---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, November 21, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 231

                              Headlines                            

ARCHER-DANIELS: AL State Court Dismisses Corn Syrup Antitrust Lawsuits
ARCHER-DANIELS: AL High Court Upholds Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
ARCHER-DANIELS: MN Court Grants Final Approval To Antitrust Settlement
ARCHER-DANIELS: MA Nucleotides Antitrust Suit Alleges Price Fixing
ARCHER-DANIELS: Named as Defendant in Kansas Nucleotides Antitrust Suit

BEAR-ARCHERY: Voluntarily Recalls 2,250 Compound Bows for Injury Hazard
CALIFORNIA: High Court Allows Parents To Sue Over Harvested Corneas
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Nears Settlement For Alleged Abuse Victims Of Priests
C.H. ROBINSON: Faces Suits Alleging Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
CHIRON CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in MA Wholesale Prices Suit

CHIRON CORPORATION: Sued For Violation of CA Business, Professions Laws
DORCHESTER HUGOTON: OK Grants Summary Judgment in Natural Gas Lawsuit
EMULEX CORPORATION: Trial For Securities Suits Expected July 2003 in CA
ERPENBECK CO.: Homeowners' Liens Lifting After Settlement Approval
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: To Vigorously Defend V. Securities Lawsuits in TX

HOMESTORE.COM: CALSTeRS Adds Firms As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit
IRT PROPERTY: Faces Two Lawsuits Opposing Equity One Merger in GA Court
NASD LITIGATION: High Court Rejects Challenge To Investigative Powers
NICOR GAS: 160 Households Opt Out of Mercury Regulator Suit Settlement
NICOR INC.: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in N.D. Illinois

NICOR INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in Illinois State Court
NISSAN CORP.: Study Filed With Suit Says Hispanics Pay Higher Interest
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Suit Says Some Mobiles Have Faulty 911 Connections
SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Several Securities, Derivative Suits in NY Courts
TARGET CORP.: Voluntarily Recalls 6T Men's Sweatshirts for Fire Hazard

US TRUST: Parties Finalizing $10 Million Settlement of LA ERISA Lawsuit
US TRUST: CA Court Certifies Suit Over Structured Settlement Agreements

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ATLAS AIR: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
COMERICA INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI

CREDIT SUISSE: Finkelstein Thompson Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FOOTSTAR INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in MA
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA

TENET HEALTHCARE: Stull Stull Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Mark McNair Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

                           *********


ARCHER-DANIELS: AL State Court Dismisses Corn Syrup Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama granted Archer-Daniel-
Midland Co.'s and other companies' motion to dismiss the antitrust
class actions filed against them over the prices of high fructose corn
syrup.  

Suits were filed, alleging violations of the state's antitrust laws,
including allegations that defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and
maintain at artificially high levels the prices of high fructose corn
syrup.  The suits seek an injunction against continued illegal conduct,
damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.

The putative class in the Alabama action comprises certain indirect
purchasers in Alabama, Michigan and Minnesota during the period March
18, 1994 to March 18, 1996.  The defendants moved to sever and dismiss
the non-Alabama claims, which the court granted.

The defendants later moved for summary judgment in light of a recent
Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws
apply only to intrastate commerce.  In response, plaintiffs filed
amended complaints, which the defendants moved to dismiss or in the
alternative to strike plaintiffs' amended complaints.  


ARCHER-DANIELS: AL High Court Upholds Dismissal of Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court of Dekalb County,
Alabama's decision dismissing the class action pending against Archer-
Daniels-Midland Company and other firms, alleging violations of the
Alabama antitrust laws.

The suit alleges that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and
maintain at artificially high levels the prices of lysine, and seeks an
injunction against continued alleged illegal conduct, damages of an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified
relief.  The putative class in this action comprises certain indirect
purchasers of lysine in the State of Alabama during certain periods in
the 1990s.

In March 1998, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  Subsequently, the plaintiff amended his complaint to
add approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  On March 23, 2000,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in light of a recent
Alabama Supreme Court case holding that the Alabama antitrust laws
apply only to intrastate commerce.  

On August 11, 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
defendants moved to dismiss or in the alternative to strike plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  The court later granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for restraint of trade in
interstate commerce and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.  The Court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' restraint of trade in intrastate commerce
claim.  However, the plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed this claim.  

In July 2001, plaintiffs moved to amend, alter or vacate the court's
dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.  On July 24, 2001, plaintiffs
noticed an appeal of that part of the court's order granting
defendants' summary judgment motion, but the court denied plaintiffs'
motion to amend, alter or vacate the Court's dismissal of the unjust
enrichment claim.  

The plaintiffs subsequently noticed an appeal of the Court's order
dated June 19, 2001 regarding the unjust enrichment claim.    On May
30, 2002, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a claim
under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Statute.  On July 2, 2002,
defendants filed a motion to strike and/or dismiss that claim.  

On September 13, 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed without
opinion the trial court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss and
grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment.


ARCHER-DANIELS: MN Court Grants Final Approval To Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted
final approval to a settlement proposed by Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company and other firms to settle several antitrust class actions,
relating to the sale of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosate and
disodium guanylate.

The suits allege violations of federal antitrust laws, including
allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain
at artificially high levels the price of monosodium glutamate, disodium
inosinate and disodium guanylate, and seek various relief, including
treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other unspecified relief.  

The putative classes in these cases comprise certain direct purchasers
of monosodium glutamate, disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate
during certain periods in the 1990's to the present.  The Company has
never produced or sold disodium inosinate or disodium guanylate, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  

The suits are:

     (1) Thorp, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., filed
         October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of California,

     (2) Premium Ingredients, Ltd. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., filed
         October 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of California,

     (3) Felbro Food Products v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, filed
         on October 28, 1999 in the United States District Court for
         the Northern District of California,

     (4) First Spice Mixing Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
         Company, et al., filed on November 17, 1999 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of California,

     (5) Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-
         Midland Co., et al., filed on November 23, 1999 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey,

     (6) M. Phil Yen, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al., filed on
         December 16, 1999 in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York,

     (7) Chicago Ingredients, Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et
         al., filed on January 27, 2000 in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of California, and

     (8) Heller Seasonings & Ingredients, Inc. v. Ajinomoto USA, Inc.
         et al. filed on April 12, 2000 in the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these
actions for coordinated pretrial discovery in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The court later granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

The Company and the plaintiffs in these eight actions have executed a
settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the
plaintiffs $1.25 million.  On August 15, 2002, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement.  On November 7, 2002, the court
granted final approval of the settlement agreement.


