive or disks.  The plaintiffs sought
relief pursuant to claims of:

     (1) breach of warranty,

     (2) violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act,

     (3) negligent design and manufacture and

     (4) failure to warn

In September 1999, the court dismissed the claims of breach of warranty
and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, granting the plaintiffs the
opportunity to amend the latter claim.  In January 2000, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claim under the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act and the Company moved to dismiss this amended claim.

In connection with the same matter, in February 2000, two of the
plaintiffs served the Company with a "Notice of Claim" under Section
17.46(b) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, asserting
allegations similar to those made in connection with the plaintiffs'
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act claim (the Texas Claim).  

The Texas Claim purported to be on behalf of the two plaintiffs and a
class of other consumers similarly situated in the State of Texas.  It
demanded relief of $150 for each Zip drive purchased by a class member,
$100 for mental anguish damages to each class member and attorneys'
fees and costs.  Formal litigation in connection with the Texas Claim
was never commenced and was resolved as part of the final settlement.

In March 2001, the parties in the suit submitted to the court a request
for certification of the class and approval of a settlement of the
class action.  On June 29, 2001, the Court issued an order approving
the settlement.  However, an objector to the settlement appealed the
settlement to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

On January 15, 2002, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for further
proceedings in the Delaware Superior Court, so that the Superior Court
could make additional findings and address additional questions
concerning the proposed settlement.

Subsequently, the Company, the lawyers for the plaintiffs' and the
objector reached agreement on a modified settlement and as a result of
this revised settlement agreement, the objector requested the
termination of his appeal.

The Delaware Supreme Court granted that request, dismissing the appeal
on April 16, 2002.  On May 8, 2002, the Superior Court issued an order
approving the settlement and that approval became final on June 10,
2002.

The settlement will take months to fully implement.  Under the
settlement, class members who have not opted out of the settlement will
release the Company from all claims that were or which could have been
raised in the litigation.  For its part, the Company will issue rebates
ranging between US$5 and US$40 to class members who submit a proof of
claim.  The rebates will remain available for six months and will be
valid for the purchase of certain Zip, Peerless, CD-RW and PocketZip
products.  The level of the rebate will depend on whether the class
member's Zip drive manifested a clicking problem.

In addition, the Company may offer a secondary rebate of $4 to $15 on
Zip disks to those class members who make a qualified purchase under
the initial rebate program - this would be available if certain
conditions in the settlement are met.  In addition, the Company may
offer an additional discount for a 60-day period for purchases of packs
of five or more Zip disks.  The exact amount of this additional
discount will be computed based upon the number of class members
submitting proofs of claims.

The Company agreed, in the proposed settlement, to allow class members
an additional 30-day period to submit proof of claim forms - that
period began on June 19, 2002.  The Company is also providing dedicated
technical assistance personnel to address, free of charge, customer
inquiries regarding alleged clicking Zip drives.  It will also make a
charitable donation of Zip drives and related software, disks and
services, with a total retail value of $1.0 million.

Finally, the Company agreed to pay $4.1 million for the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and will reimburse certain costs of notifying class
members about the settlement.  The Company funded $4.1 million into an
escrow account in 2001 and these funds have been transferred to the
plaintiffs.


LOBLAWS GROCERY: Initiating Refunds, Apology In Hepatitis "A" Scare
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Loblaws grocery chain says it will publicly apologize to customers
of its Humbercrest Market location and reimburse them as well for loss
of produce they purchased, after one of its employees tested positive
for hepatitis 'A', The Toronto Star reports.  Meanwhile, the Company
has been threatened with a class action for full compensation over the
wasted produce.

Matthew Vezina, 42, a Toronto court reporter, says he has collected a
petition with 200 names and has given the grocery chain a week to
respond before he launches a class action over the wasted produce.

"We have offered to reimburse our customers for the produce they have
lost," said Loblaws spokesman Geoff Wilson.  "We shall give a refund to
everyone who asks for it."  Mr. Wilson said customers will be issued
$20 vouchers.  If customers have not kept their receipts, the manager
will use his discretion in handing out refunds.  "We are being very
fair," he said.

Mr. Wilson said the grocery chain will issue a printed apology in the
media.  Loblaws also has sent out letters of apology to 50,000 homes in
the area surrounding the store, where the produce clerk who has
hepatitis `A' lives.

