CAR_Public/030218.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, February 18, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 34

                            Headlines                            

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employee Launches Lawsuit Over "Uniforming" Policy
CANADA: Dermatologist Sued For Injecting Patients With Liquid Silicone
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Details Of Sexual Abuse Sought In Suit v. KY Diocese
CONNECTICUT: Court Awards Certification to Suit For Mentally Retarded
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents' Suit Set April 2003 in NC

FLEMING COMPANIES: Amended Lawsuit Alleges Misstated Financial Reports
GROUP HEALTH: Agrees To Reimburse Members For Alternative Treatments
INDONESIA: Flood Victims Appeal To Jakarta Court Over Dismissal of Suit
KOREA: President Roh Talks Of Pushing for Chaebol Reform, New Systems
MARYLAND: Students Protest Tuition Increase, Allege Breach Of Contract

MARYLAND: Black Lawmakers Okay Gov. Ehrlich's Stand on Suit Settlement
NETSILICON INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
NEW MEXICO: ACLU Sues For Replacement Of Court-Appointed Police Monitor
ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS: Agrees To Settle Homeowner Lawsuit in NJ Court
PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit

ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 2 Million Drill Battery Chargers For Fire Hazard
SPRINT CORPORATION: Accused of Failing To Disclose Tax Shelters
VARI-L CO.: CO Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Largest Gender Bias Lawsuit In American History
WEST VIRGINIA: Bill To Curb Non-residents' Right To Sue In State Courts

WEST VIRGINIA: Elkins Mayor Relieved Of Duties In Sex Harassment Probe

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV Court
AMERCO: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV Federal Court
COSi INC.: Barrack Rodos Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
COSi INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
MIIX GROUP: Lampf Lipkind Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ Court

MONTEREY PASTA: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Lawsuit in MA
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
SAWTEK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL

                           *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employee Launches Lawsuit Over "Uniforming" Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Abercrombie & Fitch employee recently filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status, in Los Angeles, claiming the Ohio-based retailer did not
reimburse her and other workers for clothes they are required to buy
and wear at work, Reuters English News Service reports.

The lawsuit filed by Jennifer Solis, who works at the chain's Capitola,
California, store, alleges that the company's employees, as a condition
of employment, are required to buy and wear at work, one "floor set" of
clothes from the current Abercrombie & Fitch line four times each year.

Ms. Solis earns $6.75 per hour and claims she typically spends between
$100 and $300 on each "floor set."  She claims she has paid about
$1,200 of her own money to purchase the required clothing, plus
approximately $100 in dry cleaning costs, since she was hired in May
2002.

The lawsuit alleges that the chain's "uniforming policy" violates
California labor laws, which require employers to provide and maintain
uniforms.  The lawsuit asks the court, therefore, to order the company
to reimburse about 1,000 California employees for their work-related
clothing expenses, to pay general damages and to halt its alleged
"uniforming" policy.  The lawsuit filed by Ms. Solis is one of a rash
of suits dealing with a prevalent industry practice of "wardrobing," or
requiring the employee to purchase and wear the same brand of clothing
sold by the employer.


CANADA: Dermatologist Sued For Injecting Patients With Liquid Silicone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Barbiero recently filed a $100 million lawsuit, seeking class
action status, against prominent Toronto dermatologist Dr. Sheldon
Pollack, alleging that she has suffered a multitude of health problems
as a result of being injected with banned liquid silicone by Dr.
Pollack, The Toronto Star reports.

The statement of claim contends, generally, that Dr. Pollack injected
liquid silicone into patient to smooth facial wrinkles and scars and
plump up lips and further contends that his patients suffered serious
illness as a result.  More particularly, Ms. Barbiero alleges that some
of the side effects she has had as a result of the injections include,
among others, hair loss, migraine headaches and numbness in her legs.  
Some former patients of Dr. Pollack also allege in the statement of
claim that they, too, have experienced adverse effects from being
injected with liquid silicone.

Although Lawrence Thacker, Dr. Pollack's lawyer, declined to comment,
Douglas Elliott, who is acting as attorney for representative plaintiff
Ms. Barbiero, said, ""We say our patients have suffered a spectrum of
injuries as a result (of these injections).  Some of them have been
unable to make a living and have incurred costs associated with the
symptoms that have been produced from the effects of the silicone."

Health Canada does not allow injections of liquid silicone for cosmetic
uses.  The lawsuit also asserts that liquid silicone is used in the
production of aviation brake fluid.  The US Food and Drug
Administration says silicone can move from the injection site to other
parts of the body, causing inflammation and discoloration of
surrounding tissues, and form nodules of inflamed tissues as well.

Ms. Barbiero also has complained to the College of Physicians and
Surgeons (College) of Ontario about her medical experiences with Dr.
Pollack.  The College is the provincial governing body that regulates
and disciplines the doctors.  The College has not yet set the date for
the disciplinary proceedings at which it will hear Ms. Barbiero's
complaint.

In a June 18, 2002, letter from Dr. Pollack to the College he writes
that it was his "standard and usual practice, prior to using injectable
grade liquid silicone (IGLS) to explain carefully to every patient the
nature, risk and effect of possible complications of IGLS, as well as
its status for sale and use in Canada."  Dr. Pollack also writes in the
same letter that he informed Ms. Barbiero "that the material was not
for sale in Canada."

The College already has in its possession information making
allegations against Dr. Pollack.  The College alleges Dr. Pollack
injected silicone in 20 or more patients since May 8, 1999, even though
he had informed Health Canada that he had discontinued such practice.  
The College also alleges that although Dr. Pollack's clinical records
for 20 or more patients indicate that he injected those patients with a
wrinkle-smoothing substance called Artecoll, which is approved in
Canada, he "actually had injected liquid silicone."


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Details Of Sexual Abuse Sought In Suit v. KY Diocese
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Northern Kentucky residents recently filed a proposed class action
lawsuit in Boone County Circuit Court in Kentucky against the Diocese
of Covington, seeking the opening of church archives that allegedly
detail sexual abuse claims against priests, The Lexington Herald-Leader
reports.

