---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Wednesday, November 20, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 230

                              Headlines                            

ALLIANCE DATA: Agrees To Settle Suit V. World Financial Bank in S.D. FL
AMERICAN SPECTRUM: Faces Amended Suit For Fiduciary Duty Breach in CA
ANSWERTHINK INC.: "False Results" Focus of Securities Suits in S.D. FL
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Plaintiff's Counsel Targets De Klerk Statements
CANADA: Truckers Join In Suit V. Customs Over Deductible Meal Allowance

CANADA: If "Racial Profiling" Meetings Fail, Cochran Supports Suit
CARESCIENCE INC.: Prospectus Omissions Securities Suits' Focus in PA
CHEMED CORPORATION: Sued For Unlicensed Roto-Rooter Plumbing in IL
COOPER TIRE: Says Steel-Belted Radial Tires Litigation Fully Resolved
COX BUSINESS: Requests Unsolicited Fax Suit's Dismissal in N.D. CA

COX CALIFORNIA: Settlement Leads To Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suits
COX COMMUNICATIONS: CA Bankruptcy Court Orders Dismissal of Stock Suits
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: CA Court Dismisses Several Claims in Securities Suits
ENDOCARE INC.: "False Statements Issued" Say Securities Suits in CA

FIRST HORIZON: Facing Numerous Securities Fraud Lawsuits in GA
HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Suit For Passengers Taken Ill With Norwalk Virus
INFONET SERVICES: Faces Consolidated Securities, Derivative Suit in CA
INTERSIL CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suits
LOUISIANA PACIFIC: CA Court Certifies Suit Over NatureGuard Roof Shakes

NEW ENGLAND: Facing Unsolicited Faxes Suit in South Carolina
NICOR ENERGY: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Fixed Bill Service
NICOR GAS: Faces Several Suits Over Gas Plant Site Clean-up in Illinois
NICOR INC.: Asks Court To Dismiss Suit Over Performance Based Rate Plan
PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Court To Decide On Remand of Suit To State Court

PROTON ENERGY: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
ST. JUDE: Class Certification For Silzone Suits Expected by Early 2003
UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Alleges INS Violates Immigrants' Human Rights
WASHINGTON: Court Grants Certification To WTO Protesters Civil Lawsuit
WYETH: Ruling May Ease Liability For Alleged Injuries From Diet Drugs

*Book Exposes Wall Street Firms' Sexual Harassment, Treatment Of Women

                     New Securities Fraud Cases  

AES CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
DEAN WITTER: Finkelstein, Thompson Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
EL PASO: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FOOTSTAR INC.: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY

FOOTSTAR INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
SEARS ROEBUCK: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
TENET HEALTHCARE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
TXU CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in TX






                              *********


ALLIANCE DATA: Agrees To Settle Suit V. World Financial Bank in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. has agreed to be part of the settlement
of a class action filed against it and the World Financial Bank by a
group of the bank's cardholders in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.

The suit was initially commenced against World Financial Bank alone,
alleging that it engaged in a systematic program of false, misleading,
and deceptive practices to improperly bill and collect consumer debts
from thousands of cardholders.  The suit stems from World Financial
Bank's alleged practices involved in calculating finance charges and in
crediting cardholder payments on the next business day if received
after 6:30 a.m.

The plaintiffs contend that such practices are deceptive and result in
the imposition of excessive finance charges and other penalties to
cardholders.  The plaintiffs allege that World Financial Bank, through
such practices, has violated the federal Fair Credit Billing Act, the
federal Truth-In-Lending Act and breached cardholder contracts.

The complaint was subsequently amended to include the Company as a
defendant.  The settlement is still subject to final acceptance by the
court but the Company does not believe that the terms of the settlement
will not have a material impact on it.


AMERICAN SPECTRUM: Faces Amended Suit For Fiduciary Duty Breach in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
American Spectrum Realty, Inc. faces a class action filed in Orange
County Superior Court in California, alleging claims against the
Company for:

      (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

      (2) breach of contract,

      (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
          and

      (4) intentional interference with contractual relations

The first two amended suits were later dismissed due to failure to
state a cause of action.  The plaintiffs then filed a third amended
suit.  In August 2002, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended suit
contending that it still failed to state a cause of action for
interference with contract or interference with prospective economic
advantage against the Company.

On September 6, 2002, the Orange County Superior Court sustained the
Company's demurrer on the grounds that the plaintiffs' third amended
suit failed to state a cause of action for either interference with
contract or interference with prospective economic advantage against
the Company.  The court gave the plaintiffs twenty days to amend.

On September 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed and served a fourth amended
suit on the Company alleging the same claims.  The plaintiffs' prayer
for relief on its fourth amended suit seeks:

     (i) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from commingling;

    (ii) imposition of a constructive trust providing for liquidation
         of the assets of the partnerships and a distribution of the
         assets to the former limited partners therein;

   (iii) a judicial declaration that the action may be maintained as a
         class action;

    (iv) monetary/compensatory damages;

     (v) plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys', accountants'
         and expert fees; and

    (vi) a judicial order of dissolution of the partnerships and
         appointment of a liquidating trustee

The Company has responded by answer and asserted general and specific
affirmative defenses to the allegations in the suit.


ANSWERTHINK INC.: "False Results" Focus of Securities Suits in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Answerthink, Inc. faces several securities class actions in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
between October 17, 2000 and April 25, 2002, inclusive against the
Company and:

     (1) John F. Brennan,

     (2) Ted A. Fernandez,

     (3) Allan R. Frank,

     (4) Edmund R. Miller,

     (5) William Kessinger and

     (6) Bruce Rauner

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants issued
a series of false and misleading statements announcing "record"
financial results. In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), however, defendants failed to disclose that the
"record" results included revenues recognized from transactions with
related parties who were near-bankruptcy and lacked the financial means
to finalize the sales, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the
complaint.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Plaintiff's Counsel Targets De Klerk Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ngcebetsha, the legal brain behind the class action campaign
against multinational companies in the US and Switzerland, has
expressed disappointment at the criticism levelled by former president
FW de Klerk against the court initiative.

Ngcebetsha, an attorney who is representing apartheid victims in a
lawsuit against international firms that invested in apartheid SA, has
accused Mr. De Klerk of being ignorant about the court case and the
purpose for which the money, in the event of successful litigation,
would be used.

Mr. De Klerk leveled criticism against the action last week, saying it
would work against the New Partnership for Africa's Development
(Nepad).  He warned that litigation would make banks and companies even
more reluctant to invest in countries with a less than pristine human
rights record.