All consumers who have eaten fruit or vegetables from the west-end
store between July 19 and August 16, have been advised to be
vaccinated.  Friday, last week, was the last day that customers could
receive free vaccinations at two clinics set up and paid for by Toronto
Public Health.


LOUISIANA: Residents, Officials Ask for Explanations for Road Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two weeks after the state of Louisiana abruptly closed Bayou Road,
residents and parish officials still are trying to get answers from
state officials about the scenic highway's future, The Times-Picayune
reports.

More than 200 residents and property owners recently filed a class
action against the state, claiming the closure damages the value of the
property along the highway.

The St. Bernard Parish Council passed a resolution asking state
Department of Transportation and Development officials to meet with
local officials and Bayou Road residents, but to date no state
officials have confirmed whether they will attend a meeting.

Without notice, on August 6, workers for the state dug a 30-foot-long,
four-foot-deep hole along a stretch of Bayou Road, cutting off through-
traffic on the eight-mile stretch of road once labeled by Reader's
Digest as one of America's most dangerous highways.  Two other
stretches of Bayou Road were made one-ways for emergency vehicles only.

Steven Strength, the district traffic operations engineer for the state
highway department, issued a statement that state Rep. Ken Odinet, D-
Arabi, read at the council meeting on August 6.  The statement said
that the road was closed for safety reasons, specifically, to prevent
18-wheeler trucks carrying hazardous materials from using the road and
to encourage local traffic to use the four-lane extension of Judge
Perez Drive, which parallels Bayou Drive to the north.

Residents and business owners in the area have complained that the
closure is inconvenient and dangerous.  One resident, Phyllis Peters,
who lives two blocks from Sebastian Roy School, told council members
recently that her fifth-grade son must walk to school on Bayou Road
because the school bus cannot reach her house because of the blockades.  
Since she cannot let her young son walk to school on the narrow,
shoulderless road, she now must drive him to school.

The residents also expressed concern, among many others, that the state
has effectively shut down their hurricane evacuation route, forcing
them to detour to smaller connector roads.

Councilman Curtis Pitre criticized his colleagues for not immediately
filing court injunctions when the state started the work.  However,
Parish President Charlie J. Ponstein said the work was so well
orchestrated that parish officials could not have gotten an order in
time to stop it.  "They had to plan it quite well to shut down that
highway in a two-day period," said Councilman Joey DiFatta.

Mr. DiFatta said officials want to know what the state is trying to
achieve and whether other measures can be taken to address those
problems.  "I am hoping to find out what their goals are.  Maybe they
are something we can live with, but certainly we want to know that.  If
we can't (live with it), then we'll address it accordingly."


MEXICAN BRACEROS: Ex-Farm Workers Stage Protest While Awaiting Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former farm workers from Mexico, who say they are owed back
pay for work they did in the United States while American farm workers
went to fight in World War II, are protesting in front of Wells Fargo
banks across California this month, according to a report by the
Associated Press Newswires.

The workers, known as braceros, were recruited to the United States
during World War II, where they performed the important work of
producing and harvesting food, while American boys and men marched off
to war.   A portion of their pay was deducted from their wages, saved
at Wells Fargo banks and sent off to Mexican banks as an incentive to
the braceros to return to Mexico at the end of the war.  Thus, the
Wells Fargo banks enter the picture in this drama.

Attorneys for the braceros are suing the United States and Mexican
governments to recover an estimated $300 million they claim was never
released to the workers.  The governments of the United States and
Mexico want the class action dismissed.  US District Court Judge
Charles Breyer has not yet delivered his ruling on that request for
summary judgment.


NEW JERSEY: Turnpike Motorists To Settle Profiling Lawsuit For $250,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey officials will pay $250,000 to three African American
motorists to settle their lawsuit contending state troopers stopped
them because of their race, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The settlement, announced recently by civil-rights lawyers in both
states, was called recognition of the "enormity of the humiliation
inflicted upon African American male motorists" stopped without cause
by New Jersey troopers.

While not admitting wrongdoing, a spokesman for New Jersey Attorney
General David Samson said the settlement and a continuing review of
other outstanding racial profiling lawsuits, were part of an
administration program to "restore public confidence in the New Jersey
State Police."