Gregory S. Harvey, 34, of Covington and Maria Rebecca Trout Caddell,
47, of Erlanger, both of whom allege they were sexually abused by
priests, claim that the diocese kept confidential files on sexual abuse
and misconduct by the priests, open only to the bishop of Covington and
the chancellor of the diocese.  The lawsuit further alleges that these
diocese officials refused to report the contents of the records to law
enforcement officials or other clergy, leading to an organized cover-up
of sexual abuse involving more than 100 children since 1958.

The lawsuit asks that in addition to opening its files on the past
sexual abuse, that the diocese reform the way it handles present and
future sexual abuse and misconduct allegations, that an independent
monitor be appointed to review the practices of the diocese in this
area for five years and report back to the court any dereliction.  The
lawsuit seeks punitive damages with interest for the plaintiffs.

A spokesman for the diocese said that diocese officials followed an
outlined set of procedures in dealing with sexual abuse and misconduct
claims against priests.  The diocese revised its sexual abuse policy in
2000.

Ms. Caddell alleges she was sexually abused by a priest in 1967, when
she was 11, and a parishioner attending St. Patrick's Church in
Mayville.  Mr. Harvey alleges he was sexually abused by a priest when
he was 13, while attending St. Joseph's Elementary School in Camp
Springs.  Both plaintiffs claim the sexual abuse took place at various
locations, including diocesan-assigned residences for clergy.


CONNECTICUT: Court Awards Certification to Suit For Mentally Retarded
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton recently granted class
action status to a lawsuit filed on behalf of mentally retarded people
stuck on a waiting list for state services and housing, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of The ARC/Connecticut and 26 people, will
now be expanded to include all 1,700 people on the state waiting list,
Judge Arterton ruled.  The lawsuit claims that the federal law requires
the states to integrate people with disabilities into the community.  
Keeping mentally retarded persons on a waiting list for years denies
them their rights under federal law.  The named defendants include
Department of Mental Retardation Commissioner Peter H. O'Meara and
Department of Social Services Commissioner Patricia A.Wilson-Coker, who
is responsible for Connecticut's Medicaid plan.

Some of the people have been on the state waiting list for 15 years and
"desperately need housing," said Andrew Alan Feinstein, an attorney for
the plaintiffs.  Many of the mentally retarded live with their parents,
who eventually will be unable to meet their needs, Mr. Feinstein added.  

Mr. Feinstein said that many of the individuals on the waiting list are
capable of living in conventional housing with certain support
services, such as vocational help, day services or someone who just
checks on them with regularity and provides help whenever it is needed.  
Some of the mentally retarded on the list are waiting for placements in
group homes.

Commissioner O'Meara pointed out that a non-moving waiting list can be
attributed in large part to diminishing funds during a period of
strapped budgets.  He also said that in recent years, lawmakers have
reduced funds earmarked for reduction of the waiting list from $15
million, to $10 million, to only $250,000 in fiscal year 2002.  He
expects that in the budget for the current fiscal year, state funding
for waiting-list reduction will be eliminated.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents' Suit Set April 2003 in NC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Continental Airlines, Inc. and
other airlines by travel agents will commenced on April 28, 2003 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

The suit, filed on behalf of American travel agencies, challenges the
reduction and ultimate elimination of travel agent base commissions by
certain air carriers, including the Company and other domestic and
international air carriers.  The amended complaint alleges an unlawful
agreement among the airline defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate
commissions in violation of federal antitrust laws during the years
1997 to 2002.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages,
injunctive relief and their attorneys' fees.

The class was certified on September 18, 2002.  Discovery has been
completed.  The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.  A final adverse court decision awarding substantial money
damages, however, would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Amended Lawsuit Alleges Misstated Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Fleming Companies, the nation's largest wholesale food
distributor, filed an amended securities class action recently in the
US District Court for Eastern Texas, and consolidates several
complaints that were filed by investors late last year, Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The amended lawsuit claims that the top executives, including the
current chairman and chief executive, deliberately misstated financial
reports in 2001 and 2002.  Generally, the amended complaint alleges
that Fleming executives were inflating profits reported to investors
and giving upbeat outlooks that they knew to be false.

The amended lawsuit further charges that Fleming, having overstated
earnings throughout 2001, continued to overstate earnings in 2002.  The
company, says the amended lawsuit, lied to investors about the health
of its retail operations even as it issued a new stock offering and
negotiated new credit lines with banks.

The amended complaint also details existence of a new insider account
provided by an unidentified former employee who was a financial analyst
at Fleming's retail division from October 2001 to late July 2002.  The
alleged insider account details, among other things, descriptions of
how executives allegedly fabricated improper deductions on supplier
invoices in order to shore up sagging profits, and artificially
inflated the sales reports of Fleming's now-discontinued retail
operations.

The company quickly refuted the behaviors detailed in the insider
account.  "Any such claims of wrongdoing are patently not true,"
Fleming responded in a statement, declining to elaborate further on the
allegations.  "The individual quoted in the filing is simply a
disgruntled employee.  The truth will come out through the court
process, where the company is prepared to address these items."

The lawsuit reveals its own abbreviated "take" on the allegations made
against Fleming, by citing a November article in The Albuquerque
Journal, which says, "The fraud is so egregious that Fleming has been
referred to in the food industry as 'Flem-ron.' "


GROUP HEALTH: Agrees To Reimburse Members For Alternative Treatments
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Health Cooperative agreed to settlement of a class action lawsuit
brought by its members that could reimburse them as much as $10 million
for naturopathic, acupuncture and massage therapy, under a state law
mandating parity for alternative treatment, Associated Press has
reported.  The settlement may involve, according to lawyers' estimates,
as many as 100,000 members in one of the largest and oldest health
maintenance organizations in the nation.   Group Health has a
membership of about 600,000.

"It is a victory for consumers who want choices," said Jane Guiltinan,
dean of clinical affairs at Bastyr University, a natural medicine and
health sciences school in Kenmore.

Washington, under a state law enacted in 1996, requires alternative
health care that is state regulated and licensed to be covered by
health insurers the same as more traditional, standard practices.  The
law was unanimously upheld by the state's Supreme Court, in 2001, when
insurers went to court arguing that expanding the list of approved
providers would drive up premium costs.

In 2001, Group Health members went to court and successfully challenged
a requirement by the insurer that they exhaust traditional treatment
options before applying for reimbursement for alternative treatment.  
They also refuted the cooperative's requirements for referrals from
traditional physicians.