"I do not know where De Klerk is coming from because clearly, Nepad is
dealing with African recovery as envisaged by President Thabo Mbeki and
the African Union, all of which we support. We will do nothing that
seeks to destroy that," Mr. Ngcebetsha stated.  He said the court
action was dealing with apartheid debt up until 1994.

"There is no one in his rightful mind who can ever claim liability
after 1994 when apartheid officially ended, at least in as far as the
records are concerned. On the other side there is the issue of
constitutional democracy in SA, which gives an individual recourse to
law," he continued.  "Now De Klerk seems to be arguing that even if you
(have) a right to recourse to law, you should not exercise that right,
which would be completely disastrous insofar as our constitutional
democracy is concerned."

Mr. Ngcebetsha, who decried lack of understanding and interest in the
court action here as opposed to overseas, said that his firm,
Ngcebetsha-Madlanga, had dissuaded a number of clients who wanted to
pursue civil claims against local companies that had invested in the
apartheid system.  This decision to drop claims against SA companies
took into consideration political responsibility, "though legally we
could easily make a case against them".

Mr. Ngcebetsha thought the view that the court action was creating
unrealistic expectations on the part of the claimants was "farfetched."  
He said, "No one is saying people have to wait for million-dollar
cheques."

The clients were briefed beforehand that in the likely event of a
successful litigation, a humanitarian fund would be created, he said.
Thereafter, all stakeholders including government, political parties,
nongovernmental organisations and churches will decide on how best the
money could be used to benefit previously disadvantaged people.

Mr. Ngcebetsha said that the claimants would know on December 16 which
of the US states and judges would be allotted to preside over the court
action.  The action has cited more than 60 companies in different
districts.


CANADA: Truckers Join In Suit V. Customs Over Deductible Meal Allowance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 240 truckers from Manitoba have joined their colleagues
across the country in a class action against Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency over the amount they can claim as a deductible meal allowance,
the Winnipeg Free Press reports.

British Columbia lawyer Thomas Johnston said if the lawsuit is
successful, it will generate a cash benefit for truckers and benefit
everyone who travels for business purposes.  The truckers are trying to
obtain a substantial increase in the amount of meal money they are
allowed to claim as a deductible expense while on the road.  Mr.
Johnston said the maximum allowable deductible now is $16.50, and they
must produce receipts.

Mr. Johnston said the truckers want the limit raised to $70, matching
the meal allowance the federal Treasury Board gives federal employees.  
"The Treasury Board already has determined that $70 is a fair amount
for their own employees, so we want the same amount," Mr. Johnston
said.

If successful, Mr. Johnston estimated that most long-haul truckers
would receive an immediate cash refund of $35,000 to $40,000, plus they
would be able to make a direct reduction on their taxable income based
on the new rate.

Mr. Johnston said whatever the result of the lawsuit, it would apply to
everyone who is required to have a meal on the road.  He also said that
more than 1,200 long-haul truckers and bus drivers have signed on for
the class action, each contributing $100 to cover legal costs.  "This
makes it the largest self-financed class-action lawsuit in Canada," he
said.

The first step in the dispute is to have the Federal Court rule it as a
class action, said Mr. Johnston, who will make an application to the
court by the end of the year.  Mr. Johnston, who practices law in
British Columbia, said he agreed to take the case after he was
approached in the summer of 2001, by a group of truckers.  

The action has struck a chord across the country, he said, adding that
he has twice extended the deadline for truckers to sign up for the
lawsuit.


CANADA: If "Racial Profiling" Meetings Fail, Cochran Supports Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If leaders of Toronto's black community cannot resolve their concerns
about racial profiling through meetings with police, they must take
their battle to court, Johnnie Cochran says, according to a report by
The Toronto Star.

The focus now should be on discussions aimed at improving officer
training to ensure blacks and other minorities are not selectively
targeted, Mr. Cochran, a lawyer best known for his controversial
defense of O.J. Simpson, recently told The Toronto Star before a speech
he made in Toronto.

"Short of that you are going to have to have a legal remedy," said Mr.
Cochran, who gave a keynote address at the York Theatre in Toronto,
kicking off a weekend conference on miscarriages of justice.  A
class action, filed by a plaintiff representative of everyone subjected
to profiling, is one option in the legal arsenal, Mr. Cochran said.

However, a lawsuit launched by motorists allegedly pulled over by
police for reasons of race is not the only potential legal issue facing
Chief Julian Fantino, Mr. Cochran suggested.  Officers could
conceivably sue the police force for involving them in discriminatory
practices.

There is a precedent in New Jersey, Mr. Cochran said.  Last August, the
state paid $5 million to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit filed
by 13 black state troopers who argued, among other things, that they
were required to go along with the practice of aggressively targeting
black or Hispanic drivers for traffic stops so as to search their cars
for drugs.

Mr. Cochran and two New Jersey lawyers represented the officers, who
claimed they suffered emotional distress and were denied promotions for
speaking out against the practice.

The New Jersey case followed a $13 million settlement the state reached
last year with the families of four North Carolina college students
pulled over and shot up by two state troopers in 1998.

Mr. Cochran, one of the attorneys who represented the four youths, said
at the York Theatre address, that he would be glad to give Chief
Fantino the state's report on the case, in which it admitted that
racial profiling had occurred.

Chief Fantino reportedly told those in attendance at the speech given
by Mr. Cochran that he has zero tolerance for racial profiling,
although he has persistently rejected allegations that his police force
engages in the practice.

The analysis also showed that black motorists pulled over for traffic
violations were more likely to be charged with violations that could be
discovered only after they had been stopped.

A 1995 report by the provincially appointed Commission on Systemic
Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System concluded that blacks are
stopped more frequently by the police, detained more often in pre-trial
custody, sentenced differently and over-represented in jails.

"If you can't work it out, you have to litigate it," Mr. Cochran said
in his speech.  Johnnie Cochran, perhaps the world's most recognized
lawyer, was brought to Toronto by the Association in Defense of the
Wrongly Convicted, which organized the conference and a benefit concert
to raise money and awareness about the continuing problem of
miscarriages of justice.


CARESCIENCE INC.: Prospectus Omissions Securities Suits' Focus in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Carescience, Inc. and certain of its officers faces several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who allegedly
purchased Company common stock between June 29, 2000 and November 1,
2000.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading Prospectus and Registration Statement
with respect to the initial public offering of Company common stock.

Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
Company's Prospectus and Registration Statement misrepresented and
omitted to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
competitors, two of the Company's prospective products and the
Company's contract with the California HealthCare Foundation.

Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the case or
estimate the range of any potential loss that may be incurred in the
litigation, management believes the lawsuits are frivolous and without
merit, strenuously denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted by
plaintiffs, and believes it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs'
claims.  