"The importance of this lawsuit settlement is that it begins to
acknowledge, on the part of the state, the wrong done to individuals
simply because they were stopped because of their skin color," said
Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
Philadelphia office, one of the lawyers representing the three men.

Since a 1999 consent decree with the US Justice Department, New
Jersey's state police have been under supervision of a federal monitor.  
Troopers must compile information about traffic stops, including the
race of motorists pulled over or arrested.

Early last year, New Jersey officials agreed to pay $12.9 million to
four African American shot at by troopers in 1998, after they were
stopped on their way to a basketball tryout in North Carolina.  Three
of them were injured.  Unlike that encounter, the 1999 lawsuit filed in
federal court in Camden, New Jersey, on behalf of Thomas White, Fred
Hamiel and Tyrone Hamilton did not involve physical injuries, arrest or
detention.

Philadelphia civil-rights lawyer Alan Yatvin, another of the
plaintiffs' lawyers, said that fact underscored the significance of the
settlement.  "I don't think you pay a quarter-million dollars to three
plaintiffs and their lawyers for no reason."

What is unknown, said lawyers familiar with the controversy, is how
many cases New Jersey officials ultimately might face.  The outstanding
lawsuits in New Jersey courts name a dozen individual plaintiffs, but
originally were filed as class actions on behalf of more than 100,000
black motorists stopped by troopers based on skin color.

The judges overseeing those cases, however, have rejected class action
certification for those cases.  Thus, those 12 cases will proceed to
trial individually.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Filed by Florida Internet Provider
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications Corporation and Qwest Communications
International, Inc. faces a class action in the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, against
Qwest Communications Corporation and Qwest Communications
International, Inc.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tri Max Technologies, Inc., a
Florida based Internet Service Provider, which had entered into a
wholesale dial up internet access service agreement with the Defendant,
Qwest Communications Corporation.

The complaint alleges that Qwest Communications Corporation and Qwest
Communications International, Inc. violated the Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by over-billing Tri Max in excess of
8,500% above the amount owed, in an effort to inflate revenue and
earnings.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons and
entities in Florida who executed Wholesale Dial Up Internet Access
Service Agreements with the Defendant, Qwest Communications
Corporation, from January 1, 2001, to August 15, 2002.

For more details, contact Robert C. Hackney of Hackney & Plowman by
Phone: 561-776-8600


SOUTH CAROLINA: Advocacy Group Sues For Violations Of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints against a public transportation system that provides rides
to disabled people has prompted a legal advocacy group to sue to
enforce state and federal laws for the disabled, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

According to the federal lawsuit launched by the group called
Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, the Dial-A-Ride
Transit (DART) system, which is part of the public transportation
system, often requires reservations two weeks in advance for service
and is late to pick up passengers.  There are about 4,000 DART users in
the area.  Attorneys are attempting to make the lawsuit a class action,
meaning every use could be eligible to receive money from the lawsuit.  

The lawsuit claims the system violates the Americans With Disabilities
Act, as well as other state and federal laws.  The four plaintiffs and
the advocacy group seek unspecified monetary damages and a court order
forcing the enforcement of federal laws or that defendant face
additional repercussions from the court.

The lawsuit names the Regional Transit Authority, Scana Corp., the city
of Columbia, Central Midlands Council of Governments, Laidlaw Transit
Inc. and the leaders of those organizations.  Scana runs the system,
the council of governments gets the money from the federal government
to support it.  Laidlaw manages the system and Columbia is responsible
for making sure Scana follows the laws.

"Sometimes it comes, sometimes it doesn't," said Seth Culler, a
plaintiff who lost his legs to diabetes.  "Either they come late or
won't come at all."


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Court Considers Certification For Desecration Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funeral directors who sent bodies to a Georgia crematory where hundreds
of neglected corpses, were recovered, are trying to convince a judge
that their businesses should not be defendants in a class action, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

On the other hand, class action status is being sought by the families
whose relatives' remains were among the more than 250 bodies that
Tennessee funeral homes sent to the Tri-State Crematory at Noble,
Georgia, since 1998.

The suing families say the funeral homes are all liable in the matter
because they all used an unlicensed crematory.  The funeral homes argue
that the relatives' claims are too different to merit class action
status.

