CAR_Public/030303.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                  Monday, March 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 43

                            Headlines                            

AHOLD NV: Involved In Accounting Scandal, Holdings, Shares Drop by 70%
AIR CANADA: BC High Court Certifies Lawsuits Filed by Former Employees
BETESH GROUP: Recalls 11,200 "Busy Bug" Plush Toys For Choking Hazard
CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in ACLU Suit For Racial Profiling in CA
CCA-TREATED WOOD: FL Court Denies Class Certification To Consumer Suit

ELI LILLY: Consumers File Suits Over Schizophrenia Drug's Side Effects
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Denies Charges in RI Consolidated Securities Suit
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
FIRST YEARS: Gives Instructions For 120T Step Stools For Injury Hazard
GREENWOOD HEALTH: Fire Breaks Out, Leaving Ten Dead, Several Injured

KINDER MORGAN: KS Court To Decide on Certification For Royalties Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Commences in TX Natural Gas Producers' Lawsuit
KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NV Personal Injury Suit
RANDOM HOUSE: Voluntarily Recalls 360,000 Book Sets For Choking Hazard
REZULIN LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek Class Certification For Consumer Suit

ROTO-ROOTER INC.: OH Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Says Army Delays Access To Nazi Gold Train Records
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Schemed To Artificially Inflate Stock Price
VENTAS INC.: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Shareholder Derivative Suit
VENTAS INC.: DE Court Refuses To Allocate Portions of Reorganization

WASHINGTON DC: Suits Filed v. Over Police Action During Demonstrations
WEST VIRGINIA: EPA Faces Lawsuit Over Non-review Of State's Water Rules

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada Court
ARIBA INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
ATMEL CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Shareholder Derivative Suit
CARREKER CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in TX
CARREKER CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Suit in TX

GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Two Lawfirms Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LEXENT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROYAL AHOLD: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Lawsuit in MD Court

                             *********

AHOLD NV: Involved In Accounting Scandal, Holdings, Shares Drop by 70%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands' popular supermarket, Ahold NV, is facing an accounting
scandal, as its stock price plunged 70 percent.  There are hundreds of
thousands of persons in this country of 16 million, who directly own
shares in the supermarket, Ahold, but they are exhibiting little sign
of public outrage.  The government, as well, is responding in a way we
here in the United States would call low key; particularly, since
Ahold, until this week, was ranked tenth, by market value, trading on
Euronext Amsterdam, The Wall Street Journal Europe reports.

Dutch Finance Minister Hans Hoogervorst has not made any public
statements about Ahold's current problems.  At the Economics Ministry,
a spokesman characterized events at Ahold as "an internal business
matter."  The spokesman said the minister is on vacation, adding,
however, that the ministry is following developments at Ahold through
its "own sources," but has not started its own independent
investigation.

A grandson of Ahold's founder, appearing on national television,
described himself as feeling "shafted" -- one of the stronger responses
to the news of Ahold's troubles.

Seven out of 10 Dutch private investors bought Ahold shares in recent
years, according to the largest Dutch shareholder lobby, Vereniging van
Effectenbezitters.  Many of the investors did it by turning in coupons
while they were shopping at Ahold's Dutch supermarket chain, making it
the country's "People's Share," which is what Europeans call some
stocks that are widely held by individuals.  Vereniging does seem to be
taking what might be called a strong stand, when compared to the
government, which for now is taking a back seat in the corporate area
while industry and shareholders try to write a new corporate-governance
code.

Peter Paul de Vries, head of Vereniging, said the Ahold "debacle"
reinforces the view that the Dutch system of self-regulation and "soft
laws" is not good enough.  Vereniging is asking individual investors to
register as it investigates whether to sue Ahold.  Meanwhile, several
US law firms already have announced that they are seeking class action
status for their lawsuits.

The Dutch Justice Ministry has referred all calls to the public
prosecutor's office, which in turn said it needs a complaint from the
Authority for Financial Markets (AFM) before it can launch an
investigation into Ahold's recent disclosure that it had overstated
earnings in 2001 and 2002 by at least 64.5 million euros ($500
million).  The AFM is the Dutch version of the US Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The AFM said that all it can do is look into whether insider trading
was involved.  A spokesman revealed that so far the agency has no
indication of insider trading.  A law that will give AFM oversight over
the accuracy of full-year financial accounts has been in
the works since 2001.  Although it has not yet been sent to Parliament,
the Finance Ministry said that will probably happen after
the summer of 2003.

Meanwhile, the US attorney's office and the Securities and Exchange
Commission already have opened investigations into Ahold's accounting
irregularities.


AIR CANADA: BC High Court Certifies Lawsuits Filed by Former Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified as class actions
lawsuits filed against Air Canada and Air Canada Regional Inc. d.b.a.
AIRBC on behalf of retired and former employees whose retirement or
severance benefits were unilaterally changed by Air Canada and/or
AIRBC.  The class action suits were brought by Michael Trainor and
Gerri Andrews, both of Delta, British Columbia and Sonia Catherine
Marie Halbert of Surrey, British Columbia.

The plaintiffs in these suits are part of a group of former Canadian
Airlines and AIRBC employees who qualified for travel benefits under
the airlines' Factor 60/70 program.  These were employees who each had
combined age and years of service of 60 or 70 with a minimum of 10
years of service with the airline.

Mr. Trainor, for example, was a factor 60 employee with Canadian
Airlines and, in 1994, accepted a severance package from Canadian as
part of its downsizing program.  The package included reduced travel on
Canadian Airlines as well as reduced cost travel on other airlines. The
ability to fly on other airlines is known in the airline industry as
interline travel.  In September 2000 Air Canada unilaterally eliminated
Mr. Trainor's right to travel at reduced cost on other airlines. The
change affected approximately 1,500 former employees of Canadian
Airlines and AIRBC.  Mrs. Halbert retired from Canadian Airlines in
August 2000.  Ms. Andrews took early retirement from Air Canada/AIRBC
in January 1996.

According to the Amended Statements of Claim filed in Vancouver,
British Columbia, "the sudden, harsh, and malicious manner of the
change and the bad faith unilateral modification of the severance and
retirement packages warrants the imposition of punitive and exemplary
damages to punish the Defendants, and deter the Defendants from
engaging in similar behavior."

The Statements of Claim further allege that the plaintiffs accepted
early retirement and severance packages with the knowledge that they
would be free to travel the world both for pleasure and to visit
friends and loved ones.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Trainor, Halbert and Andrews by the
law firms of Hanson Wirsig Matheos and Klein Lyons both of Vancouver.  
According to class action lawyer David Klein "the cavalier attitude
with which Air Canada and Air Canada Regional have treated their former
loyal and trusting employees cannot be allowed to continue without
challenge and redress".

For more details, contact David Klein of Klein Lyons by Mail: Suite
1100 - 1333, West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C., V6H 4C1 by Phone:
(604) 874-7171


BETESH GROUP: Recalls 11,200 "Busy Bug" Plush Toys For Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Betesh Group of New York, NY is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 11,200 "Busy Bug" plush toys.  The plush toy's antennae can be
chewed or pulled off, posing a choking hazard to young children.  The
Company has received two reports of children gagging on the fabric
antennae ends that separated from the toy.
        
The recalled toy is a small plush bug with two springy black antennae
with orange round fabric ends.  The bug has a blue stuffed round face
with a red musical nose that blinks when pressed.  The body of the bug
is segmented in various colors and patterns.  Striped elastic legs are
attached to the body along with crinkly, iridescent wings.  "Smart
Scents," and "Made In China" are printed on a label on the side of the
bug. The UPC code 778267862920 is on the packaging.
        
Discount department stores sold these recalled toys from August
2002 through January 2003 for about $7.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Mail: One East 33rd Street,
New York, NY 10016, Att: Consumer Relations, to receive a refund
including postage, or by Phone: (866) 473-0118 anytime.


CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in ACLU Suit For Racial Profiling in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reached a settlement for a major
racial profiling lawsuit, which was filed in California federal court
early this week, the Associated Press reports.  

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of three
San Francisco Bay drivers.  The suit was initially commenced on behalf
of San Jose attorney Curtis Rodriguez, who was driving on Highway 152
east of San Jose in June 1998 when he noticed CHP officers pulling over
Hispanic drivers.  Soon after, he also was stopped and detained while a
drug-sniffing dog checked the car but found nothing.

Under the settlement, the Highway Patrol agreed to ban some car
searches and to require that officers articulate a reason for each
traffic stop, instead of offering a hunch the driver may be running
drugs.  The CHP also is required to to track all stops and constantly
review that database to spot whether any officer is pulling over a
disporportionate number of black or Hispanic motorists.  CHP officers
must have "specific and articulable facts to support" a stop.  "A mere
suspicion or 'hunch' is not sufficient," the settlement reads.

The settlement further extends for three years a temporary moratorium
on "consent searches" - the kind that officers can conduct only if they
receive permission from a driver.  The ACLU has said such searches are
a pretext for harassing minority drivers, AP reports.

Lawyers for the ACLU hailed the settlement as a major victory at a time
when the war on terrorism has bolstered profiling as a law enforcement
tool.  The settlement is due for approval by a federal judge.

CHP officials have continuously denied wrongdoing, insisting that its
officers do not profile or discriminate.  However, they agreed to keep
detailed computer records of all traffic stops in the state and hire an
auditor to analyze the database.  Supervisors in CHP field offices also
must review the data every day to ensure compliance.


CCA-TREATED WOOD: FL Court Denies Class Certification To Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
refused class certification to a lawsuit challenging the safety of CCA-
treated wood and its warnings, The American Wood Preservers Institute
(AWPI) announced in a statement.

In denying the plaintiffs' motion, and after a thorough review of CCA-
treated wood products and their markets, the court held that the
plaintiffs' claims failed to satisfy several basic requirements for
class certification: "(T)he class representatives' claims would be
atypical of other potential members of the class, that individual
issues of fact and law would predominate in this matter, and that class
action treatment would not be the superior method of resolving this
dispute."

Among other reasons, the court stated that the establishment of a class
is unwarranted given the relatively small number of claims related to
CCA-treated wood: "For instance, even in spite of the seventy year
history of treated woods use in this country, there is no track record
of cases in which plaintiffs were alleging property damage as a result
of treated wood. And there is no indication that a sea of litigation
over treated wood is imminent."

In fact, during the course of oral argument, plaintiffs conceded that
there have only been a handful of personal injury cases filed involving
these products.

In addressing the manageability of a class action, the court quoted the
Fifth Circuit as follows: "(N)ot every tort is asbestos, and not every
mass tort will result in the same judicial crisis."

The AWPI, a defendant in the lawsuit, stated, "We are pleased that the
Court agreed with our position that this case is not appropriate for
class action certification.  We continue to stand by the safety of CCA-
treated wood and we believe that sound science demonstrates that CCA-
treated wood is safe when used as recommended."


ELI LILLY: Consumers File Suits Over Schizophrenia Drug's Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. faces several complaints filed by Hersh & Hersh of San
Francisco on behalf of plaintiffs across the US.  Attorneys are in the
process of filing numerous other complaints and plan to prove that as a
result of taking Zyprexa, a drug prescribed for the treatment of
schizophrenia and bipolar mania, their clients have sustained life-
threatening or fatal injuries, including diabetes mellitus,
hyperglycemia and pancreatitis.

In some cases patients have died after long-term use of Zyprexa, even
though it has been FDA-approved only as a short-term treatment, and
their families have hired Hersh & Hersh to represent them in wrongful
death suits against the giant drug manufacturer.  Cases are being filed
individually, in both federal and state courts.

According to Hersh & Hersh partner Nancy Hersh,  "Eli Lilly's profits
are skyrocketing from these 'atypical' anti-psychotic drugs, while
patients are being kept in the dark about their damaging side effects.  
We believe Eli Lilly is culpable in heavily promoting Zyprexa as a safe
and effective drug for psychotic disorders, yet virtually concealing
the risks to doctors and their patients."

Since 1996 Eli Lilly has widely promoted Zyprexa as the most effective
medication on the market for bipolar disorder, with fewer adverse side
effects than any other methods of treatment.  It is also the company's
top-selling drug, with reported sales of $3 billion in 2001.  However
in 2002, author of Mad In America and medical journalist Robert
Whitaker exposed clinical trial data about Zyprexa that was not made
available to most doctors prescribing the drug.

According to Mr. Whitaker, "Of the 2,500 patients in the trials who
received Zyprexa, 20 died; 20 committed suicide; and 22% suffered a
'serious' adverse event. Two-thirds of the Zyprexa patients did not
successfully complete the trials."

In July 2002, a team of medical researchers at Duke University
discovered the link between the new generation of anti-psychotic drugs
like Zyprexa and early onset diabetes.  They identified 289 cases of
diabetes in patients who had been prescribed Zyprexa, stating, "Of the
289 cases of diabetes linked to the use of Zyprexa, 225 were newly
diagnosed cases; 100 patients developed ketosis (a serious complication
of diabetes); 22 people developed inflammation of the pancreas, a life-
threatening condition; and 23 people died.  Over 70% of these cases
occurred within six months of starting the drug treatment."

Numerous other medical studies have reported that Zyprexa can result in
serious and often-fatal diabetic diseases, caused by severe insulin
deficiency.  In one Hersh & Hersh case, the North Carolina plaintiff
suffered a diabetic coma after taking Zyprexa for eight months, and had
to have his left leg and right foot amputated.  In spite of these
dangerous side effects there is no warning in Zyprexa's product
information to monitor blood glucose levels, or discontinue use if high
blood sugar is noted or if the patient develops diabetes.  Currently,
the literature accompanying Zyprexa only alludes to diabetes and
acidosis as part of a list of side effects that are purported to be
very rare.

Among the numerous cases to be filed by Hersh & Hersh attorneys,
several individuals were prescribed Zyprexa for the treatment for "off
label" symptoms, including anxiety and depression, even though it is
FDA-approved exclusively for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.  At
least one client so far has developed an irreversible neurological
disorder known as Tardive Dyskinesia and is subjected to a life of
repetitive, rhythmic involuntary movements such as tongue thrusting,
lip smacking, chewing movements, rocking of the trunk, marching in
place and repetitive sounds such as humming or grunting.

Zyprexa is among a host of anti-psychotic drugs that doctors are
encouraged to prescribe for off-label uses by manufacturers. According
to an article published last summer in The Globe & Mail (August 13,
2002), medical ethics professor Miriam Shuchman, MD, stated that the
biggest difference between the approved and unapproved use of a drug is
the evidence that backs it up.  To get a medical condition approved or
"on-label," drug companies must convince the FDA that high-quality
studies show that the drug makes a real difference for people with that
condition.  Off-label uses of a drug typically have not been subjected
to that level of scrutiny.

"To boost sales and circumvent the FDA approval process drug
manufacturers like Eli Lilly are actually encouraging their sales reps
to push secondary uses of these anti-psychotic drugs and regularly
review reports of the frequency of doctors prescribing these meds for
off-label uses," added Mr. Hersh.  "In many cases, off-label sales
account for the bulk of revenues generated by these drugs.  Our
intention in the case against Eli Lilly is to also shine a light on the
severe damage caused by this kind of dubious sales and marketing
practice."

For more details, contact Shelly Gordon by Mail: 650/856-1607 or by E-
mail: sgordon@g2comm.com or contact Lisa Byrne by Phone: 415/221-5018
by E-mail: lisa@lisabyrne.com


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Denies Charges in RI Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. filed an answer to the amended consolidated
securities suits filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
District of Rhode Island.

The complaint alleges that the Company and several of its officers and
directors disseminated materially false and misleading information
about the Company's operations and acted in violation of federal
securities suits from March 3, 1997 to December 2, 1997.  The complaint
further alleges that certain officers and directors profited from the
dissemination of such misleading information by selling shares of the
Company's common stock during this period.  The complaint does not
specify the amount of damages sought on behalf of the class.