Management believes that the resolution of this litigation will not
have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position
or results of operations.


CHEMED CORPORATION: Sued For Unlicensed Roto-Rooter Plumbing in IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation faces a class action filed in the Third Judicial
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois in June of 2000 by Robert
Harris, alleging certain Roto-Rooter plumbing was performed by
unlicensed employees.  

The Company contests these allegations and believes them baseless.  Due
to the complex legal and other issues involved, it is not presently
possible to estimate the amount of liability, if any, related to this
matter, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


COOPER TIRE: Says Steel-Belted Radial Tires Litigation Fully Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. regards the litigation pending against it
relating to its steel-belted radial tires fully resolved, as no appeal
was filed after the New Jersey Superior Court approved the settlement
it proposed for the litigation in September 2001.

The Company had pending against it 32 separate class action lawsuits
and two individual lawsuits with similar allegations filed in 30
separate state courts, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  One of
the class actions purported to represent a national class.

The lawsuits, all of which were filed under the auspices of the same
group of plaintiffs' attorneys, asserted claims under the respective
states consumer protection and deceptive trade practices statutes, and
comparable commercial law and other theories.

They alleged that the Company used certain materials and procedures in
its process of manufacturing steel-belted radial tires which could have
rendered a portion of the tires unsafe, and failed to disclose those
practices to purchasers of its tires.

The suits were brought on behalf of all persons (excluding those who
have sustained personal injury and/or property damage as a result of
the alleged unlawful practices) in the respective states who purchased
steel-belted radial tires manufactured by the Company from 1985 to the
present, and still retain those tires.  The lawsuits generally sought,
on behalf of each class member, relief sufficient to secure replacement
of their tires, statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On October 26, 2001, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement and Release of all of the class actions, without any
admission of liability, resulting in a charge of $54.6 million ($33.9
million net of tax).  Prior to settlement, $17.6 million of legal and
professional and tire storage costs were incurred related to the class
action litigation.

According to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release,
the Company will provide:

     (1) a five-year Enhanced Warranty Program offering a free
         replacement tire for an Adjustable Separation on an Eligible
         Cooper Tire or an alternative dispute resolution system;

     (2) some modifications to final tire inspections; and

     (3) a consumer education program to promote tire safety

In addition, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs' legal expenses
as part of the settlement.  Out of potentially millions of class
members, only 156 chose to opt out of the settlement.  Those who opted
out can pursue any legal rights they may have against the Company in
separate individual lawsuits.

Because of the nature of the relief available to an individual
plaintiff under the statutes implicated in this litigation, the
likelihood that any such action will result in a judgment that would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's cash flow, results of
operations or financial condition is extremely remote.

Final judicial approval of the Settlement was received on September 13,
2002.  No appeal of that approval was filed within the 45-day appeal
period following the date on which approval was granted.  


COX BUSINESS: Requests Unsolicited Fax Suit's Dismissal in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Business Services, LLC asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the class action filed
against it, Fax.com, and others, alleging that Fax.com sent numerous
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of federal law.

The complaint alleges that the Company, which provides
telecommunications services to Fax.com, is also liable for the
facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (TCPA), Sections 206 and 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
and certain state laws.

The suit seeks an award of statutory damages in the amount of $500 for
each violation of the TCPA, treble damages, injunctive relief, the
establishment of a constructive trust and other relief.

On October 11, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and based on the
primary jurisdiction of the FCC.

In addition, on September 8, 2002, plaintiff Daniel David, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a related case against
Fax.com, Inc., Cox Business Services and others in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County.  The complaint asserts various federal
and state law causes of action including:

     (1) violation of the TCPA,

     (2) trespass to chattels,

     (3) violation of Section 17-200 of the California Business and
         Professions Code and

     (4) unjust enrichment

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Their outcomes
cannot be predicted at this time.


COX CALIFORNIA: Settlement Leads To Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
California state court dismissed with prejudice two class actions
pending against Cox California Telcom, LLC relating to the unauthorized
publication of information pertaining to approximately 11,400 Cox
Telcom telephone customers in the PacBell 2000 White Pages and 411
directory and in the Cox TelTrust information directory.  The lawsuits
asserted various causes of action for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) invasion of privacy,

     (3) negligence,

     (4) commission of fraudulent or unfair business acts and practices
         in violation of California Business Professions Code Section
         17-200 and violation of California Public Utilities Code
         Sections 2891 and 2891.1.

The suits sought damages and injunctive relief.  The Company later
entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs, thus leading to
the dismissal of the suits.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: CA Bankruptcy Court Orders Dismissal of Stock Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of
California ordered the plaintiffs in the class action pending against
Cox Communications, on behalf of shareholders of Excite@home as of
March 28,2000.

Jerrold Schaffer and Kevin J. Yourman, filed two class actions in May
2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Mateo seeking:

    (1) to enjoin consummation of a March 28, 2000 letter agreement
        among Excite@Home's principal investors, including the Company,
        and

     (2) unspecified compensatory damages

The Company and David Woodrow, the Company's former Executive Vice
President, Business Development, among others, are named defendants in
both lawsuits.  Mr. Woodrow formerly served on the Excite@Home board of
directors.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached purported fiduciary
duties of care, candor and loyalty to the plaintiffs by entering into
the letter agreement and/or taking certain actions to facilitate the
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the letter agreement.

In February 2001, the court stayed both actions, which had been
previously consolidated, on grounds of forum non-conveniens.

A related suit, entitled Ward, et al. v. At Home Corporation, was
commence in September 2001 in the same court.  On February 7, 2002, the
court consolidated the Ward action with the Schaffer/Yourman action,
thereby also staying the Ward action.

On June 18, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay
and authorized discovery to proceed regarding the Company's pending
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On September 10, 2002 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California in the Excite@Home bankruptcy
proceeding held that the claims in the suits were derivative and, thus
constituted the exclusive property of the Excite@Home bankruptcy
estate.  The Bankruptcy Court thereafter ordered the plaintiffs to
dismiss the suits.

Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  The outcome cannot
be predicted at this time.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Communications faces a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants AT&T Corporation and certain former officers
of Excite@Home, among others.

The putative class includes persons who purchased shares of Excite@Home
common stock between the time period March 28, 2000 and September 28,
2001.  The sole count against the Company asserts a claim against its
as a "controlling person" of Excite@Home under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In addition, a claim against Cox's former Executive Vice President,
David Woodrow, who served on Excite@Home's board of directors, is
asserted for breach of purported fiduciary duties.