"There is no commonality in these circumstances," Donald Strickland, an
attorney for Franklin-Strickland Funeral Home of Chattanooga, said at a
hearing before Circuit Judge Neil Thomas III, last week.  As an aid to
establishing commonality, however, an investigator has said that there
is no evidence that any of the more than 340 neglected corpses
recovered at the crematory was taken there before 1997, which is the
cut-off date being used by the plaintiff families.

The hearing is continuing, and Judge Thomas is expected to take the
case under advisement before issuing a ruling.


UNITED COMPANIES: Court Approves $20.5M Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved a $20.5 million settlement for about 7,500
stockholders of the bankrupt United Companies Financial Corp., the
Associated Press Newswires reports.  The class action settlement,
recently approved by US District Judge James Brady, came over the
objections of Findim Investments, a group that claims the settlement
does not fairly reimburse some stockholders.  The settlement covers
anyone who bought Company stock between April 29, 1998, and February 2,
1999.  

The judge said the settlement takes about half the funds United
Companies has available to repay stockholders.  "I do not know of any
situation where you have an enormous amount of losses where everyone is
going to be satisfied," Judge Brady said.  "This settlement is fair for
all concerned."  Judge Brady also conditionally approved attorneys fees
and expenses amounting to about $7.2 million, which would come out of
the settlement.

The lawsuit was filed by Norman Lasky of Goose Creek, South Carolina,
who sued the executives of United Companies in 1999.  The suit claimed
that J. Terrell Brown, the Company's former chief executive officer and
president, and Dale Redman, the former chief financial officer, hid
from investors hundreds of millions of dollars of debt.

George Freeman, one of the attorneys for Findim Investments, says that
they will appeal Judge Brady's decision.  Attorneys for Findim
Investments claim their clients lost about $29 million, but would
receive only about five percent of that money back under the
settlement.

As one of the nation's biggest sub-prime lenders, the Company loaned
money to people who could not get conventional bank or mortgage company
financing.  The Company raised additional revenue by selling its own
home-equity loans to back securities that were sold to investors.  The
Company sold more than $11 billion worth of bonds during the
1990s.

Under the terms of the settlement, Brown, Redman and United Companies
do not acknowledge any wrongdoing.  The settlement would be paid by two
insurance companies, Lloyds of London and AIG Europe, said Marjorie
McKeithen, an attorney for Mr. Lasky.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Seek Settlements From 1999 Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Black farmers with well-used tractors and a mule protested outside the
Department of Agriculture recently, asking for immediate payments based
on the settlement of their cases made in 1999, when the Department had
acknowledged refusing them loans because of race, according to a report
by The New York Times.

Agriculture Department officials said they planned to continue speaking
to the group and to hundreds of other black farmers who say they have
yet to be paid in the class action, which was settled in 1999 when the
government essentially admitted racial discrimination.

The protesters, most of whom are southern farmers, said they were going
bankrupt waiting for the millions of dollars owed them.  In the
settlement, the government agreed to pay $50,000 to each farmer who had
been denied a loan.  Those farmers seeking more money would be required
to go through a more lengthy procedure.

Lou Gallegos, an assistant secretary at the Agriculture Department,
said at a hastily convened news conference near the protest, that the
government had kept its word.  "The vast majority of settlements have
been approved," he said.  "It is not a question of resisting paying the
farmers."

There are more than 500 outstanding cases, according to the protesters.  
The department says more than 10,000 cases have been paid.  Mr.
Gallegos said he had no date for when the remaining ones would be paid.  
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced recently that she had
released $98.2 million for a loan program that "will particularly help
minority and small farmers."

Ms. Veneman said in a statement, "Today's discussions and agreements
are simply part of an ongoing process to ensure that all farmers -
regardless of race, creed, gender, national origin or geographic
location - are treated fairly."

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office Of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Andrx Corporation (NYSE:ADRX)
between February 10, 2000 and August 12, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period.  

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Company issued
statements regarding its annual financial performance that were
materially false and misleading because it was employing improper
accounting practices regarding the accounts receivable for
approximately the past three and one-half years in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

For more details, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th St. N.W. Suite
500, Washington, DC 20007 by Phone: 877-511-4717 or 202-872-4717 by E-
mail: mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.justice4investors.com.


AON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Aon Corporation (NYSE:AOC) and two of the
Company's senior officers on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities of Aon during the period
from May 4, 1999 through August 6, 2002.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division) under index number 02 C 5921,
charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported earnings, thereby artificially inflating the market
price of Company securities during the class period.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed reports with the Securities & Exchange
Commission which described the Company's earnings and financial
performance.  