ARCHER-DANIELS: MA Nucleotides Antitrust Suit Alleges Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Inc. faces an antitrust class action filed
in Middlesex, Massachusetts Superior Court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers.  

The action alleges violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act, including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix prices,
allocate market shares and eliminate and suppress competition in the
sale of monosodium glutamate, nucleotides and other food flavor
enhancers.  The suit seeks treble damages of an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.  

The putative class in this action comprises persons within the State of
Massachusetts that purchased for consumer purposes products containing
monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides during anytime between January
1990 and August 23, 2001.  




ARCHER-DANIELS: Named as Defendant in Kansas Nucleotides Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. was named as a defendant in an antitrust
class action filed in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas,
involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides.  

The action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws, including
allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and
maintain prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks
damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.  

The putative class in this action comprises all persons or entities in
the State of Kansas that indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate
and/or nucleotides during any time between January 1990 and November 1,
1999 for use as an ingredient in the manufacture or preparation of
final food products.  


BEAR-ARCHERY: Voluntarily Recalls 2,250 Compound Bows for Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Archery LLC is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 2,250 compound bows.  
The limbs of these bows can break during use, causing impact injuries
to consumers.  The Company has received about 200 reports of these bows
breaking during use with reports of seven minor injuries, such as cuts
and bruises to the face and chest.
        
These are junior-sized compound Bear Archery bows sold under the model
names Warrior and Buckmaster/Warrior.  They are camouflaged or black,
and "Warrior" or "Buckmaster" decals were included in the packaging to
put on the bows.
        
Hunting & sporting goods stores, mass merchants and catalogs
nationwide sold the bows from September 2002 through October 2002 for
between $75 and $100.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Mail: 4600 S.W. 41st  
Blvd., Gainesville, FL 32608 by Phone: 800-342-4751 between 8 am and
4:30 pm ET or visit the firm's Website: http://www.beargoldeneagle.com


CALIFORNIA: High Court Allows Parents To Sue Over Harvested Corneas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court cleared the way for parents who did not
authorize the removal of their deceased children's corneas to sue the
Los Angeles County Coroner's Office if their children's corneas were
harvested, Associated Press Newswires reports.

By deciding not to intervene in the case, the justices let stand an
earlier ruling by a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals.  
The appeals panel had ruled that the constitutional property rights of
parents Robert Newman and Barbara Obarski had been violated when the
coroner harvested their children's corneas without their permission.  
The appeals panel found that the plaintiffs, therefore, had a right to
bring a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging deprivation of their
property without due process.

Parents Mr. Newman and Ms. Obarski each had a child die in October
1997.  Acting under a 1983 California law that allowed coroners to take
corneas from bodies if they were not aware of objections from donors or
families, Los Angeles coroners' officials removed the two boys' corneas
and sold them to a tissue bank for $215 to $335 per pair.

After news reports prompted criticism of the practice, coroner's
officials began seeking relatives' prior consent, and in 1998, the
state Legislature passed a law making such approval mandatory.

In seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed, county officials had argued
that it would discourage relatives from allowing doctors to harvest
body organs and tissue from patients.  They also argued that parents do
not have a property interest in their deceased children's corneas.

A Michigan attorney representing the plaintiffs is seeking class action
status to expand the lawsuit to other people whose relatives' corneas
were removed before the new law took effect.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Nears Settlement For Alleged Abuse Victims Of Priests
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Catholic officials in the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire,
are close to reaching a settlement with 67 people who claim they were
sexually abused by priests, the lawyer representing the alleged victims
said recently, according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.

Peter Hutchins said he has been meeting in earnest with representatives
of the Diocese of Manchester, since October 22, and a settlement could
be reached soon.  Mr. Hutchins credits the impending resolution to
church officials who have treated his clients with respect and concern.

"The diocese has not attacked the credibility or veracity of what our
clients have said," Mr. Hutchins said.  "I have found that to be
instrumental in the process becoming successful, neither side can be
adversarial."

Early this year, when Mr. Hutchins filed the class action against the
Manchester diocese, he said he was looking for a settlement of about
$30 million.  More recently, he has declined to discuss a dollar figure
for the impending settlement.

Mr. Hutchins has said that all but six of his clients are men and their
average age at the time they first were assaulted was 12.  He said that
19 were assaulted just once, while the rest of the 67 alleged victims
were abused repeatedly for a year or more.

Mr. Hutchins said that other victims who have not come forward yet can
come forward later even though a settlement is impending.  "We would
represent that person and essentially approach the diocese to resolve
that case in the same manner and use the same criteria.  The door is
not shut to people coming forward later."

"Litigating these cases, in my view, is not good for the clients," Mr.
Hutchins said.  He said that coming forward and telling people for the
first time what happened to them has been traumatic enough.  "To have
that dissected and challenged and attacked (during a trial) would be an
awful experience."

Charles Douglas, another lawyer representing 16 alleged victims,
reached a $950,000 settlement with the diocese last month.  None of his
clients received more than $150,000 each.  Meanwhile, lawyer Mark
Abramson, broke off talks with the church on behalf of about 60
clients.  Mr. Abramson, who now is preparing for trial, blamed the
breakdown on a lack of cooperation from the diocese.


C.H. ROBINSON: Faces Suits Alleging Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen current and former female employees of the shipping company,
C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., who claim they were sexually harassed,
underpaid and denied opportunities made available to male employees,
have filed a lawsuit in which millions of dollars are at stake, and two
experienced Minneapolis law firms are laying the groundwork for a
highly charged battle, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.

C.H. Robinson, a company with $3.1 billion in annual revenue, which
provides freight and transportation services to clients around the
world, and has a U.S. workforce of 3,400 persons, also is facing a
second class action lawsuit, brought by current and former male
employees alleging uncompensated overtime.  