The time for Cox to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint has been extended until January 29, 2003.  The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously. The outcome cannot be
predicted at this time.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: CA Court Dismisses Several Claims in Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed several categories of the misstatements alleged in
the consolidated securities class action pending against DJ
Orthopedics, Inc. and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, former Senior Vice President, Finance, Chief
         Financial Officer, and Secretary,

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, former Chairman of the Company's Board of
         Directors, and

     (4) Mitchell J. Blutt, M.D.,

     (5) Kirby L. Cramer,

     (6) Damion E. Wicker, M.D. and

     (7) the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering

Several suits were initially filed in the United States District Courts
for the Southern District of New York and for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's November 15, 2001 initial public offering.

The complaints sought unspecified damages and alleged that defendants
violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by,
among other things, misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material
facts in connection with the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the initial public offering.

In February 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the New York actions
without prejudice, while the California federal court consolidated the
California actions into a single action.

In May 2002, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint, which alleges the same causes of action and adds several
other defendants.  The Company and the other defendants then filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated suit.

On August 6, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed several categories of the
misstatements and omissions alleged by plaintiffs.  The remaining
allegation pertains to a purported failure to disclose material intra-
quarterly sales data in the registration statement and prospectus.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend
the action vigorously.  However, there can be no assurance that the
Company will succeed in defending or settling this action.  
Additionally, there can be no assurance that the action will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business.


ENDOCARE INC.: "False Statements Issued" Say Securities Suits in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Endocare, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock publicly traded
securities during the period between Oct. 23, 2001 and Oct. 30, 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, according to an earlier Class Action
Reporter story.
  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  As a result of
this inflation, the Company was able to complete a public offering of 4
million shares, raising proceeds of $68 million on Nov. 16, 2001.

The Company believes the claims are meritless.


FIRST HORIZON: Facing Numerous Securities Fraud Lawsuits in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon Pharmaceutical, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against the Company, members of its Board of
Directors, certain officers of the Company and representatives of the
Company's underwriters for its public offering completed on April 24,
2002.  

The suits generally allege that the Company issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection
with the Company's public offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter,
relating to the sales of two of the Company's products, Tanafed
Suspension and Prenate GT.

The complaints assert that the defendants violated Section 11 and that
the Company violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  
The complaints further allege violations by the Company and Company-
related defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The complaints also allege controlling person liability on behalf of
certain officers of the Company under Section 15 of the Securities Act
and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Company believes these cases will be consolidated into one putative
class action lawsuit.  The Company denies the claims made in the
lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.  Due to
the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this litigation and an adverse result
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position and results of operations.


HOLLAND AMERICA: Faces Suit For Passengers Taken Ill With Norwalk Virus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed recently against
Holland America, on behalf of the passengers who contracted the Norwalk
virus during a Caribbean cruise, The Seattle Times reports.

About 160 passengers aboard the cruise line's Amsterdam ship became
sick from the serious stomach virus, which is passed in the feces of
infected people.  The ship's 1,900 passengers and crew disembarked from
the Amsterdam in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on Monday after a 10-day
cruise through the Caribbean.

For Seattle-based Holland America, the outbreak on the Amsterdam marked
the second time in four months that passengers contracted the same
illness on one of the cruise-line's vessels.  The Ryndam, which sailed
to Alaska in July, had 395 reported cases before the vessel was
temporarily pulled from service to be disinfected.

A lawsuit seeking class action status also was filed on behalf of the
Ryndam passengers.  The Ryndam class action was filed in Vancouver,
British Columbia, in August.

Company officials with Holland America did not immediately return phone
calls.


INFONET SERVICES: Faces Consolidated Securities, Derivative Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infonet Services Corporation faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of public investors who purchased
Company securities during the period from December 16, 1999 through
August 7, 2001.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jose A. Collazo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman,

     (2) Akbar H. Firdosy, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Douglas Campbell, director,

     (4) Eric M. De Jong, director,

     (5) Morgan Ekberg, director,

     (6) Masao Kojima, director,

     (7) Joseph Nancoz, director,

     (8) Rafael Sagrario, director,

     (9) KDDI Corporation,

    (10) KPN Telecom,

    (11) Swisscom AG,

    (12) Telefonica International Holding B.V.,

    (13) Telia AB,

    (14) Telstra Corporation Ltd.,

    (15) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

    (16) Warburg Dillon Read LLC,

    (17) ABN AMRO Inc.,

    (18) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (19) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

    (20) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

The suit alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the AUCS channel in the Company's Form S-1 registration
statement and the accompanying prospectus for its initial public
offering and in other statements during the class period.

The plaintiffs assert counts against the Company and its officers and
directors for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and violations of Section 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs have requested a judgment determining that the lawsuit
is a proper class action, awarding compensatory damages and/or
rescission, awarding costs of the lawsuit and awarding such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Additionally, a consolidated shareholder derivative suit is pending in
Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company (as a nominal
defendant) and:

     (1) Jose A. Collazo,

     (2) Makoto Arai,

     (3) Douglas Campbell,

     (4) Eric M. de Jong,

     (5) Morgan Ekberg,

     (6) Timothy P. Hartman,

     (7) Heinz Karrer,

     (8) Matthew J. O'Rourke and

     (9) Rafael Sagrario, and

    (10) Akbar H. Firdosy

The consolidated derivative suit alleges that the defendants breached
their duties toward the Company either through their alleged
participation in, or alleged failure to adequately oversee, the
purported conduct and events alleged in these securities lawsuits.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Intersil Corporation's current officers and directors as
defendants in the securities class action pending against them, the
Company and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, the lead
underwriter of its initial public offering and its September 2000
secondary offering.

The suit alleges violations of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on, among other
things, the dissemination of statements containing material
misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions received by
the underwriters of the initial public offering as well as failure to
disclose the existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with
some of the purchasers in these offerings to thereafter buy additional
shares of Company stock in the open market at pre-determined prices
above the offering prices.

The suit, as well as those alleging similar claims against other
issuers in initial public offerings, have been consolidated for pre
trial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District
of New York.

In December 2001, plaintiffs filed amended complaints that added
certain officers as defendants and changed the nature of their causes
of action.  Plaintiffs dropped their claims of securities fraud against
the Company and the individual defendants, while adding claims under
one or more sections of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company
and the individual defendants arising from the alleged
misrepresentations or omissions described above with regard to both the
Company's initial, and second, public offerings.

In April 2002 plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The
consolidated amended complaint pleads claims under both the 1933
Securities Act and under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

In addition to the allegations of wrongdoing described above,
plaintiffs also now allege that analysts employed by underwriters who
were acting as investment bankers for the Company improperly touted the
value of the Company shares during the relevant class period as
part of the purported scheme to artificially inflate the value of
Company shares.