Washington is one of about a half-dozen states that require insurers to
cover treatment by acupuncturists, chiropractors, osteopaths,
nutritionists and other alternative practitioners.  Previous
settlements were reached in cases against Regence Blue Shield, Premera
Blue Cross and the Northwest Washington Medical Bureau, which has since
merged into Regence.


INDONESIA: Flood Victims Appeal To Jakarta Court Over Dismissal of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jakarta's flood victims will appeal the dismissal of a class action
filed against a number of defendants, including City Governor Sutiyoso,
over floods that plagued the city last year, in Jakarta High Court.  
The Central Jakarta District Court dismissed the suit in a ruling on
November 21, 2002, the Jakarta Post reports.


Secretary of the advocacy team for the plaintiffs, Tubagus Haryo
Karbyanto, said the governor must be held accountable for last years's
flooding.  Mr. Tubagus said, ""The Mayors are indeed the ones directly
responsible for the operational task of handling the floods, but the
Jakarta Governor, the West Java Governor, R. Nuriana and President
Megawati, were responsible for coordinating the operation."

Mr. Tubagus said the three have been named as defendants in the suit,
as they allegedly failed to properly coordinate their subordinates in
handling last year's floods.  "The mistakes committed by the
subordinates are the responsibility of their superiors," Mr. Tubagus
said, while addressing a media conference at the Jakarta Legal Aid
Institute in Central Jakarta.  

Mr. Tubagus was commenting on the legal arguments presented by the
district court in their ruling, which stated that the plaintiffs had
sued the wrong persons.  The court said that the officials directly
responsible for handling the flood and its aftermath were Jakarta's
five mayors.

The plaintiffs' lawyer said in response to the lower court's argument
that the district court had failed to take into account Law No.
34/1999, on the Jakarta Administration, which gives the governor of
Jakarta the power to take full control of the capital, unlike other
provincial administrations.  "Therefore, the victims will not file a
new lawsuit against the mayors," said Mr. Tubargus, the plaintiffs'
lawyer.

The accused, he said, were sued for their alleged failure to give prior
warning to Jakartans and to provide necessary emergency action after
the floods, which forced more than 97,000 families or 365,000
individuals to leave their homes and seek temporary shelter for several
weeks.


KOREA: President Roh Talks Of Pushing for Chaebol Reform, New Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------------
President Elect Roh Moo-hyun recently repeated his determination for
chaebol reform.  He said there is still a long way to go, in a speech
at a forum sponsored by the Federation of Korean Industries, Asia Pulse
reports.  

"Some improvement has been made in corporate transparency and chaebol's
ownership structures, but it still falls far short of foreign
investors' expectations," Mr. Roh said.

Mr. Roh confirmed again that he will enforce such corporate reform
policies as the institution of a securities class action system.  He
added that a strengthened limit on inter-subsidiary investments would
be invoked despite opposition from business circles.  The President
Elect said conglomerates should heed the criticism that valuable
companies have been incorporated mostly into the nation's top four
chaebol, resulting in an excessive concentration of economic power that
has blocked social integration.  He said he did not favor government
intervention to boost the sagging economy, saying "The current economy
is not bad enough for the government to take "perk-up" measures.

Mr. Roh commented on the recent downgrade by Moody's Investors Service
of the nation's credit rating outlook from "positive" to "negative."  
He said he planned to persuade the North, in a transparent manner, to
settle its nuclear weapons issue peacefully.  In regard to the problem
with North Korea, the President Elect added that he will be meeting
with President George Bush in the near future to discuss a rational
policy that might bring a solution to the nuclear issue.


MARYLAND: Students Protest Tuition Increase, Allege Breach Of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven University System of Maryland students have filed a class action
in Baltimore Circuit Court to block a midyear tuition increase,
alleging the increase is a breach of contract because the students
enrolled for the school year on the understanding they would be charged
the fixed tuition rates that their universities had posted for both the
fall and spring semester, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  A
hearing is scheduled for Tuesday on the students' request for a
temporary injunction to block the surcharges, which students have
several weeks to pay.

"The students and the universities have a contract, and the
universities can't change it midway through the year," said Andrew
Freemen, one of the attorneys representing the students.  The students
from the University of Baltimore and University of Maryland, Baltimore,
said university officials broke that contract by deciding last month to
raise the spring semester's rate by as much as $557, after some spring
classes had started and after many spring tuition bills had been
mailed.

The Board of Regents passed the midyear increase January 23, for all
the system's institutions except Coppin State College and the
University of Maryland, University College, after Governor Robert
Ehrlich cut $36 million from this year's system budget.  Students had
been told of a possible increase in a January 8 letter from system
Chancellor William Kirwan.

The increase resulted in additional spring semester payments of up to
$115 for in-state undergraduates, $333 for out-of-state undergraduates,
and $557 for some professional school students.

"We are struggling to react and certify the factual statements (in the
suit), but we are prepared to defend the regents' action," said
Assistant Attorney General John Anderson.   "We don't think it is a
breach of any legally cognizable contract.  The university system was
reluctant to do this but obviously had no choice."

If successful, the lawsuit could provide some precedent for student
challenges of midyear tuition increases elsewhere.  Several states have
passed such increases this year without being sued.  Mr. Freeman said
the only precedents he could find were a 1904 case involving the
Baltimore University law school and a 1992 case involving the
University System of New Hampshire.


MARYLAND: Black Lawmakers Okay Gov. Ehrlich's Stand on Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Black legislators who have conferred with Governor Robert Ehrlich, and
also have pressured him, about speedy approval of the racial profiling
settlement of the lawsuit brought by black motorists against the state
police, now say they are satisfied with his position, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.  The group believes the matter can be brought
to close within a month.

Senator Lisa Gladden, D-Baltimore, joined the legislators in their
position.  She said Governor Ehrlich told them that he wants to clarify
a few points in the agreement, but does not intend to make substantive
changes.  "It is our expectation . that this matter will be put to
rest," Senator Gladden said.

The senator's comments came after she and four other black lawmakers
met for more than an hour with Governor Ehrlich, Lt. Governor Michael
Steele and Edward Norris, who was nominated by the governor to be the
superintendent of the state police.  State NAACP officials also met
with the governor and expressed their conviction that the changes he
contemplates appear to be of a minor nature.

"The goal is to have this resolved in 30 days," said Edythe Flemings
Hall, president of the state NAACP.  "We want the governor to be
comfortable with it (the agreement) because we want him to be committed
to it."

The understanding that now appears to exist between the administration
and the black lawmakers about the nature of changes the governor is
considering and the time frame in which the racial profiling settlement
is expected to be signed, could clear the way for the Senate to confirm
the appointment of Mr. Norris as superintendent of the state police.  
The vote has been delayed twice because the Legislative Black Caucus
had threatened to hold up confirmation until the settlement was signed.  
Senator Gladden said she did not intend to ask for another delay.

The racial profiling lawsuit had its beginnings in 1992, triggered when
a state trooper stopped the car of Washington lawyer Robert L. Wilkins,
in Cumberland, Maryland.   Mr. Willins refused to consent to a search
of his car, and dozens of other motorists joined him as plaintiffs in
his class action against the state police.  

The suit alleged that black motorists were unfairly singled out for
stops and searches by the state police.  The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) undertook representation of the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit, which was granted class action status.

Former State Police Superintendent David Mitchell and the ACLU agreed
to a settlement in October.  Although the Board of Public Works was
supposed to ratify the agreement before former Governor Parris
Glendening left office, the vote was postponed at then Governor Elect
Ehrlich's request.

As part of the settlement, state police would put more cameras in cars
to record traffic stops, and a system would be developed to track the
race of motorists who are stopped.  Additionally, the settlement also
provided that a special telephone number would be set up for complaints
and a police-citizen panel would be established to monitor reports of
racial profiling.

Individual plaintiffs are not to receive money from the settlement, but
the state would pay $325,000 in attorney fees to lawyers who handled
the lawsuit.


NETSILICON INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NetSilicon, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint naming as defendants the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, certain underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The suit asserts among other things, that the Company's IPO prospectus
and registration statement violated federal securities laws because
they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding
the conduct of the Company's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in
the Company's IPO to the underwriters' customers.  The suit further
states that NetSilicon and the two named officers engaged in fraudulent
practices with respect to this underwriter's conduct.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named officers
were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.  
The action seeks damages, fees and costs associated with the
litigation, and interest.

The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar lawsuits against over 300 other publicly traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their IPOs.  On July
15, 2002, the Company, along with the other 300-plus publicly traded
companies that have been named in substantially similar lawsuits, filed
a collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The court heard oral
argument on this motion on November 1, 2002.  

The litigation process is inherently uncertain and unpredictable, and
there can be no guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of this pending
lawsuit.  The Company and its officers and directors believe that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit.


NEW MEXICO: ACLU Sues For Replacement Of Court-Appointed Police Monitor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends in a recently filed
motion in federal court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, that the unequal
treatment of black citizens by police in Hobbs, has become worse since
the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit and appointment of a police
monitor under the terms of that settlement, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  The ACLU, in its motion, seeks replacement of the
police monitor.

The current monitor for the Hobbs police is Clarence Chapman, a former
police chief for the University of California at Los Angeles.   The
ACLU's motion alleges that instead of analyzing reports on arrests,
searches, stops and incidents involving use of force by police, Mr.
Chapman "ratified, excused or ignored the clear violations" of the
settlement.

The settlement, signed in June 2001, stemmed from a class action filed
in 1999, on behalf of the black residents in Hobbs.  The lawsuit
alleged the blacks in Hobbs were subjected to excessive force,
warrantless searches and false charges.

The settlement required police to improve investigations into
allegations of officer misconduct and to improve as well department
training and disciplinary procedures.  Hobbs police also agreed to
collect racial information on arrests, searches field stops for
questioning and incidents involving force by officers.

ACLU attorneys Richard Rosenstock and Daniel Yohalem contend the data
show the disparate treatment of blacks has grown since the settlement
was signed.  The details of the data indicate that blacks make up about
seven percent of Hobbs' residents, but comprise 15 percent of those
stopped for questioning, more than 16 percent of those arrested and
more than 21 percent of those arrested for resisting, evading or
obstructing an officer.

The ACLU says the latter charge is highly discretionary, often growing
out of an officer's overreaction to a citizen's lawful verbal challenge
to an officer's authority.


ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS: Agrees To Settle Homeowner Lawsuit in NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed
against it and certain of its unnamed affiliates, in Burlington County,
New Jersey.  

The lawsuit alleged, in part, that certain townhomes and condominiums
designed and constructed by Orleans Homebuilders, Inc and certain of
its affiliates did not have sufficient combustion air in the utility
rooms, thereby causing a carbon monoxide build-up in the homes.  The
Township of Mount Laurel later intervened in the suit
              
In January 2003, the Company reached a settlement of the lawsuit.  
While the settlement is still subject to the court approval, the
pertinent terms of the settlement are:

     (1) as many as approximately 3,600 homeowners will be given the
         opportunity to have their homes inspected by the Township of
         Mount Laurel to determine whether the utility room has
         adequate combustion air as required by the applicable
         construction code in effect at the time the home was
         constructed;

     (2) if the inspection reveals inadequate combustion air, the
         Company, at its sole cost will repair the home;

     (3) in addition, those homeowners given the opportunity to have
         their homes inspected also will be given the opportunity to
         receive a carbon monoxide detector at the Company's sole cost
         and expense;

     (4) the Township of Mount Laurel will act as administrator and the
         Company has agreed to pay the township for the homes
         inspected, up to an aggregate of $100,000;

     (5) approximately 1,700 homeowners will be given a one time
         opportunity to have their gas-fired appliances inspected and
         cleaned at the Company's sole cost and expense.

The Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of
$445,000.  The Company has reached a settlement with its insurer to
partially cover the costs of the settlement.  The Company has accrued
estimated costs of approximately $500,000, net of insurance proceeds,
in connection with the settlement agreement.


PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Penthouse International, Inc. and subsidiary General Media, Inc.,
publisher of Penthouse Magazine asked the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to dismiss the class action alleging that the defendants
published photographs of a woman topless in the June 2002 issue of
Penthouse Magazine, falsely representing them to be pictures of tennis
star Anna Kournikova.  The suit alleges:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of express warranty and

     (3) consumer fraud

The plaintiffs have filed a request that the action be certified as a
class action with the two plaintiffs as class representatives and their
lawyer as class counsel.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.  It is
still too early to determine the possible outcome of the proceedings.  
Therefore management cannot give an opinion as to the effect the suit
will have on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.  There can be no assurance, however, that the ultimate
liability from these proceedings will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition and results of operations.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 2 Million Drill Battery Chargers For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 2 million Skil(R) Warrior drill battery chargers.  The
transformer inside the charger can overheat.  If this occurs, the
charger housing can melt and deform, possibly igniting flammable
materials near or on the charger.  The Company has received one report
of a charger causing a fire that resulted in property damage, and 160
reports of chargers overheating.
        
These chargers were sold with or as accessories for Skil Warrior
drills.  The drills are black with red trim. Red lettering on the
drills reads, "SKIL."  The chargers have their volt size written in red
lettering.  The recall includes 9.6 volt, 12 volt, 14.4 volt and 18-
volt chargers.  The chargers were included with tool model numbers
2375, 2380, 2475, 2480, 2482, 2580, 25582 and 2882.  Chargers also were
sold separately with model numbers 92950, 92970, 92980 and 92990 with
part number 2610995852.  The model and part numbers are written on
labels found on the back of the plug or on the side of the chargers.
        
Home center, hardware and discount department stores sold these
chargers nationwide from July 1994 through February 2003 for between
$21 and $30.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 661-5398 between
7 am and 7 pm CT any day, or visit the Website: http://www.Skil.com.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Accused of Failing To Disclose Tax Shelters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation faces a class action after disclosures that the
Company's two top executives used tax shelters that are now under
scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service, according to a report by The
Kansas City Star.

The lawsuit was recently filed by John Gebhardt in the United States
District Court in Kansas City, Kansas, on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of FON Group, the tracking stock for Sprint's long-
distance and local phone operations, between February 1, 2001, and
February 5, 2003.  Mr. Gebhardt's address was not given, and he was
identified only as a purchaser of Sprint securities.

The complaint alleges that Sprint, Chief Executive and Chairman William
Esrey, President and Chief Operating Officer Ronald LeMay and the
company's auditors, Ernst & Young, violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The lawsuit claims that Sprint failed to disclose in its
financial statements that it, with the help of Ernst & Young,
improperly avoided substantial tax liabilities as a result of its
employees exercising numerous stock options.

Spokesman for the company Bill White said, "Sprint stands by its
financial reporting, which was in compliance with all general accepted
accounting principles."

The legal action comes barely a week after The Wall Street Journal
reported that Mr. Esrey and Mr. LeMay, two of the longest-tenured
executives in telecommunications industry, were forced out by Sprint's
board over personal tax shelters they used in 1999 and 2000.

The shelters allowed the two executives to defer taxes on Sprint
options that, when exercised, produced a $311 million paper profit.  
Without the complicated shelters, Mr. Esrey and Mr. LeMay would have
owed more than $123 million in income taxes.  Mr. Gebhardt's lawsuit
alleges that Sprint issued misleading financial statements in 2001 and
2002, by failing to disclose what the lawsuit calls "disguised tax
benefits secretly harvested by defendants Esrey and LeMay related to
their use of accelerated options contracts."

The "accelerated options contracts" are an apparent reference to
options whose vesting was accelerated when Sprint shareholders approved
the Company's $129 billion merger with WorldCom Inc. in April 2000.
Regulators disapproved the deal on antitrust grounds.

However, it appears that the shareholders' mere approval of the merger
gave Sprint employees immediate access to the options, which otherwise
would have taken years to mature.

What does all this mean?  When did Sprint commit the alleged wrongdoing
charged in the lawsuit?  When the employees exercised those options,
Sprint took a tax deduction on the gains?  The lawsuit seems to allege
that those tax benefits were improper.

In an interview with The Kansas City Star, Sprint's chief financial
officer, Robert J. Dellinger, said the company's options accounting is
consistent with IRS regulations and generally accepted accounting
principles.


VARI-L CO.: CO Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Colorado granted preliminary
approval to a settlement proposed by Vari-L Co., Inc. to settle a
consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of
its former officers, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between December 17, 1997 and July 6, 2000.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers, with
violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading financial statements, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.

In November 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in
the suit. The Company's motion argued that the amended consolidated
complaint alleges wrongdoing by former corporate employees in
furtherance of their personal interests, as opposed to corporate
interest, which does not state a claim for securities fraud against the
Company.  The class action representatives filed their response to the
Company's motion to dismiss and the Company filed a reply to that
response but the court had not yet ruled on that motion.

In October 2002, the Company and the class representatives reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the litigation and
executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), subject to court
approval.  The MOU outlines the general terms of the proposed
settlement and is intended as a basis for drafting a stipulation of
settlement.

The MOU contemplates that the Company will pay $250,000 in cash and
issue 2.0 million shares of the Company's common stock.  The number of
shares issuable pursuant to the MOU is subject to certain anti-dilution
adjustments in the event the Company sells its common stock or
securities convertible into its common stock below certain threshold
prices.

Under the MOU, the Company is also required to transfer its claims
against Joseph H. Kiser, David G. Sherman, Jon C. Clark and Derek L.
Bailey to the plaintiffs.  However, the Company will retain the claims
from the Company action against former officers described below. The
Company will also assign to the plaintiffs any right it might have to
proceeds or other damages from the Directors and Officers insurance
policies with Reliance Insurance Company and Agricultural Excess and
Surplus Insurance Company.

Mr. Sherman and Mr. Clark have executed settlement agreements and/or
mutual releases with the Company, the terms of which preclude them from
asserting claims against the Company for advancement or indemnification
of their attorneys fees and other costs of defense.  Mr. Kiser and Mr.
Bailey have also executed similar agreements.  However, if the court
does not approve the stipulation and dismiss the actions with prejudice
(or, in the case of Mr. Kiser, if he does not receive the consideration
provided for in his settlement agreement), Mr. Bailey and Mr. Kiser may
assert claims against the Company for advancement or indemnification of
their attorneys fees and other costs of defense, which claims may be
material.