It is alleged that these statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew or should have known that the
Company's reported earnings were overstated as a result of the
Company's failure to timely write down the value of its investments
when they became other than temporarily impaired.

The amounts that should have been charged-off in prior periods would
have reduced reported net income as follows: $17 million in 1999; $15
million in 2000; and $3 million in the first quarter of 2002.

Before the market opened on August 7, 2002, the Company announced
disappointing results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002 due in
large part to a charge of $56 million, or $0.13 per share, to write-
down investments that should have been adjusted in prior years.

Following the revelations, Company stock plunged $6.43, or 30%, to
close at $14.77 on volume in excess of 20 million shares.

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


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Baxter
International Inc. (NYSE: BAX) publicly traded securities during the
period between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002, inclusive.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr., CEO and Chairman and

     (2) Brian P. Anderson, CFO

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, the Company issued press releases representing that its
BioScience and Renal divisions would grow their earnings by percentages
in the high-teens and high-single-digits, respectively, in 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing serious problems with its BioScience
and Renal divisions.  Given these, and other undisclosed problems,
defendants' repeated class period assurances of continued growth in
2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis when made, according to the
complaint.

On July 18, 2002, the Company issued a press release regarding its
results for the second quarter of 2002, announcing disappointing sales
growth for the BioScience division and a decline in sales for the Renal
division.  In addition, the Company took a $51 million charge in
connection with an acquisition and a $70 million impairment charge
reflecting a decline in the value of certain of the Company's
investments.

In response to the announcement, the price of the Company's common
stock plummeted by 36.5%, falling from a $43.41 per share close on July
17, 2002, to close at $32 per share on July 18, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

During the class period, Company insiders sold a total of 435,700
Baxter common shares, reaping gross proceeds in excess of $23.7
million.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Ellie Baker by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-
9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Baxter International Inc. (NYSE: BAX) traded securities during the
period between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that throughout the class period, the Company issued press releases
representing that its BioScience and Renal divisions would grow their
earnings by percentages in the high-teens and high-single-digits,
respectively, in 2002.

The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing serious problems with its BioScience
and Renal divisions.

Given these, and other undisclosed problems, defendants' repeated class
period assurances of continued growth in 2002 were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made, according to the complaint.

On July 18, 2002, the Company issued a press release regarding its
results for the second quarter of 2002, announcing disappointing sales
growth for the BioScience division and a decline in sales for the Renal
division.  In addition, the Company took a $51 million charge in
connection with an acquisition and a $70 million impairment charge
reflecting a decline in the value of certain of the Company's
investments.

In response to the announcement, the price of the Company's stock
plummeted by 36.5%, falling from a $43.41 per share close on July 17,
2002, to close at $32 per share on July 18, on extremely heavy trading
volume.  During the class period, Company insiders sold a total of
435,700 Baxter common shares, reaping gross proceeds in excess of $23.7
million.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. AK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
(NYSE: BEV) securities between October 16, 2000 and July 19, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas, against the Company and:

     (1) William R. Floyd,

     (2) David R. Devereaux,

     (3) Jeffrey P. Freimark and

     (4) Ernst & Young, LLP

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 Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Corrpro Companies,
Inc. (AMEX: CO) securities between April 1, 2000 and March 20, 2002, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results that had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of Company stock during the
class period.

Specifically, on March 20, 2002, the Company announced that it had
discovered accounting irregularities causing the Company's consolidated
operating income before taxes through December 31, 2001 to be inflated
by between $4.5 and $5.3 million.  

In addition, the Company announced that as a result of these
"irregularities," it is expected to have to take a charge to pre-tax
earnings in the Company's fiscal fourth quarter ending March 31, 2002
of between $5.3 and $6.7 million. The irregularities are alleged to
have occurred at the Company's Australian subsidiary and appear to date
back to at least calendar year 2000.  

The Company "expects" that it will have to restate its audited
financial statements for the March 31, 2001 fiscal year as well as
unaudited financial results for the first nine months through December
31, 2001 of its fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.  

The Company also admitted that, due to the irregularities and likely
restatement, it will be in default under the financial covenants of its
senior secured credit agreement and its senior note facility.  Upon
default, its lenders may accelerate repayment of principal which could
have a material adverse impact on the Company's liquidity, its
financial position and/or its ability to operate as a going concern.
The Company also announced that it had replaced its CFO, the fourth CFO
the Company had employed in the past three years.

For more details, contact Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail:
CO@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:  http://www.bernlieb.com.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired CryoLife, Inc. (NYSE: CRY)
securities between April 2, 2001 and July 5, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson, President, CEO, and Chairman,

     (2) James C. VanderWyck, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and
         Quality Assurance,

     (3) D. Ashley Lee, Vice President and CFO, and

     (4) Albert E. Heacox, Vice President, Laboratory Operations

The suit alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material
misrepresentations and/or failing to make material disclosures
throughout the class period due to their failure to disclose and
correct quality control problems in the company's processing of human
tissues and heart valves.

As a result, Company's class period assurances to the investing public
that patient safety was of paramount concern to it and that the Company
complied with applicable governmental processing and quality
regulations were knowingly false when made.

On June 24, 2002, the Company issued a press release stating that the
Company had received its first and only warning letter from the FDA and
denying that there was any evidence of fungal infection in the heart
valves that had triggered the FDA's second inspection of its facilities
in March of 2002.

On July 5, 2002, the Company issued a corrective press release
announcing that it had received a prior warning letter from the FDA in
1997, and that it had been notified by the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) that there was evidence of fungal infection in at least one of
the heart valves it had supplied.

On July 6, 2002, however, The Wall Street Journal Online reported that
CDC disagreed with the Company's June 24th and July 5th statements, as
a result of a letter the CDC knew the Company had received in March of
2002 in which evidence of the fungal infection was discussed.

The market's reaction to the Company's corrective disclosures and to
the CDC's disclosure was immediate - Company stock dropped from a high
of almost $45 per share during the class period, and of $23.66 per
share just before the disclosure, to as low as $9.90 per share on July
10, 2002.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented its
2001 income and earnings during the class period, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), overstating both
income and earnings per share by approximately 20%.  The Company
admitted that its previously issued financial statements were false in
a March 29, 2002 press release, which announced that the Company had
restated its reported financial results for 2001.

For more details, contact Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail:
CRY@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


DUANE READE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Duane Reade, Inc. (NYSE:
DRD) securities between April 25, 2002 and July 24, 2002, inclusive,  
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, against the Company and Anthony J. Cuti.

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 Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Household International,
Inc. (NYSE: HI) securities between October 23, 1997 and August 14,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, 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 Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Household
International, Inc. (NYSE: HI) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 23, 1997 and August 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that during the class period, defendants caused Company shares to trade
at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements by, among other things, failing to
properly amortize the Company's co-branding agreements, and failing to
record its expenses associated with its marketing initiatives.  In
addition, the defendants improperly "re-aged" the Company's accounts,
thereby concealing the Company's actual delinquency ratios.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
securities of ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: ICN) between May 3, 2001
and July 11, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
investing community during the class period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the suit, the defendants improperly manipulated Company
revenues by "channel stuffing," a practice whereby the Company made
excessive shipments to distributors which increased the distributors'
inventories and created the illusion that ICN was constantly increasing
sales and revenues.

On July 11, 2002, the price of ICN shares collapsed, losing over 50% of
their value in one day, when ICN revealed that it would not be able to
meet previously announced financial forecasts regarding second-quarter
revenues and earnings.

Additionally, ICN admitted that revenues and earnings would be
depressed throughout the year due to the high inventory levels created
by ICN's earlier flooding of the sales channels.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone:
800-721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.zsz.com.  


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of The Interpublic Group of
Companies, Inc. (NYSE:IPG) between October 28, 1997 and August 13,
2002, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) John J. Dooner, Jr.,

     (2) Philip H. Geier, Jr.,

     (3) Sean F. Orr,

     (4) Frederick Molz,

     (5) Eugene P. Beard,

     (6) Richard P. Sneeder, Jr.,

     (7) David I.C. Weatherseed and

     (8) Joseph M. Studley

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between October 28, 1997 and August 13, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which described the Company's increasing net income and
financial performance.

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

     (i) that, throughout the class period, the Company was overstating
         its net income by failing to expense certain charges which
         should have been expensed;

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

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

On August 5, 2002, the Company announced that it would be rescheduling
the release of its second quarter 2002 earnings "to accommodate the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors," which was interpreted by
the market to potentially involve the Company's accounting.

In response to the uncertainty surrounding defendants' announcement,
investors sold off Company shares, which dropped $4.69 per share, or
23.8%, to close at $14.99 per share.

On August 13, 2002, the last day of the class period, the nature of the
Company's delay of its second quarter 2002 earnings release became
evident when the Company announced, among other things, that it had
"identified $68.5 million of charges, principally in Europe, which had
not been properly expensed," which will cause the company to restate
its previously issued financial statements going back to 1997 and
prior.

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


MARTHA STEWART: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia, Inc. (NYSE: MSO) between January 8, 2002 and July 24,
2002 inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and the following directors
and/or officers of the Company:

     (1) Martha Stewart, founder, Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Sharon L. Patrick, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         director,

     (3) Dora Braschi Cardinal, Executive Vice President-Print
         Production,

     (4) Gael Towey, Executive Vice President and Creative Director,

     (5) Gregory R. Blatt, Executive Vice President-Business Affairs,
         Secretary and General Counsel,

     (6) Lauren Podlach Stanich, Executive Vice President, President,
         Publishing,

     (7) Margaret Roach, Executive Vice President, Editor-in-Chief,

     (8) Suzanne Sobel, Executive Vice President-Advertising Sales,

     (9) John L. Doerr, director from 7/99 through early 2002, and

In addition, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is
also named as a defendant.

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 January 8, 2002 and July 24, 2002.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that Ms. Stewart sold 100% of
her personally held common stock of ImClone, Inc. based on insider
information obtained from Samuel Waksal, ImClone's CEO and a personal
friend of Ms. Stewart's.

The complaint further alleges that the insider information allowed Ms.
Stewart to sell all of her 4,000 shares of ImClone common stock on
December 27, 2001, one day before devastatingly-negative news regarding
ImClone was publicly disclosed for the first time, sending the price of
ImClone common stock plummeting.

On January 18, 2002, the complaint charges, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Justice Department and U.S. House Energy and Commerce
Committee began investigating whether Waksal had warned certain of his
relatives and friends of the negative developments prior to the public
disclosure of such developments, allowing them to avoid the massive
losses resulting from the subsequent public disclosure.

According to the complaint, despite knowing of her illicit insider-
sales and the foreseeability that the government's investigations would
uncover her wrongdoing and have a materially adverse impact on MSLO's
business (which depended in large part on Stewart's reputation and
public image), Ms. Stewart failed to disclose her activities to the
public.

Instead, the complaint alleges, Ms. Stewart, along with the other
defendants, sold a total of $79 million in MSLO common stock, with many
defendants selling nearly all of their MSLO common stock.  As alleged
in the complaint, the public first learned of Ms. Stewart's complicity
in the high-profile ImClone scandal on June 6, 2002, with the
publication of a media report, setting-off a precipitous decline in
MSLO's stock price.

The impact of Ms. Stewart's involvement in the ImClone scandal on
MSLO's business was, according to the complaint, not known to the
public until July 24, 2002, when the Company announced that the
circumstances were negatively impacting its revenues and earnings,
causing MSLO to slash earnings estimates for the third quarter of 2002
by half and reducing guidance for the entire-year 2002. On July 24, the
price of MSLO common stock dropped to below $7.50 per share, a 60% drop
in one month.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or contact William S. Lerach or Darren J. Robbins
by Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone:
800-449-4900 by E-mail: marthastewartlivingcase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


MORGAN STANLEY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of any of the four classes of shares of
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Technology Fund (Nasdaq: TEKAX, TEKBX,
TEKCX, TEKDX) from the date of the public offering for the Fund on
September 25, 2000 through and including July 31, 2002.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
Morgan Stanley Technology Fund (f/k/a Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Technology) and others.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market in the Prospectus and throughout the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
the Fund.

For more details, contact Charles Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired MSC
Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE: MSM) securities between January 11,
1999 and August 5, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Mitchell Jacobson,

     (2) Sidney Jacobson,

     (3) Shelley M. Boxer,

     (4) Charles Boehlke,

     (5) David Sandler and

     (6) James Schroeder

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 Piven by Mail: 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-
mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.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  * * *