In early October 2002, the judge signed stipulations of dismissal
without prejudice for the individual defendants.  Company and the other
defendants have filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaints, which
motions are pending before the court.  The Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
them.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: CA Court Certifies Suit Over NatureGuard Roof Shakes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Stanislaus County Court, California judge certified as a class action
a lawsuit filed against the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP)
(NYSE:LPX) pertaining to NatureGuard cement fiber roof shakes, a
product LP manufactured in a single-line California mill from 1995 to
1998.

The Company maintains a warranty claims program to respond to customers
with questions or concerns about their NatureGuard shingles.  "We have
received only one claim under the 25-year express warranty provided
with the NatureGuard shake product," Mark Fuchs, senior counsel for LP
said in a statement.  

"We received other inquiries attributed to improper installation or
aesthetic characteristics which are not expressly warranted; and in
fact, many are expressly disclaimed. In spite of this, we have worked
diligently with homeowners to address their concerns and provide
remedies," he added.

The lawsuit filed against the Company, a small supplier of the product,
closely resembles previously filed cases against other larger cement
fiber shake manufactures.  

"It is an unfortunate situation. Our product is performing under its
warranties and we have provided quick resolution for homeowners, as
customer service, even when issues arise outside the product's express
warranties," stated Mr. Fuchs.  "Since this class action suit seeks to
litigate claims that are already being successfully addressed through
our program and will most likely not result in an additional benefit to
homeowners, we intend to vigorously defend against it."


NEW ENGLAND: Facing Unsolicited Faxes Suit in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
New England Business Service, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for
Charleston County, South Carolina, on behalf of all persons who
allegedly received facsimiles containing unsolicited advertising from
the Company in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (TCPA).

The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages in the amount of $500.00 per
individual violation, which amount can be trebled to $1,500.00 for each
violation found to have been "willful and knowing".  The plaintiff is
also seeking injunctive relief with respect to further violations of
the TCPA and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims asserted
in the complaint.


NICOR ENERGY: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Fixed Bill Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Energy Services Company and Nicor Gas asked the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois to dismiss a class action charging them with
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act
relating to the Fixed Bill Service offered by Nicor Services and a
conspiracy claim against Nicor Gas arising out of marketing efforts by
Nicor Services.

The Fixed Bill Service is offered to Nicor Gas residential customers
and allows the customer to pay twelve equal monthly amounts for their
annual gas service based upon the gas-use profile of their home.  

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or to
reasonably estimate its potential exposure related thereto and has not
recorded a liability associated with this contingency.


NICOR GAS: Faces Several Suits Over Gas Plant Site Clean-up in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Gas faces several class actions pending in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois relating to the proposed cleanup of a
manufactured gas plant site in Oak Park, Illinois.

The first suit was commenced in December 2001 against the Company,
Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Company, alleging that the
plans were inadequate.  The lawsuit claims that houses might have to be
razed or removed and asks that residents be compensated for the alleged
loss in the value of their homes and other monetary damages.  An
amended complaint adding additional plaintiffs and, as defendants,
the Village of Oak Park and the Oak Park Park District, was filed in
April 2002.

In October 2002, two lawsuits were filed against Nicor Gas in the
Circuit Court of Cook County seeking unspecified damages for various
injuries and one death that allegedly resulted from exposure to
contaminants allegedly emanating from the manufactured gas plant site
in Oak Park, Illinois.  The plaintiffs lived in homes adjoining the
site.

Management cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or the
Company's potential exposure thereto and has not recorded a liability
associated with this contingency.


NICOR INC.: Asks Court To Dismiss Suit Over Performance Based Rate Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to dismiss
the class action filed against it and Nicor Gas, on behalf of all
customers of Nicor Gas who at any time from January 2000 through the
present were subject to Nicor Gas' performance-based rate (PBR) plan.  

The plaintiff alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, and that the class sustained damages as a result of Nicor Gas
manipulating the benchmark under the PBR plan.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or its
potential exposure related thereto and has not recorded a liability
associated with the potential outcome of this contingency.


PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Court To Decide On Remand of Suit To State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Oregon has yet to decide whether to
send back to state court the class action pending against Pro-Fac
4ative, Inc. and:

     (1) Agrilink Foods, Inc.,

     (2) Mr. Mike Shelby, and

     (3) "Does" 1-50, representing the directors, officers and agents
         of the corporate defendants

The suit was initially commenced in September 2001, in the circuit
court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging:

     (i) fraud in operating PF Acquisition II, Inc., a former
         subsidiary of Pro-Fac that conducted business under the name
         AgriFrozen Foods;

    (ii) breach of fiduciary duty in operating AgriFrozen;

   (iii) negligent misrepresentation in operating AgriFrozen;

    (iv) breach of contract against Pro-Fac;

     (v) breach of good faith and fair dealing against Pro-Fac;

    (vi) conversion against Pro-Fac and Agrilink;

   (vii) intentional interference with a contract against Agrilink
         Foods; and

  (viii) statutory Oregon securities law violations against Pro-Fac and
         separately against Mr. Shelby.

The complaint has since been amended to eliminate "Does" 1-50 as
parties.  The relief sought includes:

      (a) a demand for an accounting;

      (b) injunctive relief to compel the disclosure of documents;

      (c) certification of the class;

      (d) damages of $50.0 million;

      (e) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and

      (f) an award of costs and expenses including expert fees and
          attorney's fees.

Management believes this case is without merit and intends to defend
vigorously its position.


PROTON ENERGY: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed Proton Energy Systems, Inc's officers and directors as
defendants in the consolidated securities class action pending against
them, the Company and the underwriters who handled the September
28,2000 initial public offering of common stock.

The suit alleges that the Company's IPO registration statement and
final prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions
related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly
received by the underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters
allegedly allocated shares of the IPO.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss
filed by all issuer defendants named in similar actions which
challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including
those in the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have opposed
that motion, which has not yet been heard by the court.

In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without
prejudice all of the individual defendants from the consolidated
complaint.  An order to that effect was entered by the court in October
2002.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in
the complaints.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits could
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operation in the period in which the lawsuits are resolved, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ST. JUDE: Class Certification For Silzone Suits Expected by Early 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Minnesota judge John Tunheim is
expected to decide on class certifications for several lawsuits against
St. Jude Medical, Inc. by early 2003.