On January 22, 2003, the Company, the class action representatives and
the individual defendants executed and filed the Stipulation with the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The terms
under the Stipulation are consistent with the terms under the MOU as
described above.  On January 29, 2003, the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado issued its order preliminarily approving
the settlement of the private securities class action, certification of
the class, and the provision of notice to members of the class.  The
preliminary approval provides for a settlement hearing scheduled on
March 28, 2003 to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
litigation on the terms and conditions provided forth in the
stipulation is fair, just and reasonable to the class.  The preliminary
approval provides for the mailing of notice of the proposed settlement
to members of the class by February 4, 2003 and a publication of a
summary notice of the proposed settlement in the Investor's Business
Daily on February 11, 2003.

The final settlement of the private securities class action is subject
to several conditions and uncertainties, many of which are outside of
the Company's control.  Such conditions include the issuance of an
order by the court of a final judgment and order of dismissal of the
actions with prejudice following the fairness hearing and the absence
of or dismissal of any appeal to such final judgment.  The Company
anticipates that the 2.0 million shares to be issued under the
Stipulation will be issued approximately two months after the issuance
of a final judgment and order of dismissal of the actions with
prejudice.  The Company believes it is unlikely such shares will be
issued prior to the closing of the asset sale as described above.  
While the Company believes that the approval of the stipulation and
dismissal of the actions with prejudice are probable, there can be no
assurance that the court will approve the stipulation and dismiss the
actions with prejudice.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Largest Gender Bias Lawsuit In American History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The discrimination lawsuit recently launched against Wal-Mart, the
nation's biggest employer, not only accuses the Company of favoring men
over women in promotions and pay, but also aims to include all 700,000
women who worked at Wal-Mart from 1996 to 2001, thereby making this
lawsuit the largest employment discrimination class action in American
history, the Deseret News reports.  The lawyers plan to file their
motion for class certification in April.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in San Francisco, and focuses
largely on one statistic compiled by plaintiffs' experts: In 2001,
women made up 65 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly employees and 33 percent
of its managers.  The suit also claims disparities in pay.  Plaintiffs'
experts found that full-time hourly women employees working at least 45
weeks at Wal-Mart, made about $1,150 less than men working in similar
jobs.

In another telling finding, disparities in kinds of jobs held were
found.  Plaintiffs' experts found that women make up 89.5 percent of
Wal-Mart's cashiers, 79 percent of department heads, 37.6 of its
assistant store managers and 15.5 percent of its store managers.  
Making a comparison with other retailers, the lawsuit claims that among
20 other large retailers, 57 percent of the managers were women.

According to Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, their experts
found, "There is strong evidence that the company is mistreating women
because they are women."

Wal-Mart officials have dismissed the lawsuit as baseless.  They say
the Company has deep pockets and therefore is a target for lawyers to
squeeze.  The Company, with its 3,300 stores, including Sam's Clubs,
has annual revenues of more than $230 billion.

"At Wal-Mart we do not discriminate against anyone, including women,"
Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice-president of communications said.  Ms.
Williams questioned the statistics presented by the plaintiffs' lawyers
and their hired experts, even though they had used computer tapes
provided by Wal-Mart for their analyses of the company's employment
practices.

Ms. Williams continued "These numbers were put together in all these
different ways by people who have a vested interest, by people who are
trying to sue us, by lawyers who stand to make an awful lot of money in
this case."

Ms. Williams also said women's lack of interest in managerial jobs
helped explain the lower percentage of women managers.  Ms. Williams
did acknowledge, however, that the company-wide posting of notices in
January inviting workers to apply to become managerial trainees was a
first for Wal-Mart.  The posting went up after the plaintiffs' lawyers
and experts had asserted repeatedly that Wal-Mart's failure to post
management positions was a major reason for its low percentage of women
managers.  Without posting, the lawyers argued, promotions often relied
on favoritism and a buddy network.

Women who were asked about the responses they received when they told
general managers of their interest in managerial positions, told about
receiving age-old responses, such as men have families to support and
you won't like the long hours.  One woman said a Wal-Mart manager in
South Carolina explained to her that Wal-Mart paid men more than it
paid women because "God made Adam before he made Eve."


WEST VIRGINIA: Bill To Curb Non-residents' Right To Sue In State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-residents would face restrictions in filing lawsuits in the state
courts of West Virginia under a bill approved recently by the Senate
Judiciary Committee, according to a report by the Associated Press
Newswires.  The bill, sponsored by 25 of the Senate's 34 members, now
goes before the full Senate.

Under the terms of the Senate bill (SB213), nonresidents could not sue
in the state courts unless "a substantial part" of the action set forth
in the complaint occurred in West Virginia.  Therefore, each plaintiff
in a civil action would have to establish his/her fulfillment of that
requirement in a separate claim.  The proposal has been supported by
corporations that have been involved in defending their interests in
class actions, such as asbestos, tobacco, telecommunications cases,
among others.

Various lawyers presented their arguments for and against the Senate
Bill.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, thought
West Virginia's reputation as a liberal jurisdiction brought plaintiffs
to the state, and he said, "That ties up the state courts and resources
and creates a horrible perception."

On the other hand, Senator Larry Rowe, D-Kanawha, argued the law of the
issue, saying "A large body of law say you can sue any defendant where
you find that defendant.  This bill may be intended to apply to mass
tort cases, but it clearly sweeps too broadly," said Mr. Rowe, a trial
lawyer.  In fact, he continued, "it might be unconstitutional to
prevent an Ohio resident hurt in Ohio by a West Virginia driver from
filing for damages in West Virginia."

Scott Segal, a Charleston trial attorney, who has spearheaded asbestos
class actions, also argued against the law.  He said, "The bill could
hurt employees exposed to toxic products in multiple states, such as
construction workers, by forcing them to file separate lawsuits in
different states."

In a case before the US Supreme Court, the railroad Norfolk Southern
Corporation argued that trial lawyers seeking sympathetic courts have
filed 5,500 asbestos cases in West Virginia against railroads on behalf
of former employees who live in other states.  However, those cases
were filed under a federal law and would apparently be unaffected by
the Senate bill.


WEST VIRGINIA: Elkins Mayor Relieved Of Duties In Sex Harassment Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Virgil Broughton of Elkins, West Virginia, has been relieved of
administrative duties and publicly censured after the City Council
recently decided he had acted inappropriately toward female city
employees and had attempted to intimidate the city clerk, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The City Council made their decision after holding two executive
sessions totaling about 3 1/2 hours.  The Council's findings were based
on a report by attorney Michael J. Florio of Clarksburg.  Mr. Florio
had been hired to investigate allegations made by City Clerk Philip
Graziani at a December 19 council meeting.  Mr. Graziani alleged that
Mayor Broughton had sexually harassed female city employees and had
threatened his job as well.

At the same meeting Mayor Broughton defended himself and accused Mr.
Graziani of having a sexual relationship with another city employee and
asking the mayor to help cover it up.  As a result of the investigation
and the resultant report, council members were able to make their
determinations and voted to adopt the proposed resolution which said
that the mayor had engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature
toward at least three female employees, and that "touching, kissing and
hugging of employees by the manager (the mayor) should never occur."

Mayor Broughton's son, Councilman Van Broughton, abstained from voting.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
on behalf of purchasers of Amerco (Nasdaq: UHAL) publicly traded
securities during the period between February 12, 1998 and September
26, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Amerco and certain of its officers and directors
with violating the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements during the class period.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused
Amerco to engage in transactions with SAC Holding Corporation and SAC
Holding Corporation II (SAC Holdings), which falsely improved Amerco's
financials, and which served to benefit Amerco insiders to the
detriment of Amerco shareholders.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose the true
nature and financial impact of the transactions to the public.  The
complaint further alleges that Amerco failed to disclose that
defendants used Amerco's resources to identify, purchase, and/or
develop self-storage properties, which it then sold to SAC Holdings for
inadequate consideration or caused SAC Holdings to buy.  SAC Holdings,
owned and controlled by Amerco insiders, thereby received substantial
benefit from transactions which otherwise served to falsely improve
Amerco's financials.

On September 26, 2002, Amerco restated its 2002 financial results in an
amended 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002, and restated its 2001
and 2000 financials for the second time.  The complaint charges that as
a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements during the
class period, Amerco's stock price was artificially inflated, averaging
approximately $18 per share.  In the weeks following news of the above
events, Amerco's share price tumbled to less than $5, causing Plaintiff
and other members of the class to suffer damages, according to the
complaint.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://cauleygeller.com/template8.asp?pcode=6&pp=1


AMERCO: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Amerco (Nasdaq:UHAL) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada.  This suit is
brought on behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants,
who purchased Amerco securities between February 12, 1998 and September
26, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Amerco and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements during the class period.

During the class period, defendants caused Amerco to engage in
transactions with SAC Holding Corporation and SAC Holding Corporation
II (hereinafter "SAC Holdings"), which falsely improved Amerco's
financials, and which served to benefit Amerco insiders to the
detriment of Amerco shareholders.  Defendants failed to disclose the
true nature and financial impact of the transactions to the public.

Specifically, Amerco failed to disclose that defendants used Amerco's
resources to identify, purchase, and/or develop self-storage
properties, which it then sold to SAC Holdings for inadequate
consideration or caused SAC Holdings to buy.  SAC Holdings, owned and
controlled by Amerco insiders, thereby received substantial benefit
from transactions which otherwise served to falsely improve Amerco's
financials.

On September 26, 2002, Amerco restated its 2002 financial results in an
amended 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002, and restated its 2001
and 2000 financials for the second time.  As a result of the
defendants' false and misleading statements during the class period,
Amerco's stock price was artificially inflated, averaging approximately
$18 per share. In the weeks following news of the above events,
Amerco's share price tumbled to less than $5.  Plaintiff and other
members of the class were damaged thereby.

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


COSi INC.: Barrack Rodos Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cosi, Inc.
(Nasdaq: COSI) pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus dated November 13, 2002 (which became effective November 21,
2002), in connection with or traceable to Cosi's initial public
offering (IPO), through February 3, 2003.

The complaint charges the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and William Blair & Co., the lead underwriter for the IPO,
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants issued a materially false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
IPO.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the Company misrepresented its
ability to use the IPO proceeds to open 53 to 59 restaurants in 2003.  
On February 3, 2003, less than 3 months after the offering, the Company
announced that rather than opening the 53 to 59 new stores, Cosi
expected to open no more than 10 Company-owned restaurants in 2003.  

The Company also announced that it had changed its business strategy
disclosed in the Prospectus. Instead of growing through opening
Company-owned stores, the Company would grow through franchising.  In
reaction to the disclosure the price of the stock dropped by more than
30%, falling to $3.10 per share.  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements in the complaint, the complaint alleges that
Cosi's common stock was overpriced in the offering and in the
aftermarket until February 3, 2003.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager by Mail:
3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
by Phone: 800-417-7305 or 215-963-0600 by Fax: 888-417-7306 or
215-963-0838 by E-mail: mgoldman@Barrack.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.barrack.com


COSi INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY, 10007, on behalf of
purchasers of Cosi, Inc. (Nasdaq: COSI) common stock during the period
between April 24, 2002 and December 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading
Prospectus and Registration Statement in connection with Cosi's Initial
Public Offering.  As alleged in the complaint, the Registration
Statement and Prospectus contained several sections, which discussed
the Company's plans for growth and described how the proceeds raised
from the IPO would enable the Company to implement these plans.  These
statements were materially false and misleading because:

     (1) the Offering Materials failed to disclose that the funds
         raised by the IPO would be insufficient to implement the
         Company's expansion plan, contrary to the representations
         repeatedly made in the Company's Offering Materials;

     (2) at the time of the IPO, defendants should have known that the
         costs of expansion would be greater than the cash available to
         the Company (which included working capital and proceeds from
         the IPO), making it highly improbable that the Company would
         be able to successfully continue to open numerous new stores
         at such a rapid pace; and

     (3) the Offering Materials failed to disclose that a reduction in
         the price of the IPO would result in the Company being forced
         to abandon its growth strategy.

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


MIIX GROUP: Lampf Lipkind Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow initiated a securities class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Trenton) on behalf of purchasers of The MIIX Group,
Incorporated (NYSE:MHU) common stock during the period between July 30,
1999 and September 12, 2002.

The complaint charges MIIX GROUP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint is also a derivative
class action for breaches of the fiduciary duties of MIIX GROUP
officers and directors owed to stockholders.  The complaint charges the
Medical Society of New Jersey with domination and control of the
actions of MIIX GROUP, its officers and its directors, at all times
during the class period and with responsibility for the violations
alleged in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, after experiencing
over $200 million in unexpected losses from claims and substantially
increasing loss reserves, defendants issued a series of statements to
the public indicating that the Company was pursuing a reorganization
and restructuring plan of MIIX GROUP that would offer the greatest
opportunity to realize value for MIIX GROUP stockholders.  Thereafter,
MIIX GROUP's own directors and officers formed a new competing company
raising over $26 million in a private placement and transferred MIIX
GROUP's profitable New Jersey medical malpractice business and assets
to that company from which MIIX GROUP only stands to earn license fees,
service income, and commissions.  MIIX GROUP's directors approved a
non-competition agreement assuring MIIX GROUP could not sell insurance
or service any other New Jersey medical malpractice insurer other than
the new company.  The new company and its stockholders are projected to
earn $8 million annually by 2007.

MIIX GROUP and its stockholders own no interest in the new company, and
MIIX GROUP's officers and directors have appointed themselves to serve
as the officers and directors of the company by virtue of which they
stand to earn substantial compensation.

During the class period, while MIIX GROUP was expanding its operations
simultaneously in over 20 states, MIIX GROUP issued a series of false
and misleading statements about MIIX GROUP's earnings, profitability,
business condition, reserves, and expansion plans and issued financial
statements that were materially false and misleading and violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and rules and regulations of
the SEC, thereby misleading investors regarding MIIX GROUP's true
financial condition, then-current financial performance, and prospects.

MIIX GROUP repeatedly asserted that its insurance company subsidiaries
would produce profitable results, that the expansion plans were on
track and advisable, that MIIX GROUP followed "prudent business
practices," possessed "unrivaled claims operations and litigation
defense service," and was "widely known for defense expertise" at a
time that MIIX GROUP officers and directors knew the facts were to the
contrary.  As a result, the prices of MIIX GROUP's securities were
artificially inflated during the class period to as high as $18.31 per
share.

During the first quarter of 2002 MIIX GROUP announced a loss of $45.4
million and adjustment of net loss reserves for prior accident years
increasing reserves by $29.5 million attributable to insurance business
written during the years 1994 - 2001.

For more details, contact Harvey J. Kesner by Phone: 212/527-9974
                  

MONTEREY PASTA: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Monterey Pasta Company (Nasdaq:PSTA) common stock
between July 11, 2002 and December 16, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendant violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 11, 2002 and December 16, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Monterey Pasta securities.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
212-213-6222 by Fax: 212-213-9405 or by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com.  


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Lawsuit in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Parametric
Technology Corporation (NASDAQ: PMTC) between October 19, 1999 and
December 31, 2002 inclusive and who were damaged thereby.  The action
is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against the Company and:

     (1) Steven C. Walske (CEO until March 1, 2000 and Chairman until
         June 2000),

     (2) Noel G. Posternak (Chairman since June 2000),

     (3) C. Richard Harrison (CEO since March 1, 2000, President since
         1994),

     (4) Edwin J. Gillis (Parametric's Executive Vice President, CFO
         and Treasurer from January 15, 2002 to November 12, 2002)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between October 19, 1999 and December 31,
2002.  The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period,
Parametric issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual
reports with the SEC, which described the Company's supposedly
increasing revenues and financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading when made, the
complaint alleges, because the Company had overstated its revenue since
fiscal 1999, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles
and because the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
unable to accurately determine and report the Company's financial
condition.  

On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular trading, Parametric
issued a press release announcing a "$20 to $25 million of previously
recognized maintenance revenue which should have been deferred and
recognized in fiscal 2003 and later periods."  Accordingly, the Company
announced, it "expects to report a corresponding reduction in
maintenance revenue in prior periods, primarily in fiscal year 2002."

In reaction, on January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric closed at $2.19
per share, after hitting an intraday low of $1.95, as compared with a
class period high of $32.88 per share, reached on December 16, 1999.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or U. Seth Ottensoser by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: Parametriccase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com  


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Parametric Technology Corp.
(Nasdaq: PMTC) ("Parametric" or the "Company") common stock during the
period between October 19, 1999 and December 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between October 19, 1999 and December 31, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Parametric common stock.  
Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial
performance.

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that since fiscal 1999, in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP) and its own revenue recognition
         policies, the Company had cumulatively overstated its
         previously recognized maintenance revenue from its service
         contracts by approximately $33.4 million;

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

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

On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular trading, Parametric
shocked the market by announcing that it had identified "$20 to $25
million of previously recognized maintenance revenue which should have
been deferred and recognized in fiscal 2003 and later periods."
Accordingly, the Company announced, it "expects to report a
corresponding reduction in maintenance revenue in prior periods,
primarily in fiscal year 2002."

The next day of trading, on January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric
closed at $2.19 per share, after hitting an intraday low of $1.95, as
compared with a class period high of $32.88 per share, reached on
December 16, 1999.  Subsequent disclosures revealed that the Company
would be restating its financial results from fiscal year 1999 through
fiscal year 2002 because a cumulative total of $33.4 million in
maintenance revenue had improperly been reported as revenue during that
time.

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


SAWTEK INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Sawtek, Inc. currently
a subsidiary of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq:TQNT), between
January 7, 2000 and May 24, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sawtek, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements concerning Sawtek's business operations
and financial performance caused Sawtek's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.  Sawtek
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of electronic
signal processing components, based on "surface acoustic wave" or SAW
technology, primarily for use in the wireless communications industry.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
misrepresented Sawtek's financial performance by improper "channel
stuffing" -- inflating revenue by shipping more products than
distributors could sell -- and by disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's revenue and business prospects
despite a widespread downturn in the wireless and telecommunications
markets.

Sawtek's actual financial performance was revealed on May 23, 2001,
when defendants' acknowledged that the Company's projected results for
the quarter ending June 30, 2001, would fall well below the Company's
previously issued revenue guidance.  By the close of trading on the
next day, May 24, 2001, Sawtek's stock price had plunged more than
seventeen percent (17%) from the previous day's close as a result of
this news.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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  * * *