That lawsuit stems directly from an overtime issue raised in the
women's lawsuit.  It could include up to 2,000 current and former
employees, said Seymour Mansfield, whose Minneapolis firm, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, represents the male plaintiffs.

The Company has retained the Minneapolis law firm of Robins, Kaplan
Miller & Ciresi, well-known for its handling of complex litigation.  
The women are represented by Sprenger & Lang, a small firm with offices
in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., which has a national reputation
for winning large workplace discrimination cases.

The women's case will probably revolve around what management knew
about the workplace environment and what it did to control and contain
situations in which women claimed to be harassed, said labor attorneys
who advise businesses on harassment policies.  The Company has policies
against harassment and use of the Internet to view sexually explicit
material; however, the lawsuit maintains managers did not enforce the
policies.

For the Company, the lawsuit could become a significant and expensive
case.  Nearly, 1,200 women work in the company's U.S. offices, and all
of them could become part of the lawsuit if it gains class action
status.  Among the financial issues are loss of income, pay
discrimination and lack of overtime payment.  Wage loss alone could
exceed $20 million a year, according to the women's attorneys.

Insurance will cover much of the cost of litigation, said Laura
Gillund, the Company's vice president for human resources.  The Company
has coverage of up to $55 million for the women's lawsuit.  Insurance
does not cover the overtime issue raised in the men's lawsuit, Ms.
Gillund added.

Addressing the company's policies against harassment, Ms. Gillund said
that employees must sign a document each year acknowledging their
awareness of the company's policies against sexual harassment,
inappropriate office behavior and Internet use.

Ms. Gillund also said there are reporting channels that give workers
the chance to file complaints about violations of these policies,
including a toll-free phone number and a Web address that allows the
employee to remain anonymous.


CHIRON CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in MA Wholesale Prices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiron Corporation was dismissed as a defendant in the class action
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against 29 biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, in
connection with setting average wholesale prices for various products
including DepoCyt, which are reimbursed by Medicare.

The suit was commenced in December 2001 by the Citizens for Consumer
Justice and 13 other named plaintiffs.  The suit alleges that
defendants violated federal antitrust and racketeering laws by devising
and implementing a fraudulent pricing scheme against Medicare and
Medicare beneficiaries, and sought declaratory relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.

In March 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that eliminated
the antitrust allegations and changed the subject drug from DepoCyt to
Mitomycin, a generic oncology drug sold by the Cetus-Ben Venue
Therapeutics partnership.  In September 2002, the Citizens for Consumer
Justice filed a master consolidated class action that withdrew the
Company as a defendant.


CHIRON CORPORATION: Sued For Violation of CA Business, Professions Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiron Corporation faces three class actions filed since July 2002 in
two California Superior Courts, alleging violations of the California
Business and Professions Codes.  The suit also names numerous other
biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies as defendants.

These matters seek compensatory and punitive damages, plus injunctive
relief, against Chiron in connection with setting the average wholesale
prices for various oncology drugs, including DepoCyt.


DORCHESTER HUGOTON: OK Grants Summary Judgment in Natural Gas Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma State Court granted Dorchester Hugoton Ltd.'s motion for
summary judgment, removing Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights
(RRNGR) as a plaintiff in a class action filed against it and:

     (1) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation,

     (2) Conoco, Inc.,

     (3) XTO Energy Inc.,
     
     (4) ExxonMobil Corporation,

     (5) Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated and

     (6) Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.

The class consists primarily of Texas County, Oklahoma residents who
use natural gas at their own risk, free of cost from gas wells in
residences located on leases.  

The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic gas use is not
limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited to a principal
dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease agreements entered into
in the 1930's through the 1950's.  

Plaintiffs also assert defendants conspired to restrain trade by
warning of dangers of natural gas use and using such warnings to induce
some plaintiffs to release their domestic gas rights.  Plaintiffs also
seek certification of class action against defendants.  Additionally,
plaintiffs seek accounting of fuel use by defendants.

The Company believes plaintiffs' claims are completely without merit as
to the Company and has filed an answer.  Based upon past measurements
of such gas usage and current natural gas prices, the Company believes
the damages sought by plaintiffs are minimal.


EMULEX CORPORATION: Trial For Securities Suits Expected July 2003 in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated securities class action against Emulex
Corporation is expected to commence on July 2003 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

Several suits were commenced in February 2001 against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods ranging from January 18,
2001, through February 9, 2001.

The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

The suits were later consolidated.  The defendants later asked the
court to dismiss the suits, but the court denied their motion in March
2002.  Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, but
the court denied the order, too.  

Plaintiffs have commenced discovery.  The court certified the class
action by an order dated September 30, 2002.  The court has scheduled a
trial setting conference on June 6, 2003, with an expectation that the
case will be set for trial in July 2003.

As a result of these class actions, a number of derivative cases were
filed in state courts in California and Delaware, and in federal court
in California, alleging that certain officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the events
alleged in the class actions.

The derivative cases filed in California state courts have been
consolidated in Orange County Superior Court and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated and amended complaint on January 31, 2002.  On May 10,
2002, the Orange County Superior Court ordered that the consolidated
actions be stayed pending resolution of the federal class actions
described above.

The derivative suit in Delaware was dismissed on August 28, 2001.  On
March 15, 2002, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California ordered that the federal derivative action be
stayed pending resolution of the class action lawsuit described above.  
The plaintiffs in that action filed a motion for reconsideration of
that order, which was denied by an order dated June 3, 2002.

The above-described litigation could result in substantial costs to the
Company and a diversion of management's attention and resources.  While
the Company believes that the lawsuits are without legal merit and
intends to defend them vigorously, because the lawsuits are at an early
stage, it is not possible to predict whether the Company will incur any
material liability in connection with such lawsuits.


ERPENBECK CO.: Homeowners' Liens Lifting After Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the 200-plus homeowners victimized by the Erpenbeck Co. scandal
may be getting a highly-anticipated Christmas present as the liens on
their homes are lifted, thanks to the approval of a recent class action
settlement, The Cincinnati Post reports.

Boone County Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger approved terms of a final
settlement agreement for Peoples Bank of Northern Kentucky to place
$16.8 million in escrow.  Homeowners' attorneys Stan Chesley, Brandon
Voelker and Terry Goodman are pressing for paying off liens out of the
escrow account by end of the year.

More than 200 homeowners are saddled with liens because Erpenbeck Co.,
or its affiliates, took nearly $25 million in payoff checks written to
other banks and deposited them into a company account at Peoples Bank.  
The FBI and other federal agencies are investigating Erpenbeck and its
former president, Bill Erpenbeck over the diversion of the money.

About $16.8 million of that misdirected money was never paid to
Erpenbeck's lenders, and affected homeowners are stuck with builders'
liens that supersede their own mortgages.

Several groups are accepting partial responsibility for allowing the
scheme to occur, including:

     (1) People's Bank for allowing Erpenbeck to deposit checks
         written to the order of other parties.  The bank is willing to
         pay about 70 percent of the $16.8 million;

     (2) Title agents/insurers for allowing Erpenbeck representatives
         to take payoff checks at property closings instead of the
         title agents directly delivering the checks themselves.  
         Individual deals are being negotiated between Peoples and
         title agents and insurers; and

     (3) Erpenbeck's lending banks for not spotting their missing
         payoff money through better scrutiny of Erpenbeck.  Banks are
         negotiating to remove their liens in exchange for payment of
         about 90 percent of what is owed them;

Many of the homeowners likely will have to wait until January or
February to finally have liens lifted from their homes because of
additional legal wrangling among the defendants.

Though Peoples Bank has agreed to deposit $16.8 million, 100 percent of
what is owed to the homeowners, into the escrow account, the bank
intends to recover about 30 percent of that from title companies,
insurers and Erpenbeck's lenders.

Beverly Storm, attorney for Peoples, said the bank wants to recover
those funds before the liens are paid off.  "We are working on various
ways of resolving all these differences. Third party defendants (title
companies, insurers and Erpenbeck's lenders) would take the position
that once the money was paid, they are off scot free," she said.

Peoples is making individual deals with each of those parties and is in
the process of finalizing several deals with banks.  As those deals are
finalized, Peoples will agree to allow the paying off of liens.  The
third parties on the escrow agreement may file objections to terms of
the escrow account until December 12.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: To Vigorously Defend V. Securities Lawsuits in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company faces several class action and derivative lawsuits
relating to its practice of accruing revenue from unapproved claims,
which was the object of a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry.

Several suits were commenced in June 2002, against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock alleging violations
of the federal securities laws. Several of those suits also named as
defendants Arthur Andersen, LLP, the Company's independent accountants
for the period covered by the lawsuit, and several of the Company's
present or former officers and directors.  

Those lawsuits allege that the Company violated federal securities laws
in failing to disclose a change in the manner in which it accounted for
unapproved claims on engineering and construction contracts, and that
the Company overstated revenue by accruing the unapproved claims.  

One such action has since been dismissed voluntarily, without
prejudice, upon motion by the filing plaintiff.  The federal securities
suits and are in the process of being consolidated before the Honorable
Judge David Godbey.

Another case, also filed in the same court on behalf of three
individuals, and based upon the same revenue recognition practices and
accounting treatment that is the subject of the securities class
actions, alleges only common law and statutory fraud in violation of
Texas state law.  

The Company moved to dismiss this action on October 24, 2002 as
required by the court's scheduling order on the bases of lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to plead with that
degree of particularity required by the rules of procedure.

In addition to the securities class actions, one additional class
action, alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in connection with the Company's Benefits
Committee's purchase of the Company's stock for the accounts of
participants in the Company's 401(k) retirement plan during the period
the Company allegedly knew or should have known that its revenue was
overstated as a result of the accrual of revenue in connection with
unapproved claims, was filed and subsequently voluntarily dismissed.

On October 11, 2002, a shareholder derivative action against present
and former directors and the Company's former CFO was filed, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste arising out of the same
events and circumstances upon which the securities class actions are
based.

The Company believes the suits are without merit and that its actions
in accruing revenue for unresolved construction contract claims and
related disclosures were appropriate, and that the various lawsuits
described above should be resolved in its favor.  The Company denies  
any wrongdoing.  


HOMESTORE.COM: CALSTeRS Adds Firms As Defendants in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL/Time Warner, Cendant Corporation and 14 other Internet-based firms
were named Friday in an amended complaint alleging they contributed to
the financial collapse of Homestore.com.  The firms were added as
defendants in a securities class action suit brought by the California
State Teachers' Retirement System (CALSTeRS) against Homestore and its
top officers.

The amended complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by
the Burlingame, California law firm Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy,
states those named acted individually and in concert to falsify
revenues to maintain the myth of Homestore's inflated success story on
Wall Street.

As a result of a $192 million restatement of Homestore's financial
results for the years 2000 and 2001, the stockholders of Homestore
suffered massive losses in the value of their stocks.

The defendants engaged in schemes that included, the complaint states,
intricate "round-trip" transactions in which Homestore entered into
agreements with various firms for the circular flow of money from
Homestore to those firms and then back to Homestore.  These round-trip
transactions, in the tens of millions of dollars, enabled Homestore to
illegally recognize revenue to meet its Wall Street targets and keep
its stock prices climbing, according to the complaint.

"The Homestore financial fraud was based on a simple concept: since the
company was not able to meet the expectations of Wall Street through
the production of legitimate revenues, Homestore resorted to 'buying
revenues' which were false and contrary to accounting and financial
reporting rules," the complaint states.

The complaint also states Homestore could not have undertaken its
financial fraud without the "active and knowing participation" of the
other defendants, with AOL/Time Warner and Cendant Corporation being
"two of the most important pillars for Homestore's rapid ascendancy as
a Wall Street darling . Both of these giants had a huge financial stake
in Homestore, and in the case of Cendant, two seats on the (Homestore)
Board of Directors."

Jack Ehnes, CalSTRS chief executive officer, said, "CalSTRS, as lead
plaintiff in this case, is dedicated to obtaining a monetary remedy for
California's educators and other class members caught up in this
scandal.  The allegations in this complaint reinforce one of our
principal objectives in pursuing corporate responsibility as well as
protecting the rights of stockholders."

Mr. Ehnes also praised the Department of Justice and the Securities and
Exchange Commission for their ongoing investigations in the Homestore
case.  "Their pursuit of this case is a textbook example of how the
system is designed to work,' he said, noting that the federal
investigations have resulted in criminal complaints and guilty pleas
from three former Homestore officers, John M. Geisecke Jr., Joseph J.
Shew and John D. DeSimone.

In addition to AOL/Time Warner and Cendant Corporation, the amended
complaint named:

     (1) L90,

     (2) Dorado Corporation,

     (3) Akonix Systems,

     (4) Internet Pictures,

     (5) CityRealty.com,

     (6) Classmates Online,

     (7) CornerHardware.com,

     (8) GlobeXplorer,

     (9) Privista,

    (10) PromiseMark,

    (11) RevBox,

    (12) SmartHome,

    (13) WizShop.com and

    (14) Top Producer Systems

The expanded scope of the allegations in the 240-page amended
complaint, including descriptions of specific transactions at the
"heart of the fraud," were obtained from "confidential sources with
personal knowledge of how the fraud was accomplished," the complaint
states.  It describes the sources as persons who were part of
Homestore's senior management team during the class period, May 4, 2000
to Dec. 21, 2001.

For more information, contact Sherry Reser by Phone: 916-229-3258 or by
E-mail: sreser@calstrs.ca.gov


IRT PROPERTY: Faces Two Lawsuits Opposing Equity One Merger in GA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IRT Property Co. faces two class actions filed in the Superior Court of
Cobb County, Georgia on behalf of its stockholders, relating to its
merger with Equity One.  The suit also names Equity One and the
Company's directors as defendants.

Janet Herszenhorn, an individual stockholder of IRT, filed the first
suit, alleging among other things, that the Company and its individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger and
that Equity One aided and abetted such breach.  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, an order enjoining consummation of the merger and
unspecified damages.

John Greaves, another Company stockholder, commenced the second suit,
making the same allegations and seeking the same relief as the first
suit.     

Although the defendants believe that these suits are without merit and
intend to defend themselves vigorously, there can be no assurance that
the pending litigation will not interfere with the consummation of the
merger.  The Company and Equity One do not expect that these suits will
interfere with the scheduling of their respective shareholder meetings
or the consummation of the merger, if approved.


NASD LITIGATION: High Court Rejects Challenge To Investigative Powers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court rejected D.L. Cromwell Investments Inc.'s challenge
to investigative powers at NASD Regulation Inc., the fraud unit of the
National Association of Securities Dealers Inc., according to Dow Jones
Business News.

D.L. Cromwell, a small New York securities firm, sued in 2002, arguing
that the NASD unit was illegally getting testimony from the firm as a
private entity when it actually is an agent of the federal government.  
Cromwell, protesting the activities of a special criminal assistance
unit at NASD Regulation, said it was being compelled to give on-the-
record interviews that violated its Fifth Amendment rights.

The NASD, a self-regulatory organization of firms that operates NASDAQ,
is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  D.L. Cromwell
has been under investigation by the NASD and federal prosecutors, court
records show.

Both a federal trial judge and the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals
in New York ruled in favor of NASD Regulation.  Cromwell's appeal to
the Supreme Court challenged the trial judge's consolidation of a
preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits.

Though NASD Regulation prevailed, the trial judge warned it to operate
the criminal assistance unit carefully.  "(NASD) Regulation may wish to
give careful attention to its arrangements concerning assistance to
criminal investigations," said US District Judge Lewis Kaplan.


NICOR GAS: 160 Households Opt Out of Mercury Regulator Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Opt-Out" period for the suit settlement proposed by Nicor Gas to
several private class actions pending in the Circuit Courts of Cook and
DuPage Counties, Illinois, has ended, with only 160 households opting
out of the class.  The suits claim a variety of unquantified damages
(including bodily injury, property and punitive damages) allegedly
caused by mercury-containing regulators.

On October 10, 2001, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
the litigation.  Under the terms of that agreement, the company has
paid a total of approximately $1.85 million, will continue for a period
of five years to provide medical screening to persons exposed to
mercury from its equipment, and will use its best efforts to replace
any remaining inside residential mercury regulators within four years.

The class action settlement permitted class members to "opt out" of the
settlement and pursue their claims individually.  In February 2002, the
court entered a final order approving the class action settlement.

Of the 160 households that have opted out of the class, 42 households
had traces of mercury, and the Company has settled with five of them.


NICOR INC.: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, following the Company's July 18, 2002 issuance of the press
release concerning Nicor Energy and the performance-based rate (PBR)
plan.  The suit names as defendants the Company:

     (1) Thomas Fisher (Chairman and CEO) and

     (2) Kathleen Halloran (Executive Vice President Finance and
         Administration)

The suits, filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's common stock in the open market during a specified period
ending in July 2002, allege that the defendants violated sec. 10(b) and
sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants
misrepresented the Company's historical financial condition and results
of operations and its future prospects.

The suits are now being consolidated.  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 outcome of
this contingency.


NICOR INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in Illinois State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor, Inc. faces several shareholder derivative suits filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, following the Company's
issuance of the press release concerning Nicor Energy and the
performance-based rate (PBR) plan.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Thomas Fisher (Chairman and CEO),

     (2) Kathleen Halloran (Executive Vice President Finance and
         Administration),

     (3) members of the Company's Board of Directors, and

     (4) Arthur Andersen LLP

The plaintiffs allege that Mr. Fisher, Ms. Halloran and the directors:

     (i) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company;

    (ii) knowingly participated in each others' breaches of fiduciary
         duties;

   (iii) committed constructive fraud; and

    (iv) abused their control of the Company

The plaintiffs seek on behalf of the Company, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief against
the individual defendants but do not seek any damages against the
company.

The Company has insurance that it reasonably expects will cover these
claims in whole, or in part.  The Company has not recorded a liability
associated with the outcome of this contingency.


NISSAN CORP.: Study Filed With Suit Says Hispanics Pay Higher Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Colon, who had moved from Puerto Rico to Miami, in 1995 and
bought his first car in 2000, did not question the 11 percent interest
Nissan was charging him for his new Xterra, but a study filed last
month as part of a lawsuit against the Company says Mr. Colon may be
among thousands of Florida Hispanics charged higher rates than whites
with the same credit history, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Mr. Colon, vice president of US Chemical & Funeral Supplies in Miami,
is paying close to $600 a month on his car.  The lawyers he has
consulted claim his interest rate is 40 percent more than the average
rate charged white customers with the same record.

"We do not know the race of our customers.  We are not allowed to know
it," said Alan Hunn, managing counsel for Nissan North America, in
Torrance, California, when asked to comment.

The study about the Company's lending practices in Florida, was first
submitted as part of a class action with 125,000 plaintiffs, pending in
federal court in Tennessee.  That lawsuit accuses the Company's lending
company, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., of charging blacks higher
interest rates than whites with the same credit rating.  Although the
Tennessee lawsuit does not cover Hispanics, a separate case dealing
with Hispanics is now being drawn up in California.

Researchers from Yale and Vanderbilt Universities conducted studies of
Nissan's black customers nationwide and its Hispanic customers in
Florida after being commissioned by plaintiffs' attorneys.  However,
the Company says the Florida study is oversimplified.  Mr. Hunn, the
Company's managing counsel, said the researchers did not take into
account the varying prices of cars and loan payment terms.

However, clients' lawyers say that even when the variables of loan
terms and car prices are factored in, a pattern of discrimination as to
interest rates still emerges.

Florida's unique driver's license race code for Hispanics allowed
analysts to profile that minority group.  Between 1993 and 2000, says
the study, Florida's Hispanics paid higher interest rates than whites -
sometimes as much as 12 percent annually - while a white customer with
the same credit history was charged eight percent.

Industry consultant for consumer groups and law firms, David Stivers,
who managed dealerships for Nissan and other automakers in the 1980s,
said he was pressured at all of the dealerships to raise rates for
minority borrowers.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Suit Says Some Mobiles Have Faulty 911 Connections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by a Manhattan woman claims that some cell phones produced by
Samsung Electronics do not meet federal safety standards for quick
connections to 911 emergency operators, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

Lisa Bass filed the class action in Manhattan federal court against the
Company and one of the wireless service companies that sells the
phones, Sprint Communications.  The suit charges that the Company
violated an agreement with federal regulators to have all of its phones
up to compliance standards by July 15, 2000.

The lawsuit further alleges that even after that date, the Company
still made phones that were slow to connect to 911 operators and "had
other software flaws that further impeded the connection to the 911
operator."

The phones "do not provide the level of safety and security that the
plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to receive," the
court papers argue.  The lawsuit further contends that the Company
manufactured the phones without the proper software to keep the costs
down.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a court order barring
the Company from selling any more phones without the proper 911
software.

Representatives for both companies said they had not seen the lawsuit
and could not comment, AP reports.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Several Securities, Derivative Suits in NY Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck and Co., Inc. face several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against it and certain of its current and former officers, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January
17,2002 and October 17,2002.

The suits allege that certain public announcements by the Company
concerning its credit card business violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

A purported shareholder derivative suit was also filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York against the Company (as a nominal
defendant) and certain current and former directors seeking damages on
behalf of the Company.

The complaint purports to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the
directors with respect to the Company's management of its credit
business.  

A similar suit was subsequently filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County.  Another purported derivative suit, brought against the Company
(as a nominal defendant) and certain current and former directors and
officers, was subsequently filed in the United States District Court
for the North District of Illinois.

The Company believes these claims lack merit.


TARGET CORP.: Voluntarily Recalls 6T Men's Sweatshirts for Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 6,000 men's hooded,
zip-up sweatshirts.  Trends Clothing Corp., of Miami, Fla.,
manufactured the sweatshirts.  

The fleece fabric on the inside of these sweatshirts fails to meet
federal mandatory standards of fabric flammability because it can
ignite readily if exposed to flame, and therefore presents a serious
risk of burn injuries in violation of the Federal Flammable Fabrics
Act.  The Company is not aware of any injuries involving these
sweatshirts.  This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility
of injuries.
        
The recall involves Physical Science-brand, heather-gray, hooded
sweatshirts with a full-zippered front and "P87" embroidered on the
left  chest. The sweatshirts come in sizes small through XXL, and have
two  sewn-in labels: one reads "PHYS.SCI" and the other reads "65%
COTTON," "35% POLYESTER," "RN 17730," MADE IN CHINA" and "SEE REVERSE
FOR CARE."
        
Target Stores nationwide sold the sweatshirts from August 2002
through September 2002 for about $25.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-440-0680 anytime or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.target.com


US TRUST: Parties Finalizing $10 Million Settlement of LA ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the three class actions pending against US Trust Company, NA
(USTC N.A.) are finalizing the proposed settlement documentation and
are preparing to file the motion for preliminary approval in the United
States District Court in Louisiana.

The three suits were commenced in March 2000 on behalf of participants
in an employee stock ownership plan (UC ESOP) sponsored by United
Companies Financial Corporation, which is currently in bankruptcy
proceedings in Delaware.

Plaintiffs allege that, as directed trustee of the UC ESOP, breached
its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 by failing to diversify the assets of the UC ESOP.  

In December 2001, plaintiffs and the Company reached a tentative
settlement of $10 million.  Under the terms of this settlement,
plaintiffs would release the Company of all liability.  Other than an
insignificant deductible, the settlement would be paid from insurance
coverage.

If and when preliminary approval is granted, notice of the settlement
will be distributed to members of the class and a final fairness
hearing will be held for final approval of the settlement.


US TRUST: CA Court Certifies Suit Over Structured Settlement Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
California state court granted class certification to the consolidated
class action pending against US Trust NY, and other defendants, on
behalf of former personal injury claimants/payees who are entitled to
future payments under "structured settlement" agreements.

Several suits were commenced starting January 2001, involving
settlement payments, which were obligations of Stanwich Financial
Services Corp.  (Stanwich), as Trustor of certain Trusts, and Stanwich
has defaulted on certain of those obligations.   

US Trust Company N.A., the Company's parent, served as Trustee of the
Trusts from approximately December 1992 to March 1994, and US Trust NY
served as Trustee from approximately September 1998 until its
resignation in April 2001.  

During the period from March 1994 to September 1998, while an unrelated
trust company was the Trustee of the Trusts, the US Treasury securities
held by the trusts were pledged as collateral for a loan or loans and
then lost through foreclosure.  

The suits and all but two of the individual cases have been filed in
California (the California cases), and have been consolidated.  The
other two individual cases have been filed in Montana.  

In the complaints now applicable to these cases, the plaintiffs allege
that, as Trustee during their respective tenures, US Trust NY and USTC
N.A. owed certain duties to the payees, and breached those duties in
various ways.

In the cases, US Trust NY and USTC N.A. have answered the complaints,
denying the allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses, and
have filed cross-complaints for indemnity against other defendants in
the cases.  US Trust NY and USTC N.A. intend to defend the cases
vigorously.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC 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 or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE: AYE) from April 23, 2001
through October 8, 2002, inclusive.  Also included are those who
acquired shares through the acquisition of Midwest Generating
Facilities.

The suit alleges that Allegheny and certain of its officers and
directors issued false and misleading statements concerning revenues.
In March of 2001, Allegheny's subsidiary, Allegheny Energy Supply,
acquired Global Energy Markets (G.E.M) from Merrill Lynch & Co.  It is
alleged that Allegheny omitted to disclose that its revenues materially
depended on G.E.M's illusory, revenue creating, "wash transactions"
with Enron. At no point did defendants disclose that a surge in revenue
was attributable to G.E.M's practice of engaging in deceptive trades.

On September 25, 2002, the Company sued Merrill Lynch for fraud and
breach of contract related to the G.E.M. acquisition.  In the suit,
Allegheny alleged that it had overpaid for G.E.M. because the unit's
financial reports had been inflated by illusory trades involving Enron.

On this news, the stock price plummeted 70% from $12.85 on September
25, 2002 to $3.80 on October 8, 2002, when Allegheny announced that it
was in technical default under its credit agreements.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Answerthink, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ANSR) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 17, 2000 and April 25, 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 and announcing "record" financial
results.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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.

Specifically, in order to boost reported revenues and earnings during
the third and fourth quarters of 2000, the Company recognized
approximately $16.7 million of revenue in connection with various
transactions with related parties who were either facing imminent
bankruptcy or were otherwise unable to survive as a going concern and
remit the full $16.7 million as promised.

As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants were able to report
artificially inflated results which permitted Mr. Fernandez and Mr.
Frank to receive performance-based bonuses and allowed certain of the
defendants to sell stock at inflated prices.  Ultimately, more than $6
million of receivables and worthless stock in one of the related party
companies, which was received as partial payment, was written off
through a charge to earnings.

On February 7, 2002, when defendants were no longer able to include
these illusory revenues in their financial results, the Company
reported a huge drop in revenues.  As a result, Answerthink investors
who purchased stock in reliance on the integrity of defendants'
statements and publicly-filed financial reports have sustained
tremendous losses.

Answerthink stock, which traded at $18 per share on October 17, 2000,
dramatically declined and traded at only $1.98 per share on November
13, 2002.

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


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Answerthink,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ANSR) publicly traded securities during the period
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 suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
As alleged in the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements announcing "record"
financial results.

In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the
complaint alleges, 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.

Specifically, in order to boost reported revenues and earnings during
the third and fourth quarters of 2000, the Company recognized
approximately $16.7 million of revenue in connection with various
transactions with related parties who were either facing imminent
bankruptcy or were otherwise unable to survive as a going concern and
remit the full $16.7 million as promised.

As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants were able to report
artificially inflated results which permitted Mr. Fernandez and Mr.
Frank to receive performance-based bonuses and allowed certain of the
defendants to sell stock at inflated prices.  Ultimately, more than $6
million of receivables and worthless stock in one of the related party
companies, which was received as partial payment, was written off
through a charge to earnings.

On February 7, 2002, when defendants were no longer able to include
these illusory revenues in their financial results, the Company
reported a huge drop in revenues.  As a result, Answerthink investors
who purchased stock in reliance on the integrity of defendants'
statements and publicly-filed financial reports have sustained
tremendous losses.

Company stock, which traded at $18 per share on October 17, 2000,
dramatically declined and traded at only $1.98 per share on November
13, 2002.

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


ATLAS AIR: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 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 or acquired Atlas Air
Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:CGO) common stock between April 18, 2000
and October 25, 2002, inclusive, including shares purchased pursuant or
traceable to May 2000 and September 2000 Prospectuses for the public
offerings of Atlas shares.

Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants reported
materially false and misleading earnings.  At the same time, Atlas sold
3 million shares of Atlas common stock for $31.75 per share in the May
2000 offering, and controlling shareholders sold 1.5 million shares of
Atlas common stock at $43.50 per share in the September 2000 offering.

The true facts began to be disclosed on October 16, 2002 when Atlas
announced that it would be required to restate its financial results
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, in the areas of obsolescence,
maintenance expense, and allowance for bad debt.  Preliminary
indications were that the cumulative impact of the restatement of
fiscal 2000 and 2001 will reduce after-tax income for fiscal 2000 and
2001 by roughly $60 million to $65 million.

Shares of Atlas common stock, which had traded at a high of $45.69 per
share during the class period, fell to as low as $1.70 after
announcement of the restatement.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: CGO@bernlieb.com.  


COMERICA INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Comerica Incorporated (NYSE:CMA)
between July 17, 2002 and October 1, 2002, inclusive against the
Company and:

     (1) Ralph W. Babb, Jr.,

     (2) Elizabeth S. Acton and

     (3) Marvin J. Elenbaas

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 17, 2002 and October 1, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Comerica securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
filed a quarterly report with the SEC which described the Company's
increasing revenues and financial performance.  These statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

      (i) that the Company had materially overstated its net income by
          approximately $23 million in the second quarter of 2002;

     (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 October 2, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it will record a $328 million
charge "related to an incremental provision for credit losses and
goodwill impairment for the company's Munder Capital Management
subsidiary."

As a result, the Company will be restating its second quarter earnings
to $161 million, compared to previously reported earnings of $184
million.  The Company further reported that the additional provision
and charge-offs related to the second quarter "were determined during a
recent subsidiary regulatory examination."

Following this report, shares of Comerica fell $10.19 per share, or
$20.3%, to close at $40 per share, on volume of more than 10.855
million shares traded, or more than ten times the average daily volume.

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 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.com.    


CREDIT SUISSE: Finkelstein Thompson Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, a subsidiary of Credit
Suisse Group and one of its technology analysts, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased AOL Time Warner, Inc. securities
between January 12, 2001, and September 3, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleges that defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by
issuing a series of favorable research reports on AOL that were
materially false and misleading in that they did not reflect Credit
Suisse's true opinion of AOL and did not disclose conflicts of interest
of Credit Suisse.  In particular, the reports did not disclose the
practice of Credit Suisse of using its research coverage as part of its
marketing efforts to gain lucrative investment banking business.

According to an administrative complaint filed by the Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on one occasion Credit Suisse issued an
analyst report stating Credit Suisse believed AOL could achieve the
earnings guidance AOL had given the market, when Credit Suisse in fact
believed, as evidenced by contemporaneous internal communications, that
AOL could not make its numbers.  The Massachusetts complaint alleges
that Credit Suisse "purposely misled investors" with its analyst
reports.

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


SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit 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 the common stock of Metromedia
Fiber Network, Inc. (OTC: MFNXQ.PK) between November 27, 1997 and July
25, 2001, inclusive, against defendants Salomon Smith Barney and Jack
Grubman.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of
analyst reports regarding Salomon, which recommended the purchase of
Metromedia common stock and which set price targets for Metromedia
common stock, without any reasonable factual basis.

The suit alleges that when issuing their Metromedia reports, the
defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of
interest, which they had, in light of their use of Mr. Grubman's
reputation and his Metromedia analyst reports, to obtain investment
banking business for Salomon.  

Furthermore, in issuing their Metromedia reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Metromedia stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed
about Metromedia as well as their true opinion about Metromedia's
financial prospects and viability as an entity going forward.

The suit further alleges that throughout the class period, Mr. Grubman
maintained a "BUY" recommendation on Metromedia in order to obtain and
support lucrative financial deals for Salomon.  Unbeknownst to the
investing public, Salomon was seeking to be retained as a financial
adviser for other telecommunication companies.  Such investment banking
engagements were worth millions of dollars in fees to Salomon.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Robert Abrams, 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 Metromedia.


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders, other than defendants who acquired
SeaChange International, Inc. (Nasdaq:SEAC) securities in or traceable
to the offering conducted by SeaChange International, Inc. on or about
January 29, 2002.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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 Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: goise@comcast.net


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Syncor International Corp. (Nasdaq: SCOR) during the period April 25,
2001 through and including November 5, 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 defendants issued a series of
press releases and SEC filings trumpeting significant sales growth in
Syncor's international business, and that defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that those statements were materially false and misleading
in that they failed to disclose that the individual defendants were
making illegal payments to Syncor's overseas customers.

The facts were first disclosed on November 6, 2002 when Syncor shocked
the market by issuing a press release announcing that it was conducting
an internal investigation into illegal payments to its overseas
customers.  The Company's disclosure has caused its stock price to
decline approximately 37%, or over $13 per share, from its closing
price of $35.92 on November 5, 2002.

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Stull Stull Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Tenet Healthcare Corporation, (NYSE:THC),
common stock between October 3, 2001 and November 7, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises
from damages incurred by the class as a result of a scheme and common
course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and deceit on
the class during the class period.

The Company operates general hospitals and related health care
facilities in the United States.  The complaint alleges that during the
class period, defendants represented that the Company's favorable
financial results were due to its commitment to quality and cost-
effective care.

Throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly stated that the
Company's financials were strong, due largely to its state-of-the-art
facilities and high-quality patient care.  Defendants actually knew
that the quality of Tenet's profits were inflated by, among other
things, wrongfully inducing patients into undergoing unnecessary and
invasive surgeries.  As further alleged, due to defendants' deceptive
and illegal conduct, plaintiff and the other class members purchased
their Tenent securities at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun or Marc L. Godino by Phone:
888-388-4605 by E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.secfraud.com.  


TENET HEALTHCARE: Mark McNair Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action
against Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC). The complaint is on
behalf of, and seeks damages for, shareholders who purchased the stock
from October 3, 2001 through October 31, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Yesterday, the Company informed its shareholders that the SEC has
opened an informal file on the company.  This is in addition to an
ongoing FBI investigation that two doctors at a hospital owned by Tenet
performed unnecessary surgeries.  At the end of yesterday's session,
Tenet closed at $18.75, a substantial drop from its October 3, 2002
high of $52.50.

The lawsuit alleges that during the class Period defendants
misrepresented that the Company's financial results were due to the
Company's commitment to quality and cost-effective care.  Throughout
the class period, defendants repeatedly stated that Tenet's financials
were strong, that the Company's stellar bottom line was attributed to
its state-of-the-art facilities and high-quality patient care, and that
Tenet was consistently achieving record results.

In reality, however, the complaint claims that defendants actually knew
that the quality of Tenet's profits were inflated by, among other
things, a scheme to wrongfully induce patients to undergo unnecessary
and invasive surgeries and coronary procedures.  The scheme included
unnecessary heart catheterization, including angiogram and
intravascular ultrasound, stent placement, angioplasty, coronary artery
bypass surgery and heart valve replacement surgery.

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


TENET HEALTHCARE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE:THC) and certain of its officers and
directors, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.  This suit is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities, other than defendants, who purchased Tenet securities between
July 26, 2000 and November 7, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Tenet and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  The class period
begins on July 26, 2000, the date on which Tenet announced its year-end
2000 results.

The class period ends on November 7, 2002, the date Tenet's Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer left the Company and the
Company revealed in a conference call that its Medicare "outlier"
payments in fiscal year 2002 were $763 million.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Tenet had failed to
disclose the significance and impact of its Medicare "outlier" payments
on its financial results and future business prospects in its SEC
filings.  The above news came on the heels of news that two doctors at
Tenet's Redding Medical Center were accused of performing numerous
unnecessary surgical procedures, and that on October 31, 2002, federal
agents performed a raid of the facility relating to the allegations.

During the class period, defendants reaped substantial gains by selling
his personal shares, and sold more than 2.5 million shares during the
class period, for proceeds of approximately $150 million.

On the November 7 news, the Company's share price fell 47% to $14.90,
after a 52-week average price of $44.75.  As a result of the
defendants' false and misleading statements, Tenet securities traded at
artificially high levels during the class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Shelley Thompson by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.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  * * *