The Company has been sued by patients alleging defects in the Company's
mechanical heart valves and valve repair products with Silzoner
coating.  Some of these cases are seeking monitoring of patients
implanted with Silzoner -coated valves and repair products who allege
no injury to date.  Some of these cases are seeking class action
status.  The Company voluntarily recalled products with Silzoner
coating on January 21, 2000, and sent a Recall Notice and Advisory
concerning the recall to physicians and others.

In 2001, the JPML ruled that certain lawsuits filed in US federal
courts involving products with Silzone(R) coating should be part of
Multi-District Litigation proceedings under the supervision of US
District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota.

As a result, actions in federal court involving products with
Silzone(R) coating have been and will likely continue to be transferred
to Judge Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  
The hearing concerning requests by certain plaintiffs to have matters
proceed as class actions occurred on October 2, 2002.

Judge Tunheim is presently considering plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and a decision by Judge Tunheim in this regard is
expected by early 2003.

There are other actions involving products with Silzone(R) coating in
various state courts that may or may not be coordinated with the
matters presently before Judge Tunheim.  While it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the various cases involving Silzone(R) products,
the Company believes that it has adequate product liability insurance
to cover the costs associated with them.

The Company further believes that any costs not covered by product
liability insurance will not have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the
consolidated results of operations of a future period.


UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Alleges INS Violates Immigrants' Human Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil rights attorneys recently filed a lawsuit, alleging that the
rights of thousands of illegal immigrants' were violated by the US
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), reports the Chicago
Tribune.

The class action against the INS alleges that the agency violated
rights by removing a layer of protection for illegal immigrants who
were conned into seeking legal status when they were ineligible.  
The lawsuit highlights the competing missions of the INS:  to provide
immigrants with benefits, but also enforce the law against those who
are illegally in the country.

The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Chicago, alleges that staff
members at the INS office in Chicago used to simply return forms to
immigrants when their applications were improperly filled out.

Then in 1998, said plaintiffs' attorneys, the Chicago INS office
changed its procedures so that when the agency received ineligible
forms, officials followed through on their obligations to deport
illegal immigrants.  Attorneys who filed the lawsuit said the INS
office should have known that phony immigration consultant, known in
Spanish as notarios, were tricking immigrants into sending in improper
paperwork.

"Their change in policy permitted these notarios to continue to defraud
the the immigrant community," said Patricia Mendoza, regional counsel
for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) in
Chicago.

INS officials said they could not comment on their procedures, but
defended their efforts to ensure that immigrants were not victims of
fraud.  The lawsuit, filed by MALDEF and the Midwest Immigrant and
Human Rights Center, seeks to recoup the INS processing fees, at least
$300 per applicant, and stop pending deportation proceedings.

Various groups were affected.  The new procedures primarily harmed
Mexican immigrants, said the attorneys; but they also have received
complaints from Polish, Chinese, Korean and other ethnic groups.

The attorneys said they have no recourse for those already removed from
the country.  They estimated that up to 5,000 undocumented immigrants
face deportation because they submitted forms between 1997 and 2001,
after being defrauded by notarios.

However, there is one bright light, probably, the result of the class
action and the information supplied the INS of the "scam" going on that
is so deleterious to the immigrants' rights:  The INS once again is
notifying immigrants, without penalizing them by starting deportation
proceedings, if they submit forms when they are not eligible.

Brian Perryman, Chicago district director of the INS, says that the INS
is working with both Chicago and federal officials to crack down on the
notarios who prey on ethnic communities.  INS has aired public service
ads about the notarios on Spanish-language television.  The INS can do
only so much, said Mr. Perryman.  He added that the immigrants must
take responsibility to educate themselves.

The attorneys for the immigrants recognize that the damage done by the
change in INS procedures was unintentional - they have no reason to
believe that the INS changed its policy of simply handing back an
improperly filled out or ineligible application without taking
deportation action, in order to lure undocumented immigrants.  Still
the damage was done and many were deported without receiving the
counsel that might have helped them.

Immigrant advocates did not place all the blame for the deportations at
the feet of INS officials, but stressed that the agency needs to
improve its outreach to immigrants.


WASHINGTON: Court Grants Certification To WTO Protesters Civil Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent court order, the US District Court in Seattle certified a
class action representing protesters arrested outside a "no-protest
zone" created by the City of Seattle during the World Trade
Organization (WTO) conference in December 1999.

Originally filed by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) in 2000,
the lawsuit claims the Dec. 1, 1999, mass arrest and imprisonment of
approximately 140 protesters outside the no-protest zone violated their
constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.

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

"We do not intend to let these injustices stand as acceptable behavior
for police and city governments," said Steve Berman of the Seattle law
firm Hagens Berman, lead co-counsel.  "Instead of setting an example of
free speech and democracy for the rest of the world, we believe Seattle
used an unjust method to squelch dissent."

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

With approximately 140 members, the class permitted to proceed with the
suit is defined as "all individuals arrested on Dec. 1, 1999, at or
near the intersections of First Avenue and Broad Street or First Avenue
and Clay Street in Seattle, Washington, whose arrest records indicate
that a reason for arrest was a violation of Seattle Municipal Code
12A.26.040."

In issuing the class certification order on Nov. 5, 2002, the court
also ruled that protesters arrested within the no-protest zone had
"separate and distinct" claims from those arrested outside the zone.  
This frees protesters arrested within the no-protest zone to appeal an
earlier ruling that found the City's order creating the no-protest zone
constitutional and in the interest of public safety.  That appeal will
soon be filed.

The lawsuit against the city charges that the arrest and imprisonment
of several hundred protesters -- none of whom was later convicted of
any crime -- deprived them of their rights to free speech and assembly
under the First Amendment, their right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and their right to
speak freely under Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State
Constitution. The suit seeks damages and declaratory relief.

For more details, contact Jonathan Hutson of the Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice by Phone: 202-797-8600 ext. 246 by E-mail:
jhutson@tlpj.org or Victoria Ni by Phone: 510-622-8150 or Steve Berman
of Hagens Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 or by E-mail: steve@hagens-
berman.com


WYETH: Ruling May Ease Liability For Alleged Injuries From Diet Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth won a legal judgment last week that could curb the drug maker's
liability in a class action settlement of alleged injuries caused by
diet drugs, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The Madison, New Jersey, drug maker and the trust that administers
payment of claims under the settlement, sought to have a flood of
claims submitted this year scrutinized for validity before they are
paid.  This flurry of claims threatens to exhaust the $2 billion
remaining in the settlement fund, a condition which could trigger
another cash infusion by Wyeth.  Wyeth has put aside more than $14
billion in reserves for diet-drug litigation.

The settlement agreement allowed Wyeth to audit the medical basis for
the claims in a maximum of 15 percent of cases.  The rest had to be
paid without further review.  Wyeth contended during a six-day hearing
during September that many of the claims are spurious, saying that they
rely on faulty medical assessments of heart-valve damage linked to the
diet drugs Pondimin and Redux.

In a ruling handed down in Philadelphia last week, US District Judge
Harvey Bartle agreed, saying that the trust's ability to "pay
legitimate claims is being undercut by tender of claims that have no
reasonable medical basis."

He, therefore, authorized the trust to audit all claims that relied on
ultrasound exams evaluated by the doctors retained by two New York law
firms, Hariton & D'Angelo, and Napoli, Kaiser, Bern & Associates,
representing more than 6,000 patients.

Marc Bern, a partner with Napoli, Kaiser, Bern, plans to appeal the
decision within 30 days.  "We believe the judge misinterpreted the
meaning of  'medically unreasonable' in terms of the national class-
action settlement," Mr. Bern said.

The 1999 settlement to resolve lawsuits came after the 1997 recall of
Pondimin, the "fen" in the fen-phen diet-drug combination, and a
chemical cousin, Redux.  The medicines were linked to heart-valve
disease and an often-fatal lung condition.

The trust that administers the settlement received 16,814 claims before
January 2002 and rejected all but 2,157 of them after deciding that
most of them had been submitted in error.


*Book Exposes Wall Street Firms' Sexual Harassment, Treatment Of Women
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A book that reveals the full extent of sexual harassment against women
working in Wall Street and claims that the firms they work for condone
such treatment, and explains the difficulties women have in bringing
lawsuits against their employers, was published last week,
The Sunday Telegraph reported.

Susan Antilla's disclosures in Tales From The Boom-Boom Room range from
the foul language used in trading rooms to examples of public sexual
assault and alleged rape.  Five Hollywood studios are competing for the
rights to the book, which centers on the battle of Pam Martens, a
former trainee broker, against the men's behavior.

Ms. Antilla said, "The message is that this sort of behavior cannot be
tolerated.  Legal action has made it more difficult to get away with
grabbing breasts and buttocks . but there are still too many problems
out there."

According to Ms. Antilla, Lori Hurwitz, who started as a trainee broker
at the office, said the men she worked with referred to women as no
more than sexual organs.  Women would be sent in celebration to male
brokers and ordered to perform lap-dances in front of female
colleagues.  

Ms. Antilla also describes how one woman suffered the humiliation of
having her pants pulled down in the public trading room.  When she
complained, the manager laughed and said that he would "rape" her.

The book offers a catalogue of outrageous behavior that took place
during the 1990s, and which improved only after a 1998 class action
lawsuit was settled.

During the 1990s, Mrs. Martens led a rebellion by women and started a
class action case against two big brokerage firms, Smith Barney and
Merrill Lynch.  Their attempts to take action were blocked by a system
that, Ms. Antilla says, is unique to the brokerage business.  Employees
must have their trading licenses held by the firms they work for.  Many
women found that they had signed contracts agreeing to compulsory
arbitration within the industry and the exclusion of legal action.

"It was this medieval system that let them get away with it and allowed
Wall Street to cover up for so long," Ms. Antilla said.

Years of court action involving hundreds of women finally forced the
brokerages into taking action.  To settle the cases, the Securities and
Exchange Commission re-wrote the rules, but they remain ambiguous.  
"Brokers still sign their rights away, but the new deal is that the
company can go to arbitration only if both parties agree to it," Ms.
Antilla said.

She reports that a survey of 1,853 Smith Barney women issuing sexual
harassment claims in the class action Martens v. Smith Barney, found
that 1,210 had been "stroked or fondled" against their will, while
seven out of 10 had been "leered at" or "ogled."

Both Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch settled class actions through
arbitration and a promise to plough $14 million into a fund to train
staff worldwide in how to avoid creating a "hostile work environment."  
Mrs. Martens is still campaigning for the right to go before a jury.

                      New Securities Fraud Cases  

AES CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of THE AES
CORPORATION (NYSE:AES) between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant, and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

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 material misrepresentations to the
market between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of AES securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
issued numerous statements which highlighted the Company's strong
financial performance, specifically its business operations in the
United Kingdom.

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

      (i) that the United Kingdom adopted a new framework for the
          pricing of energy that undermined the Company's ability to
          achieve profitability in its United Kingdom activities, and
          as a result, the Company would experience a rapid decline in
          its U.K. financial operations;

     (ii) the adoption of NETA (New Energy Arrangements) in the United
          Kingdom caused the Company's Fifoot utility operations to
          operate at a loss, as expected;

    (iii) that in the first quarter of 2001, Fifoots had an after-tax
          loss of $11 million; and

     (iv) that the Company's United Kingdom operations were severely
          impaired as a result of new pricing arrangements adopted
          there and that the Company lacked adequate long-term
          contracts to avoid a rapid decline in its United Kingdom
          operations as a result of the new pricing arrangements.

On February 14, 2002, AES shocked the market by announcing that it had
ceased operations of its Fifoots Point power station in the United
Kingdom because of "sliding wholesale electricity prices."

In reaction to the announcement, AES securities plummeted over 25% on
February 15, 2002 after the truth concerning AES' Fifoots Point plant
and future prospects were finally revealed, dropping from $9.50 per
share on February 14, 2002, to $7.00 per share on February 15, 2002.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Answerthink, Inc. (Nasdaq:ANSR)
between October 17, 2000 and April 25, 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 action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pivenlaw.com


DEAN WITTER: Finkelstein, Thompson Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
lawsuit against Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. n/k/a Morgan Stanley DW,
Inc., Mark Rodgers, a former registered representative of Dean Witter,
and Paul Grande, the Branch Office Manager of Dean Witter's Clearwater,
Florida branch office at all relevant times, on behalf of purchasers of
e-Net securities between January 1, 1998, and August 19, 1998,
inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleges that defendants manipulated, by means of
deceptive acts, practices and contrivances, the market price of e-Net
stock with the intent, purpose and effect of creating and maintaining
artificially high market prices.

The suit further alleges that defendants accomplished the manipulation
by engaging in unauthorized trading in the accounts of certain Dean
Witter customers in order to stabilize the price of e-Net, creating and
promoting a plan to withhold stock from short sellers to effect a
"short squeeze" and by making false statements to discourage clients
from selling e-Net.