In a ruling dated May 23, 2001, the court dismissed this complaint with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the First Circuit
Court of Appeals, and, in a ruling issued on November 12, 2002, the
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings.  On January 17, 2003, the defendants filed an
answer denying all material allegations of the complaint.  If the
plaintiffs prevail on the merits of this case, the Company could be
required to pay substantial damages.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and:

     (1) former chairman and chief executive officer Enrique Fiallo,

     (2) former chief financial officer Robert Gagalis,

     (3) former chief executive officer of Cabletron Systems, Inc.
         Payush Patel, and

     (4) David Kirkpatrick, former chief financial officer of
         Cabletron

The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Specifically,
plaintiffs allege that during periods spanning from June 28, 2000 and
August 3, 2001 and in the period between August 6, 2001 and February 1,
2002, defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements and press releases that overstated the Company's revenues,
income, and cash, and understated the Company's net losses, because the
defendants purportedly recognized revenue in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Company's own accounting
policies in connection with various sales and/or investment
transactions.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all of
the defendants, jointly and severally as well as fees, costs and
interest and unspecified equitable relief.  On February 10, 2003, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  If plaintiffs
prevail on the merits of the case, the Company could be required to pay
substantial damages.


FIRST YEARS: Gives Instructions For 120T Step Stools For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Years, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by providing a new instruction sheet
for 120,000 "2-In-1 Fold-Away Tub and Step Stools."  When used as a
tub, babies' body parts can be pinched if the product's footrest is not
fully extended so that it clicks into place firmly.
        
The Company have received 20 reports of babies being pinched while
using these tubs, including one bruising of a baby boy's genitalia and
10 reports of abrasions to toes and feet.  This recall to replace the
stools' instructions is being conducted to prevent further incidents.
        
These "2-In-1 Fold-Away Tub and Step Stools," have model number 3141
written on the underside of the base.  The product is a folding baby
bathtub that can be used as a step stool for an older child. In the
step stool position, the top of the turquoise lid has raised lettering
stating "the first years" followed near the bottom of the lid with the
two statements, "MAXIMUM LOAD/POIDS MAXIMUM: 200lbs/90kg" and "USE ONLY
ON A LEVEL SURFACE. N'UTILISER QUE SUR UNE SURFACE PLANE."  In the
bathtub position, the seat back has a purple pad.  The base and
footrest are both white.  Also, on the underside of the base is a tiny
raised clock showing the year of manufacture of the product (i.e.,
"9?9") surrounded by the numbers of the clock.  Only products bearing
date codes 1999 and 2000 ("9?9" or "0?0") are included in this program.
        
Mass merchants nationwide sold these bathtub/stools between January
1999 and February 2002 for about $17.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 533-6708 between
9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday to receive free revised
instructions and a warning label to attach to the product, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.thefirstyears.com.


GREENWOOD HEALTH: Fire Breaks Out, Leaving Ten Dead, Several Injured
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A fire broke out in Greenwood Health Center, a nursing home in
Hartford, Connecticut, killing ten people last Wednesday, the
Associated Press reports.  

Nurses and rescue worker hauled more than a hundred patients out of the
building as the fire swept through part of the single-story brick
building before dawn.  Police have obtained a search warrant for the
home, as well as detained a 23-year-old resident.  Officers detained
the woman hours after the fire broke out Wednesday at Greenwood Health
Center, police Lt. Michael Manzi told AP.  However, police Chief Bruce
Marquis said the woman was undergoing medical care and "thus deemed not
stable at this moment."

The 148 patients at the home included the elderly, mentally handicapped
and a young man who had been in a coma for three years.  Mayor Eddie
Perez said the facility also handled younger psychiatric patients.  A
nursing supervisor, three nurses and eight nurses' aides were on duty
when the fire erupted.

Family members flooded the facility's parking lot in the hours after
the fire, peering into the home's windows in hopes of spotting loved
ones, the Associated Press reports. After several hours, Debbie and
Donald Duford finally found her 53-year-old brother, Bill Carroll, a
mentally retarded man with a lung ailment.  "We expected the worst, but
reminded ourselves that he was ambulatory," she said.  "He said he
wasn't scared."

Fire Marshal William Abbott said there was no sprinkler system in the
building, but said it was up to code and fire extinguishers were
present.  He told AP it was not clear whether the building had a
"grandfathered" exemption from sprinkler requirements or was exempt
from them because of its layout or occupancy.

Investigators have yet to determine a reason for the blaze, Lt. Manzi
told AP.


KINDER MORGAN: KS Court To Decide on Certification For Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the Stevens County, Kansas District
Court to certify as a class action a nationwide lawsuit filed against
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, and other natural gas pipelines and
many of their affiliates.  The suit also names as defendants certain
entities the Company acquired in the Kinder Morgan Tejas acquisition.

The suit alleges a conspiracy to underpay royalties, taxes and producer
payments by the defendants' under-measurement of the volume and heating
content of natural gas produced from nonfederal lands for more than
twenty-five years.  The named plaintiffs purport to adequately
represent the interests of unnamed plaintiffs in this action who are
comprised of the nation's gas producers, State taxing agencies and
royalty, working and overriding owners.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages,
interest, costs and fees from the defendants, jointly and severally.  

This action was originally filed as a class action against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates, including
certain Kinder Morgan entities.  Subsequently, one of the defendants
removed the action to Kansas Federal District Court and the case was
styled as Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.,
Case No. 99-1390-CM, United States District Court for the District of
Kansas.  On January 12, 2001, the suit was remanded to the State Court
in Stevens County, Kansas.  

The state court has issued a case management order addressing the
initial phasing of the case.  In this initial phase, the court will
rule on motions to dismiss (jurisdiction and sufficiency of pleadings),
and if the action is not dismissed, on class certification.  Merits
discovery has been stayed.  Recently, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on grounds other than personal jurisdiction, which was denied
by the Court in August 2002.  

The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of the
nonresident defendants has been briefed and is awaiting decision.  The
current named plaintiffs are:

     (1) Will Price,

     (2) Tom Boles,

     (3) Cooper Clark Foundation and

     (4) Stixon Petroleum, Inc.  

One of the original plaintiffs, Quinque Operating Company has been
dropped from the action.  On January 13, 2003, a motion to certify the
class was argued. A decision on this motion is pending.


KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Commences in TX Natural Gas Producers' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary discovery is commencing in the class action filed against
Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LP and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP
in the United States District Court in Wharton County, Texas. The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.,

     (2) Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline GP, Inc.,

     (3) Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline GP, Inc.,

     (4) Tejas Gas, LLC and

     (5) HPL GP, LLC

The first amended complaint purports to bring a class action on behalf
of those Texas residents who purchased natural gas for residential
purposes from the so-called "Reliant Defendants" in Texas at any time
during the period encompassing "at least the last ten years."  

The suit alleges that Reliant Energy Resources Corp., by and through
its affiliates, has artificially inflated the price charged to
residential consumers for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from
the non-Reliant defendants, including the above-listed Kinder Morgan
entities.  The suit further alleges that in exchange for Reliant Energy
Resources Corp.'s purchase of natural gas at above market prices, the
non-Reliant defendants, including the above-listed Kinder Morgan
entities, sell natural gas to Entex Gas Marketing Company at prices
substantially below market, which in turn sells such natural gas to
commercial and industrial consumers and gas marketers at market price.  

The suit purports to assert claims for fraud, violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Texas Utility Code
against some or all of the defendants, and civil conspiracy against all
of the defendants, and seeks relief in the form of, inter alia, actual,
exemplary and statutory damages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys'
fees and a constructive trust ab initio on any and all sums which
allegedly represent overcharges by Reliant and Reliant Energy Resources
Corporation.

On November 18, 2002, the Kinder Morgan defendants filed a motion to
transfer venue and, subject thereto, original answer to the first
amended complaint.  Based on the information available to date and the
Company's preliminary investigation, the Kinder Morgan defendants
believe that the claims against them are without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously.


KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NV Personal Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners LP appealed the United States District Court of Nevada's
decision dismissing the suit, in the United States Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) the city of Fallon, