---

                       C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Wednesday, November 27, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 235

                                              Headlines


   AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Lawsuit
   ARCH CHEMICALS: Faces Lawsuits Over Manufacture of CCA-Treated Products
   AUDIBLE INC.: NY Court Dismisses Current, Former Officers From Lawsuit
   COCA-COLA COMPANY: Files Motion For Reconsideration of GA Court Ruling
   COLORADO: Police Group Seeks Temporary Halt To Race Discrimination Suit

   DIGITAS INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
   DUPONT COMPANY: EPA Gears Up To Study Allegedly Hazardous Chemical C8
   EIFS LITIGATION: 48 Denver Area Homeowners File Suit Over Finish Work
   FORD MOTOR: Dallas City Attorney Threatens Lawsuit Over Crown Victorias
   HIGH SPEED: Discovery Completed in Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit

   HIGH SPEED: NY Court Dismisses Individual Defendants From Stock Lawsuit
   IOWA: Des Moines Bar Owners Accept Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
   KRAFT FOODS: Settles Several Milk Antitrust Lawsuits On Non-Class Basis
   LOUISIANA: Plan Awards About $86M For Persons, Businesses In 1983 Flood
   MOBILE PHONES: 911-Related Cellular Phone Charges Placed Under Scrutiny

   NET PERCEPTIONS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
   NETWORK COMMERCE: WA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
   NEW FOCUS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
   OCCAM NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses 1934 Act Claims in Securities Suit
   OPUS360 CORPORATION: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

   PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: Judge Strikes Rules On Pharmaceutical Tests
   RAFFLES TOWN: Judge Dismisses Club Members Breach of Contract Lawsuit
   RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: CA Court Disqualifies Counsel in Overtime Lawsuit
   SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
   SONUS NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

   STAMPS.COM: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Lawsuit
   STORAGENETWORKS INC.: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suit
   UNITED STATES: Forest Service Faces Several Sexual Harassment Claims
   VIXEL CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
   WIRELESS FACILITIES: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Suit

   *United Kingdom Gets Ready To Adopt US Class Action Style Of Litigation


                       New Securities Fraud Cases

   ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
   ASIA GLOBAL: Green & Jigarjian Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
   CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   DPL INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
   ENDOCARE INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA

   MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   QUADRAMED CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in N.D. CA
   RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   SCHERING PLOUGH: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court
   SMARTFORCE PLC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in NH Court

   SMARTFORCE PLC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NH Court
   SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
   TENET HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
   TXU CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX

                              *********

   AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Lawsuit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Airspan Networks, Inc.'s officers as defendants in the
   consolidated securities class action filed against them, the Company and
   the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

   The suit originally named as defendants the company and:

        (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive Officer),

        (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and Chief
            Financial Officer),

        (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman),

        (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
            Officer), and

        (5) certain underwriters of the Company's July 2000 initial public
            offering.

   The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and
   Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information
   and failed to disclose material information.

   In particular, plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants agreed
   to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
   investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
   agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in
   the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

   Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the
   Company's initial public offering were false and misleading in violation
   of the securities laws because they did not disclose these arrangements.
   The actions seek damages in an unspecified amount.

   The action is being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly
   identical actions.  On July 15, 2002, the Company and the individual
   defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them.  The court has not
   ruled on this motion.

   On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants from
   the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by
   the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.


    ARCH CHEMICALS: Faces Lawsuits Over Manufacture of CCA-Treated Products
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Arch Chemical, Inc. and its subsidiary Arch Wood Protection, Inc. faces
   three remaining putative class actions filed in various state and
   federal courts against several chromated copper arsenate (CCA)
   manufacturers, including several CCA customers and various retailers
   regarding the marketing and use of CCA-treated wood.

   Initially, five suits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased,
   possess or own CCA-treated wood products or properties upon which CCA-
   treated wood products were stored or installed.  None of the putative
   class actions currently alleges personal injury.

   One case has been dismissed at the plaintiffs' request.  One other case
   has been denied class action status as a result of plaintiffs' failure
   to timely request class certification and has been subsequently
   dismissed without prejudice.  In none of the other three cases has a
   class been certified by the court.

   These putative class action lawsuits variously allege:

        (1) conspiracy,

        (2) breach of contract,

        (3) breach of implied warranties,

        (4) violation of consumer protection and/or unfair trade practices
            statutes,

        (5) unjust enrichment,

        (6) strict liability,

        (7) nuisance,

        (8) negligence and

        (9)

   These lawsuits are in their early stages of discovery.  The Company
   denies the material allegations of all the various CCA-related claims.
   Based on the information currently available to the Company, however,
   the Company does not believe the resolution of these cases is likely to
   have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition,
   cash flow or results of operations.


   AUDIBLE INC.: NY Court Dismisses Current, Former Officers From Lawsuit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Audible, Inc.'s former and current officers and directors as
   defendants in the securities class action relating to its initial public
   offering (IPO) in July 1999.  The lawsuits also named certain of the
   underwriters of the IPO as defendants, including:

        (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

        (2) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

        (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Co., LLC, and

        (4) Wit Capital Corporation

   Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had similar
   suits filed against them, all of which are included in a single
   coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York.

   The suit alleges that the prospectus and the registration statement for
   the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and
   received "excessive" commissions from investors and that some investors
   in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy additional
   shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's
   stock.

   The Company and certain officers, directors and former directors are
   named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
   The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and
   other unspecified litigation costs.

   On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated actions
   moved to dismiss all of the IPO Litigations, including the action
   involving the Company.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with other
   non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to
   dismiss the litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on September
   13 and September 27, 2002, respectively.  Those motions have not yet
   been decided.

   In addition, the individual defendants in the IPO Litigation signed a
   tolling agreement and were dismissed from the action without prejudice
   on October 9, 2002.

   Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the
   litigation is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot accurately
   predict the ultimate outcome of the motions.


   COCA-COLA COMPANY: Files Motion For Reconsideration of GA Court Ruling
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Coca-Cola Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the United
   States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's ruling
   denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class
   action pending against the Company and:

        (1) M. Douglas Ivester,

        (2) Jack L. Stahl,

        (3) James E. Chestnut, and

        (4) Douglas Daft

   The suit alleges that the defendants violated anti-fraud provisions of
   the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations or material
   omissions relating to the Company's financial condition and prospects in
   late 1999 and early 2000.  The suit allege that the Company and
   the individual named officers:

        (1) forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept "excessive,
            unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate during the third
            and fourth quarters of 1999, thus creating a misleading sense
            of improvement in the Company's performance in those quarters;

        (2) failed to write down the value of impaired assets in Russia,
            Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again resulting in the
            presentation of misleading interim financial results in the
            third and fourth quarters of 1999; and

        (3) misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure from
            the Company and then misleadingly reassured the financial
            community that there would be no changes in the Company's core
            business strategy or financial outlook following that
            departure.


   In September 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts
   of the consolidated suit.  On August 20, 2002, the court granted in part
   and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court also
   granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the suit.

   On September 5, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for partial
   reconsideration of the Court's August 20, 2002 ruling.  This motion is
   currently under consideration by the court.

   The Company believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
   against the consolidated action.


   COLORADO: Police Group Seeks Temporary Halt To Race Discrimination Suit
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) recently asked an appeals
   court to stop temporarily all proceedings in the lawsuit filed by black
   police officers alleging they are victims of race discrimination by the
   Tulsa Police Department, the Tulsa World newspaper reports.

   The FOP's emergency motion asks the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
   not to allow the trial judge in Tulsa to conduct any more proceedings
   until the appeals court decides whether to remove him from the case.

   "Until there is a decision by the Tenth Circuit on whether to remove
   U.S. District Judge Sven Erik Holmes from the case, any future decision
   by him on any substantive issue or significant procedural issue may be
   suspect in the eyes of the public, not to mention the approximately 900
   officers of the Tulsa Police Department, causing them to doubt the
   neutrality of our judicial system," the motion states.

   The FOP, in its 24-page filing, claims that Judge Holmes has set
   "unrealistic" pretrial deadlines for motions and other matters" and that
   those deadlines "are eviscerating the ability of the FOP to even prepare
   for the January 21 trial."

   Just one day before the FOP's request for a stay of all proceedings,
   Judge Holmes had granted a request by all parties to the case - the
   black officers, the city and the FOP - to schedule a settlement
   conference.

   The city administration on September 24, and the FOP on September 5,
   petitioned the appeals court to remove Judge Holmes from the case.  The
   FOP claims that Judge Holmes has given the appearance of being biased.
   There has been no indication from the higher court regardi8ng when the
   judges will decide that issue or when they will rule.

   The FOP is the bargaining unit for Tulsa police officers and was allowed
   this year to intervene in the case.  The 1994 lawsuit, now a class
   action, alleges that the Police Department discriminates against black
   officers in promotion and hiring practices.

   The FOP has told the appellate judges that the lower court judge "has
   been making important scheduling decisions, and is in the process of
   making additional, crucial procedural and substantive decisions, which
   will unalterably affect the scope of the trial, the position of the FOP
   at trial and the ability of the FOP to defend its members' rights."

   The FOP lawyers also explained to the appeals court some of the reasons
   they "cannot effectively prepare for trial:"

        (1) because they have had to spend "large number of hours
            explaining in court to Judge Holmes how they have been
            preparing for trial and recounting prior statements in the
            context of the FOP's motion to intervene" in the case;

        (2) there have been unfair cut-off dates for pretrial matters; and

        (3) unless Judge Holmes requires the parties to submit realistic
            witness lists, the FOP will not be able to prepare cross-
            examination of those witnesses.


   DIGITAS INC.: Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Digitas, Inc.'s officers and directors as defendants in the
   consolidated securities class action pending against them, the Compnay
   and five underwriters of its initial public offering.

   The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
   since March 13, 2000, the date of the offering, alleges, among other
   things, that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the Registration
   Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
   was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that
   the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result in
   undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of
   increased brokerage commissions and also that this alleged conduct of
   the underwriters artificially inflated the Company's stock price in the
   period after the offering.

   The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
   Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
   Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
   Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other things,
   damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.

   Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's officers and
   directors were dismissed without prejudice.  The Company believes that
   the claims against it are without merit and intends to defend them
   vigorously.  Management currently believes that resolving these matters
   will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
   position or its results of operations.  However, litigation is
   inherently uncertain and there can be no assurances as to the ultimate
   outcome or effect of these actions.


   DUPONT COMPANY: EPA Gears Up To Study Allegedly Hazardous Chemical C8
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Federal regulators have launched a rare "priority review" of new data
   that connects the DuPont Company's chemical C8 to significant health
   problems, the Charleston Gazette reports.  The issue of C8's
   contamination potential may still be under review, but in the
   neighborhood of the DuPont plant in West Virginia, it is a different
   story. DuPont is defending itself against a class action brought on
   behalf of thousands of the plant's neighbors.

   In late September, the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
   of Pollution Prevention and Toxics started the investigation.  Agency
   officials also asked the EPA's Science Advisory Board to review a draft
   government estimate of the risks of C8 exposure.C8 is another name for
   ammonium perfluorooctanoate.

   In ordering the reviews, EPA officials expressed concern about studies
   that link C8 exposure to a variety of serious health problems.
   "Toxicological studies in rodents and primates have shown that exposure
   to C8 can result in a variety of effects, including
   developmental/reproductive toxicity, liver toxicity and cancer," said an
   EPA Science Advisory Board review proposal.

   The EPA said that C8 is highly persistent in the environment and in
   humans.  The agency said that the chemical is present in the general US
   population and the wildlife.  "At present, the sources and pathways
   of exposure are unknown," the EPA stated.


   At its Washington Works Plant in Wood County, West Virginia, DuPont has
   used C8 since 1951 to make polymers that are used in the production of
   Teflon.  C8, and DuPont's C8 emissions, have been basically unregulated.
   However, in the past few years, C8 pollution from the plant has come
   under increasing scrutiny.  The Company has settled at least one lawsuit
   over C8 contamination for an undisclosed amount of money.

   In November 2001, the administration of Governor Wise in West Virginia,
   agreed to form a team, including DuPont representatives, to study C8 and
   decide how much exposure is safe.  Since then, the Department of
   Environmental Protection (DEP) for the state has issued a series of
   reports that found current levels of C8 exposure from the Washington
   Works plant are not harmful.

   Lawyers for plant neighbors have complained that the DEP wrongly
   underestimated the chemical's dangers.  They have provided stacks of
   documents to back up their complaints.  The DEP mostly has ignored those
   complaints, they said.

   Enter another player, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington,
   D.C.-based research organization, which recently published its own
   critique of the DEP's work on the C8 issue.  The Group said that DEP
   officials who studied C8 ignored existing studies of its toxicity,
   misapplied formulas for determining safe levels of chemicals and misled
   the public about the process.

   "Overall, in every important matter of scientific assessment and
   regulatory judgment, the DEP appears consistently to have come down on
   the side of being less protective of human health and the environment in
   Wood County, and highly favorable to the polluting company, DuPont,"
   said Richard Wiles, the Group's senior vice president, in a letter to
   DEP Secretary Michael Callaghan.

   In a draft report issued in February, the EPA linked C8 to "potential
   systemic toxicity and carcinogenicity, and observed that blood
   monitoring data suggested widespread exposure to the general population,
   albeit at low levels."

   Since then, EPA has received "considerable additional data," suggesting
   that a potential for reproductive/developmental toxicity, and additional
   blood sample analysis data indicate low-level exposures to the general
   public at this time.  EPA has said that it hopes to complete the current
   review by the end of November.

   Mr. Wiles wrote in his letter to DEP Secretary Callaghan, that "the
   studies that instigated EPA's priority review were available to DEP well
   in advance of your agency's public presentations earlier this year.  A
   perfunctory review of industry documents on file with the agency would
   have yielded facts and scientific conclusions very much at odds with the
   'science behind DEP's work' on C8."

   In a recent prepared statement, Mr. Callaghan defended his agency's
   handling of C8 issues.  "DEP had 10 toxicologists with over 200 years of
   combined experience analyzing the potential effects of C8 on Wood County
   residents," Mr. Callaghan said.  "DEP's own toxicologist has worked for
   over a year almost exclusively on the C8 issue.  DEP is committed to
   protecting human health and safety, ande this is no exception."

   Secretary Callaghan also promised to review and address the Working
   Group's criticisms.

   EIFS LITIGATION: 48 Denver Area Homeowners File Suit Over Finish Work
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   The owners of 48 high-end town homes in Cherry Creek, in the Denver
   area, are suing their developer, alleging shoddy workmanship has left
   them with molding walls, rotting decks and other construction defects,
   the Denver Post reports.  The problems are partly the result of Exterior
   Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS), according to engineers who
   recently examined the homes.

   EIFS is a synthetic stucco used on homes and commercial buildings.  It
   is touted as a maintenance-free, weather-resistant siding and is most
   often used on high-end houses.  It is so airtight, however, that any
   water that seeps in gets trapped, say the experts.  That can cause the
   inside walls of the home to get moldy and rot.

   Ed Fronapfel of Professional Investigative Engineers recently examined
   the homes with work crews who bored inside the walls, revealing water
   stains and leaks.  Mr. Fronapfel estimates that 20,000 to 40,000 homes
   in the Denver area have EIFS siding.  Of the homes he is called to
   examine, roughly 90 percent of them have substantial damage that
   warrants major repairs, he said.

   Representatives from the EIFS industry call those numbers a gross
   exaggeration.  "If that were the case, the EIFS industry would be out of
   business," said Bernard Allmayer, spokesman for the EIFS Industry
   Members Association.  EIFS is not prone to problems unless water is
   allowed to enter through improperly sealed windows or other openings,
   said Mr. Allmayer.  He added, that EIFS products created in the past few
   years include a drainage system that allows any water that gets in to
   escape.

   While industry representatives say the problems are not widespread,
   class actions have been filed against EIFS manufacturers.  One of the
   biggest makers of EIFS, Dryvit Systems Inc., has settled a class action
   brought by homeowners who used its product.


   FORD MOTOR: Dallas City Attorney Threatens Lawsuit Over Crown Victorias
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dallas, Texas City Attorney Madeleine Johnson insists that Ford Motor
   Company produce comprehensive safety reports on its Crown Victoria
   police cars, and agree to do it by December 2 or be sued, The Fort Worth
   Star-Telegram reports.

   Ms. Johnson's demands were during a news conference and stemmed from the
   event when Officer Patrick Metzler, 31, died when his Crown Victoria
   Police Interceptor burst into flames after a Jeep Wrangler hit it in a
   rear collision on US 75.  Ms. Johnson said city officials need the
   Company's data on rear-end crashes with the Crown Victoria police cars
   to help decide whether the vehicles are safe patrol cars for Dallas
   officers to keep driving.

   "We are hoping Ford will cooperate with us, but if not, we will take
   legal action to get the information we need," Ms. Johnson said.  "We
   will do everything we can to protect our officers."

   Ms. Johnson said she wants the information delivered through "sworn
   Testimony" because some test results obtained by the city do not clearly
   state whether the cars' gas tanks are adequately protected.  Ms. Johnson
   added that the city also demands that the Company provide additional
   safety upgrades to the nearly 1,000 Crown Victorias operated
   by the city.

   The Company announced on September 27 that it would put shields around
   gas tanks on 350,000 police vehicles across the nation.  By the time of
   Officer Metzler's death, nearly a month later, the city had not yet
   received its shields.

   After the accident, however, the Company began rushing the upgrade kits
   to Dallas.  Police Chief Terrell Bolton said Friday that about 120
   shields have been installed, and the rest ought to be completed by
   year's end.

   Ms. Johnson stated Officer Metzler died from burns over 98 percent of
   his body and smoke inhalation.  "He had no broken bones, so death was
   not caused by trauma," Ms. Johnson said.  "In other words, Officer
   Metzler probably would have walked away from the accident if it had not
   been for fire."

   Company spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said that the company's position is
   "that the Crown Victoria is a safe vehicle, and the recommendations we
   made in September will help improve the safety of police officers."

   Several class actions from across the country were recently centralized
   through a federal court ruling in Cleveland, said attorney David Perry
   of Corpus Christi, who was hired to advise the city about Crown Victoria
   legal issues.

   Mr. Perry said, after the Friday news conference, that he sits on the
   executive committee of the class action plaintiffs.  He said that 13
   people have died in Crown Victoria explosions.  Four cases already have
   been settled with Ford, but he could not discuss those settlements
   because they are confidential.

   "The bottom line is that Ford needs to make these vehicles safe so that
   an officer involved in an accident does not burn alive," said Mr. Perry.

   Philip Metzler, the officer's father, said he had not talked to city
   officials about their findings or actions.  He said relatives have not
   yet decided what, if any, legal actions they will take, adding that he
   was waiting to talk to representatives who were involved with the city's
   review.


   HIGH SPEED: Discovery Completed in Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Confirmatory discovery has already been completed in settlement
   proceedings in the securities class actions pending against High Speed
   Access Corporation, certain of its current and former directors, Charter
   Communications and Paul Allen in the Court of Chancery of the
   State of Delaware.

   Four lawsuits were initially commenced, which allege breach of fiduciary
   duty by the individual defendants and Charter.  The complaints in the
   first three lawsuits allege, among other things, that the cash purchase
   price initially proposed by Charter, $73.0 million, was grossly
   inadequate and that "(t)he purpose of the proposed acquisition is to
   enable Charter and Allen to acquire (the Company's) valuable assets for
   their own benefit at the expense of (the Company's) public
   stockholders."

   The fourth lawsuit, Krim v. Allen, alleges that the $81.1 million
   purchase price under the Asset Purchase Agreement was "grossly
   inadequate," and that Charter and Paul Allen acted in a manner
   calculated to benefit themselves at the expense of the Company's public
   shareholders.

   The plaintiffs ask to represent the interests of all common stockholders
   of the Company and seek (except in the case of Krim v. Allen) injunctive
   relief preventing the Company from consummating the Asset Sale.  All
   four lawsuits seek to rescind the transaction and seek unspecified
   monetary damages.

   The Company believes these lawsuits are entirely without merit.
   Nevertheless, lawyers for the defendants in these lawsuits have had
   discussions with attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the first
   three lawsuits concerning, among other topics, financial and other
   changes to the terms of the draft Asset Purchase Agreement that
   addressed the matters raised by the plaintiffs.

   As a result of these discussions, a tentative agreement was reached to
   settle the first three lawsuits subject to the completion of
   confirmatory discovery.  The tentative settlement is embodied in a
   Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated as of January 10, 2002,
   executed by counsel to all parties to the first three lawsuits.

   The MOU provides, among other things, that the settlement is premised
   upon defendants' acknowledgment that the prosecution of the first three
   litigations was a "substantial causal factor" underlying defendants'
   decision to condition the Asset Sale on the public stockholder majority
   vote and was "one of the causal factors" underlying Charter's decision
   to increase the consideration to be paid to the Company in connection
   with the Asset Sale.

   The MOU further provides that defendants shall, upon court approval, pay
   up to $390,000, which amount will be allocated among the defendants, to
   reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for the fees and expenses incurred in
   pursuit of these litigations.

   The settlement is subject to final documentation and approval of the
   Delaware Chancery Court following notice to class members.  The claims
   asserted in the fourth lawsuit, Krim v. Allen, will be covered by the
   settlement if it is ultimately approved by the court.


   HIGH SPEED: NY Court Dismisses Individual Defendants From Stock Lawsuit
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed the individual defendants in the consolidated securities class
   action pending against High Speed Access Corporation.  The suit
   originally named as defendants the Company and:

        (1) George E. Willett, President and Chief Financial Officer,

        (2) Ron Pitcock, former president,

        (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

        (4) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

        (5) CIBC World Markets Corp., and

        (6) Banc of America Securities, Inc.

   The lawsuit alleges that the Company's Registration Statement, dated
   June 3, 1999, and Prospectus, dated June 4, 1999, for the issuance and
   initial public offering of 13,000,000 shares of the Company's common
   stock to investors contained material misrepresentations and/or
   omissions, alleging that the Company's four underwriters engaged in a
   pattern of conduct to surreptitiously extract inflated commissions
   greater than those disclosed in the offering materials, among other acts
   of misconduct.

   The allegations against Mr. Willett and Mr. Pitcock were dismissed
   without prejudice on October 11, 2002 pursuant to a Reservation of
   Rights and Tolling Agreement dated as of July 20, 2002.

   With respect to allegations against the Company, the Company believes
   this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
   the claims made therein.  The Company does not believe that the results
   of the above-noted legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect
   on its financial condition or cash flows.


   IOWA: Des Moines Bar Owners Accept Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   The owners of three Des Moines area bars, two of which are now defunct,
   have agreed to accept settlement of a class action discrimination
   lawsuit filed over the existence of a dress code policy that was
   discriminatory.  The case, filed two years ago, after a black man's
   fatal scuffle with bouncers at the former Graffiti's nightclub, is
   scheduled to end after a December 19 court hearing.

   Court papers say that under the terms of settlement, owners of the three
   bars have agreed to carefully monitor employees in all bars they own now
   and in the future, and they have agreed to fire anyone who discriminates
   on the basis of race.

   Court papers say also that the settlement, which will apply to each and
   every nightclub now owned by any defendant, would ban discrimination "in
   terms of admission, surveillance or ejection.  Three of the owners
   acknowledge as part of the deal "that discrimination occurred."  The
   fourth defendant owner meanwhile would acknowledge only the existence of
   facts, which could allow a finding that discrimination has occurred.

   The four owners also will pay an undisclosed amount to the two black men
   who challenged the legality of bar dress codes in a class action after
   the February 2000 death of Charles Lovelady.

   Employees at one of the three bars, Graffiti's, said the dispute with
   Mr. Lovelady, 26, on February 16, 2000, began over a violation of the
   club's dress code policy against hooded sweat shirts.  Relatives and
   community activists later charged that the policy, which banned some
   clothing popular among blacks, singled out Mr. Lovelady because of his
   race.


   KRAFT FOODS: Settles Several Milk Antitrust Lawsuits On Non-Class Basis
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Kraft Foods, Inc. settled several antitrust lawsuits pending in the
   United States District Court for the Central District of California, on
   an individual (non-class) basis.

   Since 1996, seven putative class actions have been filed by various
   dairy farmers alleging that the Company and others engaged in a
   conspiracy to fix and depress the prices of milk through their trading
   activity on the National Cheese Exchange.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive
   and equitable relief and unspecified treble damages.

   Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs after class
   certification was denied.  Three cases were consolidated in state court
   in Wisconsin, and, in November 1999, the court granted the Company's
   motion for summary judgment.

   In June 2001, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
   ruling dismissing the cases.  In April 2002, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
   affirmed the intermediate appellate court's ruling.  Plaintiffs in that
   case have filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme
   Court, which is pending.

   In April 2002, the Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the
   case was granted in a case pending in the United States District Court
   for the Central District of California.  In June 2002, the parties
   settled the California case on an individual (non-class) basis, and
   plaintiffs dismissed their appeal.  A case in Illinois state court has
   been settled and dismissed.


   LOUISIANA: Plan Awards About $86M For Persons, Businesses In 1983 Flood
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   A special master recommended awarding more than $86 million to about
   1,300 individuals and businesses affected by the 1983 flood in parts of
   Tangipahoa Parish, The Baton Rouge Advocate reports.

   Last year, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the state Department of
   Transportation and Development's (DOTD) liability in the class action,
   filed in 1984, and traveling about in the courts since then.

   The plaintiffs contended in their lawsuit that the DOTD constricted
   natural drainage in parts of Tangipahoa Parish when it constructed
   Interstate 12 prior to the April 1983 flood.  The plaintiffs alleged
   that those changes in natural drainage caused their property to flood.

   Attorneys from both sides will meet with Special Master Thomas Tanner
   next month before Mr. Tanner makes his recommendation to Judge Ray Chutz
   of 21st Judicial District Court, said W. Luther Wilson, the attorney
   representing DOTD  in the case.

   Mr. Wilson said last Tuesday that his client, the DOTD, has some solid
   objections to the recommended damages.  Mr. Wilson is the latest in a
   string of attorneys who have represented DOTD in the complex case.  Mr.
   Wilson said that probably the plaintiffs will have some objections as
   well, about which they feel strongly.  Therefore, said Mr. Wilson, Mr.
   Tanner could make changes in his recommendation before presenting the
   plan to Judge Chutz.

   Plaintiffs' attorney Jean-Paul Layrisson said that he is "a little
   disappointed" in the special master's tentative findings of damages.
   However, the attorney also said he is happy that his clients are close
   to the relief for which they have "waited a long time."

   Once Special Master Tanner makes any final changes or adjustments to his
   recommendation, he will present it to Judge Chutz, who is not likely to
   alter it, barring a procedural problem.  Special Master Tanner, in his
   written recommendation, given to the attorneys, said the average award
   to plaintiffs for mental anguish will be $32,552 each.

   Together, the plaintiffs also will receive $22 million in special
   damages, in accordance with Mr. Tanner's recommendation.  He also
   recommends lost wage damages averaging $2,400 to 211 claimants.

   The Special Master also recommends that property owners receive $21
   million in devaluation of their real estate.  He also wrote that the
   people experienced dangers in the flood and evacuation, and returned to
   homes "full of mud, bugs, snakes and stench of decaying matter."

   Each trial claimant's testimony "reiterated the terrible circumstances
   they incurred."  Mr. Tanner wrote that they all experienced "fear,
   horror, loss from leaving their homes while the flood waters rose."


   MOBILE PHONES: 911-Related Cellular Phone Charges Placed Under Scrutiny
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   On the heels of a class action questioning some monthly charges on
   cellular telephone bills, Missouri's top law enforcer has begun
   investigating whether the bills are illegally deceptive, the Associated
   Press Newswires reports.  At issue is whether cell phone customers are
   being forced to pay for a 911-related cell phone service they are not
   getting.

   "We are not really challenging their rates," said Timothy Van Ronzelen,
   a Jefferson City attorney behind the class action.  "We are challenging
   a billing practice, especially the way it is placed on a customer's
   bill, under all these federal and state taxes.  It makes a person think
   it is a tax, when it is not."

   The issue basically stems from the federal government wanting your
   location and cell phone number to pop on a computer screen at the local
   911 emergency center.  Calls for help on corded phones have had that
   ability for years.  Cell phones require different technology, just now
   being implemented.

   To accomplish this, local public safety departments and cell companies
   are spending millions of dollars on new equipment.  In Missouri, voters
   rejected for the second time a referendum to pay for the changes with a
   50-cent-per-month fee on cell phone bills.  Also, in Missouri, three
   companies, Nextel, Alltel and Sprint, have added separate charges on
   monthly customer bills for the 911 update.

   However, none of the three companies offers the emergency 911 service
   yet, meaning that emergency dispatchers cannot tell where someone is
   when he or she calls for help on a cell phone, according to R.D. Porter,
   the Missouri state 911 coordinator.

   "They are telling customers they have the service when in reality, it is
   not available," Mr. Porter said.  Mr. Porter added that because of
   funding problems, the service will not be available for months or
   perhaps years.

   Consumer fraud lawyers in the state attorney general's office also are
   probing whether they have jurisdiction and whether any laws have been
   broken, said spokesman Scott Holste.

   Missouri's unfair merchandising law bars deception, misrepresentation,
   concealment, omission of facts or other unfair practices.  Nextel calls
   the charge "federal-programs cost recovery" and lists it along with
   federal, state and local taxes, under the heading "taxes, fees and
   assessments" on customers' bills.  Nextel kept increasing the charge
   until the monthly fee was $1.55 monthly, or more than $180 million a
   year.

   After learning about the Nextel fee in August, St. Louis County personal
   trainer James Sanders joined with his acquaintance and attorney Timothy
   Van Ronzelen, and they enlisted two other lawyers and a second client
   and filed a class action in Jackson County Circuit Court in Kansas City.


   NET PERCEPTIONS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Net Perceptions, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
   class action filed against it and:

        (1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., the lead underwriter of
            the Company's April 1999 initial public offering,

        (2) several other underwriters who participated in the Company's
            initial public offering,

        (3) Steven J. Snyder, the Company's then president and chief
            executive officer, and

        (4) Thomas M. Donnelly, the Company's chief operating officer and
            chief financial officer

   The suit relates to the Company's initial public offering and its March
   2000 follow-on public offering in addition to those relating to the
   Company's initial public offering.  The amended complaint generally
   alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by not
   disclosing certain actions taken by the underwriter defendants in
   connection with the initial public offering and the follow-on public
   offering.

   The amended complaint alleges specifically that the underwriter
   defendants, with the Company's direct participation and agreement and
   without disclosure thereof, conspired to and did raise and increase
   their underwriters' compensation and the market prices of the Company's
   common stock following the initial public offering and in the follow-on
   public offering by requiring their customers, in exchange for receiving
   allocations of shares of the Company's common stock sold in the initial
   public offering, to:

        (1) pay excessive commissions on transactions in other securities,

        (2) purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in
            the initial public offering aftermarket at pre-determined
            prices above the initial public offering price, and

        (3) purchase shares of the Company's common stock in the follow-on
            public offering.

   The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
   certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
   acquired the Company's common stock between April 22, 1999 through
   December 6, 2000.

   The plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the claims against Mr.
   Snyder and Mr. Donnelly without prejudice, in return for their agreement
   to toll any statute of limitations applicable to those claims and those
   claims have been dismissed without prejudice.  On July 15, 2002, all of
   the issuer defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
   claims in all of the related cases.  The court has not ruled on this
   motion.

   The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, but as this
   litigation is in an initial stage, the Company is unable to predict its
   outcome or its ultimate effect, if any, on it's financial condition.


   NETWORK COMMERCE: WA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
   in Seattle dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
   against Network Commerce, Inc. and:

        (1) Dwayne M. Walker,

        (2) Dain Rauscher Inc.,

        (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray,

        (4) SoundView Technology Group, Inc.,

        (5) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

        (6) CIBC World Markets Corp. and

        (7) PaineWebber, Inc.

   The consolidated suit purports to allege claims on behalf of all persons
   who purchased the Company's common stock during the period that begins
   on September 28, 1999 and ends on April 16, 2001.  The consolidated suit
   alleges violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged
   misrepresentations and omissions made by defendants to the market.

   In January 2002, the Company and Mr. Walker filed a motion to dismiss
   the lawsuit for failure to state a claim on which legal relief can be
   granted.  On September 24, 2002, Judge Laznik entered an order
   dismissing the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice, and without
   permitting the plaintiffs to amend the consolidated complaint.  No
   appeal of that order has yet been filed.

   If an appeal is filed, the Company and Mr. Walker intend to vigorously
   defend the appeal, but unfavorable resolution of these suits could have
   a material adverse effect on the Company in one or more future periods.
   A judgment was entered dismissing the case on October 15, 2002.  The
   deadline for the appeal was November 15, 2002.

   NEW FOCUS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Securities Suit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed New Focus, Inc.'s officers and directors as defendants in the
   consolidated securities suit pending against them, the Company and:

        (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

        (2) Chase Securities, Inc.,

        (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and

        (4) CIBC World Markets Corporation

   The complaint alleged various violations of the Securities Act of 1933
   and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the defendants, and
   sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
   of the Company's common stock between May 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

   Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions in the United States
   District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting virtually
   identical allegations against more than 400 other issuers.  These cases
   have all been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin for coordination
   and decisions on pretrial motions, discovery, and related matters other
   than trial.

   In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated
   proceedings by the issuer defendant, of which the Company and the
   individual defendants are a part, on common pleadings issues.  That
   motion was heard before the court on October 29, 2002.

   In October 2002, the court entered as an order a stipulation dismissing
   the individual officers and directors from the litigation without
   prejudice.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
   these lawsuits. However, an unfavorable resolution of any of the
   foregoing lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the business,
   results of operations or financial condition of the Company.


   OCCAM NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses 1934 Act Claims in Securities Suit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Central District of California
   dismissed the claims based on the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
   securities class action filed against Occam Networks, Inc.

   Following the Company's April 17, 2001 announcement that it would
   restate its financial results, seven putative securities lawsuits were
   filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
   and directors.  The cases were later consolidated in a court order dated
   June 15, 2001.

   The amended complaint generally alleges:

        (1) the defendants made materially false and/or misleading
            statements regarding the Company's financial condition and
            prospects during the period of June 22, 2000 through April 17,
            2001 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
            of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) the registration statement and prospectus issued by defendants
            in connection with the Company's June 23, 2000 initial public
            offering contained untrue statements of material fact and
            omitted to state material facts in violation of Sections 11,
            12(a)(2) and 15 of the 1933 Act.

   The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a
   hearing on the motion took place on April 22, 2002.  At the hearing, the
   Court granted the motion as to plaintiffs' 1934 Act claims, and denied
   the motion as to plaintiffs' 1933 Act claims.  Plaintiffs were given 30
   days leave to amend their 1934 Act claims.

   Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint and the Company filed a
   motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  A hearing took place on
   October 9, 2002.  At that hearing, the court granted the motion to
   dismiss as to the 1934 Act claims.  Plaintiffs were given 30 days leave
   to amend their 1934 Act claims.


   OPUS360 CORPORATION: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Opus360 Corporation intends to ask the United States District Court for
   the Southern District of New York to dismiss the second amended
   consolidated securities class action filed against it, ten of its
   current and former officers and directors, the underwriters of its
   initial public offering (IPO) and two shareholders who sold stock in a
   secondary offering concurrent with the IPO.

   The first lawsuit was commenced in April 2001 on behalf of all persons
   who acquired securities of the Company between April 7, 2000 and March
   20, 2001.  The suit alleged that, among other things, the plaintiff and
   members of the proposed class were damaged when they acquired securities
   of the Company because false and misleading information and material
   omissions in the registration statement relating to the IPO and the
   secondary offering caused the prices of the Company's securities to be
   inflated artificially.  It asserted violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2),
   and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The suit was later amended.

   In October 2001, the Company and all other defendants filed motions to
   dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted.  The court,
   however, gave plaintiffs leave to serve a second consolidated amended
   class action.  On October 30, 2002, plaintiffs served their second
   amended complaint, which contains allegations similar to those in the
   first suit.


   PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY: Judge Strikes Rules On Pharmaceutical Tests
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   A federal judge has struck down rules that required drug companies to
   test their products in children, reports The New York Times.  The rules
   were intended to result in doctors and parents having more information
   about both drugs' safety and the proper dosage for children.  A group of
   conservative organizations brought the lawsuit, challenging whether the
   FDA rules were within the scope of that agency's statutory authority.

   "The pediatric rule exceeds the Food and Drug Administration's statutory
   authority and is therefore invalid," said Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. of
   the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.  In his ruling, Judge
   Kennedy said that the food and drug agency was overreaching, just as
   when it tried to regulate tobacco products.  In both cases, he said, the
   agency's rules were inconsistent with the statutory framework
   established by Congress.

   The Clinton Administration proposed the drug rules in 1997 and issued
   them in final form in 1998.  The Bush Administration said in March that
   it planned to suspend the rules, but reversed itself a month later after
   an outcry from pediatricians and some members of Congress.  Hilary
   Rodham Clinton is now the chief Senate sponsor of a bill to write the
   testing requirements into law.  The bill has been approved by a Senate
   committee.

   Most drugs prescribed for children have been tested only in adults, with
   the assumption that the drugs' effects in children would be similar.
   However, the FDA has said, in issuing the rules, that "correct pediatric
   dosing cannot necessarily be extrapolated from adult dosing
   information."

   The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the FDA rules are
   conservative or libertarian organizations:  the Association of American
   Physicians and Surgeons, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and
   Consumer Alert.

   Dr. Jane M. Orient, executive director of the Association, said it was
   inappropriate to "use kids as guinea pigs."  The drug industry was not a
   plaintiff, having initially objected to the rules, but learned to live
   with them.

   Judge Kennedy said the rules also were incompatible with two laws that
   encourage, but do not mandate, the study of prescription drugs in
   children:  the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 and the Best
   Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, signed in January by President Bush.

   In those laws, Congress created financial incentives for drug companies
   to test their products in children.  By contrast, said Judge Kennedy,
   "the FDA adopted a command-and-control approach."

   Under the statutes, the incentive approach is used.  If a company
   voluntarily conducts pediatric studies of a new drug, the product may be
   shielded from competition for an additional six months.  Under the
   rules, for example, the FDA could have ordered drug companies to develop
   pediatric formulations of some adult medicines.

   The court did not assess the merits of the rules as health policy.  "The
   pediatric rule may well be a better policy tool than the one
   enacted by Congress," Judge Kennedy said.  "It might reflect the most
   thoughtful, reasoned, balanced solution to a vexing public health
   problem.  The issue here is not the rule's wisdom.  The issue is the
   rule's statutory authority, and it is this that the court finds
   lacking."


   RAFFLES TOWN: Judge Dismisses Club Members Breach of Contract Lawsuit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Raffles Town Club (RTC) members, who sued their club for
   misrepresentation and breach of contract in the biggest class action in
   Singapore, have lost their case, the Business News (Singapore) reported.

   The lawsuit, which generated considerable publicity, was dismissed by
   the High Court yesterday, with the plaintiffs having to pay legal costs
   that are said to be "quite substantial."  The High Court ruling by
   Justice S. Rajendran caps nearly a year of legal wrangles that started
   last November, when 10 named plaintiffs together with 4,885 other RTC
   founder members filed a suit against RTC.  The plaintiffs now have a
   month to decide whether they will appeal against the ruling.

   The proprietary club said in a statement last night, "If the plaintiffs'
   action had succeeded, that would have resulted in a loss to all members.
   The club recognizes that a number of members are unhappy, which resulted
   in this litigation.  The club will continue to seek ways to address
   their concerns."

   The founder members claimed that they were misled into joining what they
   thought was to be an exclusive club for 5,000 to 7,000 members.  They
   sought to recover the $28,000 they each paid as joining fee, and to
   rescind the contractual agreement they signed with the club, in addition
   to other damages or remedies.  If they had succeeded, they could have
   recovered a total of $137 million in membership fees.

   In his 52-page ruling, Justice Rajendran noted that RTC had not
   suggested that "there would be a cap on membership numbers at 19,000 or
   at any other specified figure   As there was no specific representation
   as to the number of members, it would follow that there was no specific
   contractual term precluding the defendants from accepting 19,000
   members."

   Still, Justice Rajendran said he had toured RTC to see its facilities at
   the invitation of the parties.  "The club was spacious and its
   facilities were certainly up-market.  While the decor of the club may
   not be to everyone's taste, there can be no doubt that the physical
   facilities and ambience matched the adjectives 'opulent' and 'lavish' as
   used in the promotional material."

   The Justice said in an aside, however, that his advice to the
   defendants, if they wish to preserve their club as one of premier
   status, would be that they should not admit more members, because the
   membership of the club is just about at the maximum permissible to
   sustain the club as a premier club.

   As to the glossy marketing brochure, the Justice said, "Eulogistic
   commendations by a salesman of the wares that he touts is a common and
   expected feature of the market place.  Courts are therefore reluctant to
   rescind contracts of sale merely on account of the exuberant and
   exaggerated language employed by the salesmen.  This reluctance is
   reflected in the maxim 'caveat emptor' or 'buyer beware.'"


   RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: CA Court Disqualifies Counsel in Overtime Lawsuit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Orange County, California Superior Court granted a motion disqualifying
   Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.'s counsel in a consolidated class action filed
   by former employees, who worked in the positions of general manager and
   assistant managers in their restaurants, whom the Company classified as
   exempt.

   The former employees each purport to represent a class of former and
   current employees who are allegedly similarly situated. These cases
   currently involve the issue of whether employees and former employees in
   the general and assistant manager positions who worked in the California
   restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as exempt
   and deprived of overtime pay. In addition to unpaid overtime, these
   cases seek to recover:

        (1) waiting time penalties,

        (2) interest,

        (3) attorneys' fees, and

        (4) other types of relief on behalf of the current and former
            employees that these former employees purport to represent

   The Company believes these cases are without merit and intends to
   vigorously defend against the related claims.  These cases are in the
   early stages of discovery and the status of the class action
   certification is yet to be determined for both suits.

   The court granted a motion to disqualify the Company's counsel.  The
   proceeding has been stayed pending appeal of that disqualification.  The
   Company continues to evaluate results in similar proceedings and to
   consult with advisors with specialized expertise.  The Company is
   presently unable to predict the probable outcome of this matter or the
   amounts of any potential damages at issue.


   SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.'s officers and directors from the
   consolidated securities class action pending against them, the Company,
   and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO)
   of securities.

   The suit alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and
   undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the
   Company's initial public offering, including obtaining commitments from
   investors to purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.
   Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial
   public offerings were filed during 2001, and this lawsuit is being
   coordinated with those actions.

   In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated
   litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of which the Company
   and its named officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings
   issues.  On October 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
   court dismissed the officer defendants from the action without
   prejudice.

   The Company believes that the allegations against it are without merit.
   However, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this
   lawsuit and an adverse outcome to this litigation could have a material
   adverse effect on the Company's consolidated balance sheet, statement of
   operations or cash flows.  Even if the Company is entirely successful in
   defending this lawsuit, it may incur significant legal expenses and its
   management may expend significant time in the defense.


   SONUS NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Sonus Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities
   class action pending against it, two of its officers and the lead
   underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
   connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and seeking
   unspecified monetary damages.

   The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
   between the IPO on May 24, 2000 and December 6, 2000, alleges that the
   Company's registration statement contained false or misleading
   information or omitted to state material facts concerning the alleged
   receipt of undisclosed compensation by the underwriters and the
   existence of undisclosed arrangements between underwriters and certain
   purchasers to make additional purchases in the aftermarket.

   The claims against the Company are asserted under Section 11 of the
   Securities Act of 1933 and against the individual defendants under
   Sections 11 and 15 of that Act.

   Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases
   against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO
   underwriters which, along with the actions against the Company, have
   been transferred to a single federal judge for purposes of coordinated
   case management.

   On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
   defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion
   to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints on various legal grounds
   common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The plaintiffs have
   opposed the motion which is presently pending before the court.
   The outcome of the motion and the litigation remain uncertain, but the
   Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this action.


   STAMPS.COM: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Fraud Lawsuit
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   agreed to dismiss Stamps.com, Inc.'s current and former board members
   and officers from the consolidated securities class action pending
   against them, the Company and the underwriters of the Company's initial
   and secondary public offering.

   The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's initial
   public offering and secondary offering.

   The lawsuits allege that the underwriters engaged in improper commission
   practices and stock price manipulations in connection with the sale of
   the Company's common stock.  The lawsuits also allege that the Company
   and/or certain of its officers or directors knew of or recklessly
   disregarded these practices by the underwriter defendants, and failed to
   disclose them in the Company's public filings.

   In July 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
   but the court has not yet ruled on this motion.  In October 2002,
   pursuant to a stipulation and tolling agreement with plaintiffs, the
   Company's current and former board members and/or officers were
   dismissed without prejudice. The Company believes that the claims
   against it and its officers and directors are without merit.

   In addition to the lawsuits against the Company, over 1,000 similar
   lawsuits have also been brought against over 250 companies which issued
   stock to the public in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and their underwriters.
   These lawsuits (including those naming the Company) followed publicized
   reports that the SEC was investigating the practice of certain
   underwriters in connection with initial public offerings.  All of these
   lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before United
   States District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of
   New York.


   STORAGENETWORKS INC.: NY Court Dismisses Officers From Securities Suit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed StorageNetworks, Inc.'s officers as defendants in the
   consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of
   the Company's common stock between June 30,2000 and December 6,2000.

   The suit, which also names as defendants the Company and the
   underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock in
   June 2000, alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, primarily based on
   allegations that the Company, the underwriters and the other named
   defendants made material false and misleading statements concerning fees
   paid by purchasers of the Company's common stock to the underwriters in
   the prospectus that was part of the registration statement on Form S-1
   that was filed in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

   The allegations in the complaint are generally related to the alleged
   receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters and
   alleged prohibited after-market transactions by the underwriters.  The
   complaint alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive commissions
   and inflated transactions fees from their customers, and allegedly
   entered into agreements with their customers pursuant to which the
   customers, in return for being allocated shares in the initial public
   offering, agreed to purchase additional shares on the open market at
   specified increased prices.

   In April 2002, the complaint was amended to add allegations,
   substantially similar to those described above, concerning the Company's
   secondary public offering of stock.  In October, 2002, the individual
   defendants were dismissed without prejudice from this lawsuit pursuant
   to tolling agreements entered into with the plaintiffs.

   Although the Company believes that these claims are without merit, it is
   not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any,
   related to this matter.


   UNITED STATES: Forest Service Faces Several Sexual Harassment Claims
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Photos of scantily clad women found plastered on the inside of a
   firefighter crew carrier near Santa Barbara are the centerpiece of a
   USDA Forest Service sexual harassment controversy, the Inter Press
   Service reports.

   Women at the Forest Service say the photos are just the latest example
   of a longstanding culture where supervisors systematically ignore
   discrimination and harassment complaints and penalize those who file
   such complaints.  Complaints about the photos were filed anonymously
   after being discovered in a "crew buggy" in the 1.7 million acre Los
   Padres National Forest near Santa Barbara.

   Elite firefighters, called hotshot crews, travel through the forest in
   the metal crew buggies for weeks at a time. The Los Padres crew consists
   of 19 men and one woman.  Complaints about the photos did not come from
   these crewmembers.

   The Forest Service expressed its concern about the photos and sexual
   harassment through a statement by Dave Reider, spokesman for the USDA
   Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Five, encompassing all of
   California.  Mr. Reider said the department is conducting an
   investigation into the photo montage and is requiring employees to
   attend "stand down" training, where employees simultaneously put down
   their work for at least an hour to attend a session on sexual
   harassment.

   Some current and former female employees say sexual harassment remains
   rampant in the forest service, despite lawsuits and official complaints.
   One female worker Lisa Donnelly says she was denied promotions because
   of her gender and was repeatedly harassed by male workers.

   "What is happening in California, is just a microcosm of the abuses
   happening around the country within the Forest Service," said Lawrence
   Lucas, President of the US Department of Agriculture Coalition of
   Minority Employees, which spearheads complaints by women and minorities
   against the Forest Service.

   Today, more than 190 discrimination and sexual harassment complaints are
   under investigation in the California region.   African American and
   Asian American workers have filed discrimination class actions, saying
   they have been denied promotions because of race.

   The public also is harmed in its contacts with the Forest Service.
   Janine McFarland, an archeologist leading preservation efforts of
   Ancient Native American rock art, filed 15 complaints against the Forest
   Service.  She says that in addition to being sexually harassed, she has
   been run off the road and threatened with violence by male Forest
   Service employees.

   Ms. McFarland says male Forest Service employees made lewd sexual
   remarks to her Native American volunteers.  Eventually, much of her
   volunteer staff left, and much of the art, without care and supervision,
   was vandalized. Ms. McFarland says that as a result of her filing
   complaints, she was punished by being reassigned to a three-month detail
   at the Bureau of Land Management.


   VIXEL CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Lawsuit
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Vixel Corporation's officers and directors from the securities
   class action pending against them, the Company and certain underwriters
   who participated in the Company's initial public offering in late 1999.

   The complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities
   Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
   seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased our stock
   during the period October 1, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

   The Company's officers and directors were dismissed from the suit
   without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement extending the statute of
   limitations until September 30, 2003.  The Company believes this suit is
   without merit.


   WIRELESS FACILITIES: Officers, Directors Dismissed From Securities Suit
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
   dismissed Wireless Facilities, Inc.'s officers and directors as
   defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed on behalf
   of purchasers of the Company's common stock at various times on or after
   November 4,1999.

   The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus dated
   November 4, 1999, issued by the Company in connection with the public
   offering of the Company's common stock, contained untrue statements of
   material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of securities
   laws because the registration statement and prospectus allegedly failed
   to disclose that the offering's underwriters had:

        (1) solicited and received additional and excessive compensation
            and benefits from their customers beyond what was listed in
            the registration statement and prospectus; and

        (2) entered into tie-in or other arrangements with certain of
            their customers which were allegedly designed to maintain,
            distort and/or inflate the market price of the Company's
            common stock in the aftermarket.

   In August 2001, the suit was consolidated for pretrial purposes with
   similar lawsuits filed against hundreds of other initial public offering
   issuers and their underwriters.  An initial case management conference
   was also held for the litigation, at which time the court ordered that
   the time for all defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed
   until further notice of the court.

   On July 15, 2002, a joint motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all
   the issuers and their officers and directors in In re IPO Securities
   Litigation (including the Company and its officers and directors).  On
   October 9, 2002, the court signed stipulations and orders of dismissal,
   which dismissed each of the Company's individual officers and directors
   from the action, without prejudice.  The Company remains a defendant in
   the litigation.

   The Court heard the joint motion to dismiss on November 1, 2002, but a
   decision on the motion is not expected until late 2002 or early 2003.
   The Company believes this litigation is without merit and intends to
   vigorously defend against it.  It is impossible at this time to assess
   whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have a
   materially adverse effect on the Company.


   *United Kingdom Gets Ready To Adopt US Class Action Style Of Litigation
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   When John Tiner, managing director of the UK's Financial Services
   Authority, branded some of its critics "ambulance-chasing lawyers," it
   became clear that the City of London's watchdog had lost its cool.  Mr.
   Tiner's exasperation, which erupted in the wake of last month's
   parliamentary hearing into the UK's split capital investment trust
   debacle, was the latest sign of growing unease over the arrival of US
   style class actions on the British shores, the Financial Times reports.

   It also pointed to the mounting tension between regulators and
   litigators, as they compete to defend the interests of 'downtrodden'
   investors.  Stephen Alexander, the lawyer who found himself at the
   receiving end of Mr. Tiner's tirade, says, "It was an ignorant,
   uneducated comment, and it shows people's fears of the unknown."

   Mr. Alexander, who represents about five percent of the 25,000 investors
   who suffered heavy losses in supposedly "safe" split capital trusts, is
   to start proceedings against more than 100 firms, including fund
   managers, stock brokers and financial advisers.  Similar actions are
   also under way on behalf of aggrieved policyholders in Equitable Life,
   the embattled UK insurance company.  These come after shareholders
   launched collective attacks on Railtrack, the UK rail company.

   Yet, for all this seemingly spirited activity, it still may take many
   months, if not years, writes the Financial Times, for any class action
   to be successful.  "Class-action lawsuits have arrived in the UK, but
   the securities market is taking a wait-and-see approach," says Timothy
   Maloney, head of litigation at Eversheds, a corporate law firm.

   UK investors have been able to seek collective redress for investment
   losses since the beginning of 2000, when a US-style "group action" law
   came into effect.  So far, there have been about two dozen cases, mostly
   involving personal injury and product liability litigation.

   Critics within the City of London fear that the UK could follow the
   United States, where shareholders appear to place more trust in
   litigation than regulation.

   Mark Salomon, a partner at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the San
   Diego-based firm that has emerged as the most powerful force behind US
   class actions, says, "We see ourselves as a necessary adjunct to the
   SEC, which is out-manned and out-gunned by lawyers from the big Wall
   Street firms."

   Last year, Milberg Weiss handled, and financed, more than half of the
   securities class actions filed in the US.  Over 25 years, the firm
   claims to have recovered more than $30 billion for investors.
   Typically, it pockets up to 30 percent of the settlement, a large part
   of which is then reinvested in new cases.

   Mr. Salomon admits that he and his colleagues have been well hated
   amongst corporate America, and sometimes called "economic terrorists,"
   by individuals within the corporate community.  However, says Mr.
   Salomon the tables have turned now that investors struggle to make sense
   of the kind of world in which Enrons can operate, flourish and fall
   apart.

   Conspicuous among Mr. Salomon's new supporters are the multi-billion-
   dollar pension funds and endowments.  The University of California, for
   example, has hired the firm to recover $144 million in losses from
   Enron.

   The latest idea from Milberg Weiss is to use the support from
   institutions to push through a radical shareholder rights agenda.  To
   this end, the law firm teamed up with Robert Monks, one of the best-
   known corporate governance activists in the United States.  Mr. Monks
   believes that conventional shareholder weapons have failed. He hopes to
   extract from companies not only damages, but also agreements about
   improved corporate governance.

   Early evidence suggests that UK institutions will be skeptical about
   these new ideas that may accompany the class-action style of litigation
   into the UK.  The institutions abhor the idea of litigation.  William
   MacDougall, chief investment officer of the $3 billion UK pension fund
   of TRW, a US engineering group, concedes that institutions could, in
   theory, be obliged to take part in litigation now that the class action
   has arrived.

   However, he insists that there are other options that are "more likely
   to improve shareholder value.  You can talk to the company behind the
   scenes, you can vote against the management at the annual meeting, or
   you can simply sell the shares."

   The economic case for UK class action is further undermined by
   comparatively low pay-outs.  Typically, shareholder litigation is aimed
   at recovering assets from insurance companies that provide liability
   cover for company directors.  In the UK, liability cover rarely even
   approaches the hundreds of millions of dollars that back up US
   directors.  Nevertheless, the advocates of class action insist that the
   phenomenon is in the UK to stay, according to the report by the
   Financial Times.


                         New Securities Fraud Cases

   ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Glancy & Binkow LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit in the
   United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
   behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Allegheny Energy, Inc.
   (NYSE:AYE) between April 23, 2001 and October 8, 2002, inclusive.

   The suit charges Allegheny and certain of its officers and directors
   with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
   plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
   dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
   the nature of Allegheny's business operations and financial performance
   caused Allegheny's stock price to become artificially inflated,
   inflicting damages on investors.

   The complaint alleges that defendants overstated the company's revenue,
   trading volume and growth rate through the use of deceptive "round-trip"
   or "wash" energy trades associated with Allegheny's acquisition of
   Global Energy Markets, the company's energy marketing and trading arm,
   from Merrill Lynch.

   Revelations about defendants' alleged material misrepresentations and
   omissions came to light on September 25, 2002, when the company
   announced that it had filed suit against Merrill Lynch, setting a chain
   of events in motion which resulted in Allegheny's stock plummeting from
   a high of $12.85 on September 25, 2002, to $3.80 on October 8, 2002, a
   drop of 70%.

   For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
   Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: 310-201-9161
   or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


   ASIA GLOBAL: Green & Jigarjian Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Green & Jigarjian LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
   States district Court for the Central District of California, Western
   Division on behalf of purchasers of Asia Global Crossing Ltd. (ASGXF)
   common stock from October 6, 2000 through January 28, 2002. The
   corrected notice reads as follows:

   The suit alleges that the managers of Asia Global Crossing Ltd. and
   Global Crossing Ltd. hid the declining financial conditions of both of
   the jointly managed companies from Asia Global Crossing's investors.
   The suit alleges that defendants falsely represented to the investing
   public that Global Crossing would be able to provide its subsidiary Asia
   Global Crossing with a $400 million dollar line of credit, and that the
   value of Asia Global's hard assets, primarily composed of its cable
   lines and transmission equipment, had not been significantly affected by
   the worldwide glut of fiberoptic capacity.

   For more details, contact Robert S. Green by Phone: 415-477-6700 by E-
   mail: gj@classcounsel.com or visit the firm's Website:
   http://www.classcounsel.com


   CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
   States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
   of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Agilent
   Technologies, Inc. securities (NYSE:A) between December 13, 1999 and
   September 9, 2002, both dates inclusive.  Credit Suisse First Boston and
   Elliot Rogers are named as defendants in the complaint.

   The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
   the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In particular, the complaint
   alleges that defendants:

        (1) issued and maintained "Buy" and "Hold" recommendations on
            Agilent securities without any rational economic basis;

        (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining
            these recommendations to obtain investment banking business;
            and

        (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
            prevented them from providing independent objective analysis.

   The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
   statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Company
   securities were artificially inflated throughout the class period
   causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages.

   For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
   Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
   212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892, by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
   visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


   DPL INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
   in the United States  District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
   Western Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
   DPL, Inc. (NYSE: DPL) common stock between March 30, 1999 and August 14,
   2002, inclusive.

   The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
   directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
   business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
   that, during the class period, defendants falsely represented that the
   Company's portfolio of financial assets, comprising approximately 25% of
   DPL's assets, were "highly diversified both in terms of geography and
   industry," were carried (if public securities) at market or (if private
   securities) at conditions approximating market, and were a hedge against
   the Company's energy business.

   Defendants failed to disclose that DPL's investment portfolio was highly
   concentrated in Argentinian debt securities that were highly risky.

   After the close of regular trading on July 1, 2002, DPL issued a press
   release announcing that it was revising its estimate of earnings for the
   full year 2002, largely as a result of a $110 million, or $0.92 per
   share, write-down of its financial assets.  The write-down related
   primarily to investments in Latin America.  Full year 2002 net income,
   which had been projected to be at least $1.87 per share, was now being
   projected at only $0.72 per share.

   DPL's announcement of a $0.95 per share reduction in projected year 2002
   earnings caused DPL common stock to plummet to a closing price of $21.57
   per share on July 2, 2002, down $4.68 per share, or 22%, from its
   closing price of $26.25 per share on July 1, 2002.

   DPL's actual operating results for the second quarter of 2002 were
   subsequently reported on July 29, 2002, precipitating a review of DPL's
   debt for possible downgrading, and a continuing decline in the market
   price of DPL common stock.

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


   ENDOCARE INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United States
   District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
   purchasers of Endocare, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENDOE) common stock between
   October 23, 2001 and October 30, 2002, inclusive.

   Endocare is a medical device company focused on the development of
   urological healthcare technologies.  The suit charges that defendants
   violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
   and Rule 10-b(5) by artificially inflating the price of Company stock
   through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements
   throughout the class period.

   The complaint alleges that as a result of this inflation, the Company
   was able to complete a public offering of 4 million shares, raising
   proceeds of $68 million.  When the Company finally announced that it
   would have to delay the release of its third quarter results until after
   it completed an internal review, the stock dropped significantly,
   causing massive damages to those shareholders who purchased their stock
   during the class period.

   For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles by Phone:
   800-437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
   http://www.wyca.com


   MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
   States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
   of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
   LookSmart, Ltd. securities (Nasdaq:LOOK) between May 25, 2000 and June
   25, 2001, both dates inclusive.  Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Henry
   Blodget are named as defendants in the complaint.

   The complaint charges defendants Merrill Lynch and Mr. Blodget with
   violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
   alleges that defendants issued analyst reports concerning LookSmart that
   recommended the purchase of LookSmart common stock and that set price
   targets for LookSmart common stock, which were materially false and
   misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.

   In particular, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
   significant material conflicts of interest which resulted from the use
   by defendant Merrill Lynch of Mr. Blodget's reputation and ability to
   issue favorable analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business
   for Merrill Lynch.

   It is also alleged that defendants, in issuing their LookSmart analyst
   reports, in which they recommended the purchase of LookSmart securities,
   failed to disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they
   possessed about LookSmart.

   Throughout the class period, defendants maintained an "Accumulate/Buy"
   or "Neutral/Buy" recommendation on LookSmart stock in order to obtain
   and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

   For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
   Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
   212-682-1818, by Fax: 212-682-1892, by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
   visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


   QUADRAMED CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in N.D. CA
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
   on behalf of all persons who acquired the securities of QuadraMed, Corp.
   (NASDAQ: QMDCE) during the period from May 11, 2000 to August 11, 2002,
   in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
   California against the Company, Lawrence P. English, and Mark N. Thomas.

   The complaint charges that QuadraMed and certain of its officers and
   directors 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 during the class period,
   thereby artificially inflating the price of QuadraMed securities.

   After misrepresenting the Company's financial statements throughout the
   class period, on August 12, 2002, QuadraMed issued a press release
   entitled, "QuadraMed to File For Extension For Form 10-Q." The press
   release stated in part: "QuadraMed Corporation announced today that it
   will file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an
   automatic 5-day extension of the deadline for submitting its second
   quarter 2002 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

   The Company will use the additional five calendar days to complete a
   restatement of its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal
   years ended December 31, 2000, 2001, and for the interim period ended
   March 31, 2002." On this news, QuadraMed's stock dropped to $3.09 per
   share.

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


   RELIANT ENERGY: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
   States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
   all persons who purchased Reliant Energy Corp. 2.0% Zero-Premium
   Exchangeable Subordinated Notes due 2029 (ZENS) (Registration No. 333-
   86403) between October 17, 2001 and July 18, 2002,inclusive.

   The complaint names as defendants:

        (1) AOL Time Warner, Inc.,

        (2) Stephen M. Case,

        (3) Wayne H. Pace,

        (4) Robert W. Pittman,

        (5) David M. Colburn and

        (6) J. Michael Kelly

   The complaint, filed on November 22, 2002, alleges that defendants
   violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
   material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
   thereby artificially inflating the price of both AOL-TW securities and
   Reliant's ZENS.

   According to the complaint, Reliant owned a substantial number of shares
   of Time Warner, Inc. common stock. In an effort to monetize its
   investment in Time Warner, Reliant issued ZENS and tied their value to
   the stock performance of AOL-TW.

   The complaint alleges that AOL-TW issued materially false and misleading
   statements regarding, among other things, the revenue derived from its
   online advertising division.  The complaint alleges that these
   statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
   disclose that:

        (i) the Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues;

       (ii) much of the revenue AOL-TW was booking was derived from
            unconventional non-advertising deals disguised to look like
            advertising revenue;

      (iii) much of the Company's revenue was recognized in violation of
            Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and would ultimately
            have to be restated, and

       (iv) that the Company had failed to properly write down the value
            of more than $50 billion of goodwill. AOL-TW's materially
            false and misleading statements artificially inflated the
            price of AOL-TW securities and the ZENS.

   On July 18, 2002, the last day of the class period, The Washington Post
   revealed that according to its own internal investigation of AOL-TW, the
   Company had misstated its advertising revenue and had engaged in a
   variety of questionable transactions, which called into question the
   validity of its financial results.

   Following this announcement, AOL-TW's stock price dropped almost 55%
   from it's high of $25.99 at the beginning of the Class Period to an
   intraday low of $11.75, and ultimately closed at $12.45, .76 lower than
   the previous day's close of $13.11. The ZENS, which had an exchange
   value of $25.99 at the beginning of the Class Period, fell to $12.45 at
   the end of the Class Period.

   For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Mark C. Gardy by Phone:
   800-889-3701 or by E-mail: Nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or
   Mgardy@abbeygardy.com.


   SCHERING PLOUGH: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in
   the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
   behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Schering Plough
   Corporation (NYSE:SGP) common stock (the "Class") between October 1,
   2002 and October 3, 2002, inclusive.

   The complaint alleges that the Company, Richard Jay Kogan, its Chairman,
   Chief Executive Officer and President, and Putnam Investment Management,
   LLC violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934.

   Defendants' wrongdoing is alleged to be the result of Mr. Kogan
   selectively providing non-public material information about Schering's
   adverse projected earnings to Putnam management at a luncheon meeting on
   October 1, 2002.  It was not until approximately 11:00 p.m. on October
   3, 2002 that Schering publicly announced that its 2003 and 2004 earnings
   would be far below analysts expectations.

   As a result of the selective disclosure by Mr. Kogan of this adverse,
   material, non-public information to Putnam and others, Putnam and the
   other defendants were able to sell enormous amounts of Schering shares
   before the general public received such information, thereby enabling
   these portfolio managers to benefit from the receipt of their inside
   information to the detriment of plaintiff and the class.

   From the time defendant Putnam first learned of the material inside
   information through the close of the market on October 4, 2002, Schering
   stock plunged from $21.80 per share to as low as $16.10 per share, a
   drop of over 25%.

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


   SMARTFORCE PLC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in NH Court
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
   in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
   against defendants SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft (Nasdaq: SKIL), and
   executives William McCabe and Gregory Priest, on November 22, on behalf
   of all persons who purchased and/or acquired American Depository Shares
   (ADSs) of SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft between October 19, 1999
   through and including November 18, 2002 to recover damages caused by the
   defendants' violation of federal securities laws.

   Specifically, this class period includes the following members:

        (1) all purchasers of SmartForce PLC's ADSs from October 19, 1999
            through September 6, 2002, trading under the ticker symbol
            SMTF;

        (2) all persons who acquired shares of SmartForce PLC's ADSs as
            part of the merger between SmartForce PLC and SkillSoft
            Corporation completed on or around September 6, 2002;

        (3) all purchasers of SmartForce PLC's ADSs after September 6,
            2002 when it began doing business as "SkillSoft" trading under
            the ticker symbols (Nasdaq: SKILD) and then (Nasdaq: SKIL).

   The complaint charges that during the class period, the defendants and
   its predecessors issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading
   financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
   publicly reported revenues and earnings directed to the investing
   public.  Specifically:

        (i) SmartForce improperly recognized revenue under a reseller
            arrangement, resulting in the booking of revenue before it was
            received from the resellers;

       (ii) SmartForce recognized revenue for software sales upon
            shipment, even though the payment schedules for those
            contracts extended over several years;

      (iii) SmartForce recognized revenue in connection with other
            customer contracts upon execution of those contracts, even
            though the terms were four to five years in length;

       (iv) lastly, SmartForce improperly accounted for bad debt, causing
            an increase in its reserve.

   On November 19, 2002, SmartForce shocked the market by announcing that
   it intended to restate the historical financial statements of SmartForce
   for 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first two quarters of 2002.  In the process
   of preparing the closing balance sheet of SmartForce as of September 6,
   2002, SmartForce identified several accounting issues that required the
   pre-merger SmartForce financial statements to be restated.  In response
   to this announcement, the market reacted sharply and swiftly.  The
   shares of SmartForce dropped 33.7% to close at $3.07.

   As a result of the restatement, SmartForce was forced to delay the
   release of its operating results for the quarter ended October 31, 2002.
   SmartForce stated that it could not currently determine when it would be
   in a position to file the Form 8-K amendment and report its third
   quarter results.

   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


   SMARTFORCE PLC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NH Court
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
   action on behalf of all persons who purchased and/or acquired American
   Depository Shares (ADSs) of SmartForce plc d/b/a SkillSoft between
   October 19, 1999 through and including November 18, 2002, to recover
   damages caused by the defendants' violation of federal securities laws.

   Specifically, this class period includes the following members:

        (1) all purchasers of SmartForce plc's ADSs from October 19, 1999
            through September 6, 2002, trading under the ticker symbol
            SMTF;

        (2) all persons who acquired shares of SmartForce plc's ADSs as
            part of the merger between SmartForce plc and SkillSoft
            Corporation completed on or around September 6, 2002;

        (3) all purchasers of SmartForce plc's ADSs after September 6,
            2002 when it began doing business as "SkillSoft" trading under
            the ticker symbols (Nasdaq:SKILD) and then (Nasdaq:SKIL).

   The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District
   of New Hampshire against defendants SmartForce plc d/b/a SkillSoft and
   executives William McCabe and Gregory Priest.

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


   SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action against Syncor
   International Corp., on behalf of shareholders who purchased Syncor
   stock between March 30, 2000 through and including November 5, 2002
   in the United States District Court for the Central District of
   California.

   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.

   Syncor claims to be a leading provider of high technology health care
   services.  The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
   Company's Chairman of the Board and the director of its Asian division
   were making illegal payments to Syncor's overseas customers. Before the
   market opened on November 6, 2002, the Company announced that it was
   conducting an internal investigation into illegal payments to its
   overseas customers and had contacted the Justice Department and the
   Securities Exchange Commission, and that its previously announced
   acquisition by Cardinal Health, Inc. was in doubt.

   As a result of this news, Syncor's stock price plummeted from $22.50 per
   share to $13.42 per share. NASDAQ halted trading of Syncor's stock
   pending a satisfactory response to its request for additional
   information from the Company.

   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: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
   action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
   California, Western Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
   of Tenet Healthcare Corp. (NYSE: THC) between October 3, 2001 and
   October 31, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
   officers and directors.

   During the class period, defendants represented that the Company's
   "terrific" financial results were due to operational improvements and
   its commitment to quality and cost-effective care.  Throughout the class
   period, defendants repeatedly stated that Tenet's impressive financial
   results were the result of management's intense focus on creating
   outstanding hospitals with financial resources to reinvest and
   continually improve its state-of-the-art facilities and high-quality
   patient care.  One of Tenet's competitive advantages was the depth of
   expertise in their management team.

   However, the complaint alleges that Tenet and its top managers actually
   knew or should have known that Tenet's 42% increase in earnings per
   share for fiscal year 2002 was inflated by, among other things,
   wrongfully inducing patients into undergoing unnecessary and invasive
   surgeries and by aggressive pricing strategies which improperly
   increased their outlier payments under Medicare.

   Tenet's aggressive growth in high acuity areas had a very significant
   impact on its revenues.  In fiscal 2002, sub-acute days at Tenet
   hospitals declined but its highest acuity services, ICU and CCU, grew
   7%.

   Unfortunately, these increased revenues were driven by defendants
   knowingly engaging in a scheme to cause patients to undergo unnecessary
   invasive coronary procedures including heart catheterization, stent
   placement, and angioplasty.  Two of Tenet's doctors at their Redding
   Medical Center in Redding, California are currently under investigation
   by the U.S. Attorney's Office in California for unnecessary invasive
   coronary procedures, including coronary artery bypass surgery and heart
   valve replacement surgery.  California is one of Tenet's largest
   markets.

   In addition to these unnecessary procedures, Tenet also engaged in
   aggressive pricing strategies which resulted in increased outlier
   payments from Medicare, which was Tenet's second largest payer and
   accounted for approximately 32% of its net revenues.  Tenet receives a
   higher than average amount of outlier payments, making this element of
   reimbursement a significant portion of the Company's total Medicare
   payments.  Such aggressive pricing strategies were used nationwide at
   Tenet facilities.

   For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, 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 Tenet.


   TXU CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a securities
   class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
   District of Texas against TXU Corp. (NYSE:TXU) and two of the Company's
   senior officers, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
   acquired the Company's securities during the period from April 25, 2002
   and October 11, 2002.

   The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period:

        (1) defendants represented that the Company was on track to earn
            $4.35 to $4.45 per share for 2002 and $4.80 to $4.90 per share
            for 2003;

        (2) despite difficult conditions in its British operations, the
            Company was positioning itself for future growth in the U.K.
            energy trading and retail markets; and

        (3) the Company's $0.60 quarterly dividend was safe

   Defendants made these representations despite having no reasonable basis
   to do so in that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and had
   deficiencies in its planning and budgeting systems, rendering it
   incapable of ascertaining the true extent of the deteriorating condition
   of its operations in the U.K.

   As a result of these misrepresentations, the market price of the
   Company's securities was artificially inflated during the class period.
   Due to this, defendants were allegedly able to take advantage of the
   artificial inflation in the price of the Company's securities by selling
   over $1 billion of common stock and equity-like securities known as
   FELINE PRIDES.

   Before the market opened on October 4, 2002, TXU issued a statement
   disclosing the seriousness of the problems in the U.K. business,
   including customer attrition and lower wholesale electricity prices, and
   significantly lowering its earnings guidance for 2002 and 2003.  On this
   news, the Company's stock price declined to $27 per share, from more
   than $40 per share the prior week.

   However, the Company's stock continued to trade at artificially inflated
   prices as defendants concealed the severe liquidity and credit problems
   it was experiencing due to the U.K. situation.  Defendants even assured
   the market that the Company was strong financially and that its dividend
   was "secure."

   Then, on October 14, 2002, before the market opened, TXU announced that
   it was slashing its dividend by 80%, to $0.125 per share and would no
   longer support its European operations.  The Company's stock price
   plunged $5.81, or 31%, to close at $12.94 on volume of 39 million
   shares.

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