For more details, contact Conor R. Crowley by Phone: 1-202-337-8000 by
E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ftllaw.com


EL PASO: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of El Paso Corporation 9% Equity
Security Units in the public offering of the 9% Units on or about June
21, 2002, or traceable thereto, against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the Underwriters of the Offering, Credit
Suisse First Boston and J.P. Morgan Securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing Equity Security Units
pursuant to a Prospectus and Registration Statement that were
materially false and misleading in its omission of material facts
concerning:

     (1) the Company's true financial condition,

     (2) the nature of its relationship with Credit Suisse First
         Boston,

     (3) the conflict of interest of a senior executive, and

     (4) the participation in the California energy crisis that had the
         effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
         Company's securities.

As a result of the offering, defendants were able to sell the 9% Units
at a price of $50 per Unit to unsuspecting public investors. Since the
Offering, the price of the 9% Units declined to as low as $20.55 per
unit (on September 24, 2002), leaving investors -- who were led by the
prospectus to believe the Company was prepared to take advantage of its
exceptional business practices -- with substantial losses on their
investments.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Offering was achieved
by means of a registration statement and prospectus which negligently
failed to advise investors that the Company had booked hundreds of
millions of dollars in profits years before they would be actually
realized while also keeping off of its books billions of dollars of
debt.

Moreover, the Company manipulated the California energy market in the
winter of 2000/2001 and, as a consequence of this malfeasance,
artificially inflated the Company's reported results.

For more details, contact Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquith,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: 800-575-0735 by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to El Paso.


FOOTSTAR INC.: Levy & Levy Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy & Levy PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Footstar, Inc. (NYSE: FTS) between
February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, inclusive, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, J.M. Robinson and Stephen R.
Wilson, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market between February 8, 2002
and November 12, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities.

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

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

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

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

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

On November 13, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it had "discovered discrepancies in the reporting of its account
payable balances," following management's review of the account
reconciliation processes of its accounts payable balances.

Specifically, defendants had cumulatively understated the Company's
accounts payable balances in its athletic segment by approximately $35
million.  As a result, the Company announced that it will likely be
restating its financial statements for the first nine months of 2002
and prior periods, with a significant portion of the discrepancies
affecting fiscal year 2001 and earlier.

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

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


FOOTSTAR INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Footstar, Inc. (NYSE:FTS) securities between
February 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning the Company's financial results
and business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following fact, among others:

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

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

As a result, the value of the Company's balance sheet and financial
results were materially overstated at all relevant times, helping
artificially inflate the price of the Company's securities throughout
the class period.

On November 13, 2002, however, the Company stunned the market by
disclosing that it had "discovered discrepancies in the reporting on
its account payable balances."  Moreover, the Company indicated that it
will likely restate its financial statements for the first nine months
of 2002 as well as prior periods including 2001 and earlier.

Upon this revelation, shares of Footstar plummeted approximately 20% to
close at $5.05 per share after hitting an intraday low of $3.30 on
volume amounting to nearly six times Footstar's average daily trading
volume.

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


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased the
common shares of SeaChange International, Inc. (Nasdaq:SEAC) in or
traceable to the offering conducted by SeaChange on or about January
29, 2002, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the lead underwriters of the Offering.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading prospectus on or about January 29, 2002
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

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


SEARS ROEBUCK: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action against Sears,
Roebuck & Co. (NYSE:S) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Company securities during the period January 17, 2002 through October
17, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, Alan Lacy (CEO, President and
Chairman), Glenn Richter (CFO from October 4, 2002, Senior V.P.,
Finance since inception of Class Period), Paul J. Liska (CFO until
October 4, 2002) and Thomas E. Bergmann (Chief Accounting Officer),
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 during the
class period.  These alleged misstatements had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of Sears securities.

According to the complaint, defendants, throughout the class period,
represented that Sears was growing its earnings strongly, driven by its
Credit and Financial Products segment and that it would achieve
earnings growth of 22% in 2002.

In addition, in each of its press releases and SEC reports filed during
the class period, Sears reported its provisions for uncollectible
accounts and in its 2001 annual report represented that such reserves
were "adequate."

These, and other statements detailed in the complaint, were allegedly
false and misleading because, according to the complaint, they did not
disclose that the Company's risk for uncollectible accounts had
increased materially throughout the class period and, in addition, that
Sears was under-reserving for its uncollectible accounts which inflated
its earnings and balance sheet.

On October 17, 2002, Sears reported in a press release that it will
grow its 2002 earnings by 15%, rather than the 22% it reaffirmed as
recently as ten days previously, because of a "$222 million increase in
the domestic provision for uncollectible accounts."

In addition, according to the press release, earnings for the third
quarter were 26% less than the previous year.  In reaction to the press
release, the price of Sears common stock plummeted, falling 32%, from
an October 16 close of $33.95 per share to close at $23.15 per share on
October 17, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Nikole Davenport by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia 30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999
(toll-free) by E-mail: NMD@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC) and
certain of its current and former top officers, accusing the for-profit
hospital chain of defrauding its shareholders, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Company securities from October 3, 2001
through October 31, 2002.

The lawsuit claims that the Company artificially inflated its financial
results by using aggressive pricing tactics to over-bill Medicare.  
Investors began to learn the truth about the Company on October 28,
2002 when a UBS Warburg analyst revealed that the company was far more
dependent than other hospitals on Medicare outlier payments, and that
those payments had tripled over 3 years to total nearly a quarter of
Tenet's projected revenue for this fiscal year.

Outlier payments are reimbursements made from Medicare when patient
care exceeds the normal cost.

Then, on October 31, 2002, news broke that the FBI was investigating
two doctors at Tenet's Redding Medical Center in California for their
alleged scheme of performing many unnecessary heart surgeries and
billing Medicare for them, thus artificially boosting the hospital's
revenue and profits.

According to the news articles, the two doctors had performed these
unnecessary and invasive procedures on as many as 25 to 50 percent of
their patients since at least 1995.  Three other doctors associated
with Tenet had concluded that many of the procedures were "medically
unnecessary," but Tenet refused to investigate or stop the practice
after hearing of the complaints, according to the lawsuit.

As a result of these revelations, Tenet's stock price has dropped from
an all-time high of $52.50 per share on Oct. 3, 2002 to around $15 per
share today, erasing a staggering $11 billion in market value.

For more details, contact Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.or Nicole Lavallee or
Jennifer S. Abrams by Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San
Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: 415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bermanesq.com


TXU CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
preferred shareholders of TXU Europe CAP I 9 3/4 TOPRS (NYSE: TEG-A)
(TEG-A) between April 25, 2002 and October 21, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements and omitting to disclose material adverse
information about the Company's operations and prospects during the
class period.  Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants issued
several statements that the dividend was stable and they saw nothing
that would reduce the amount of the dividend.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 by Fax:
405-239-2112 or by E-mail: Wfederman@aol.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  * * *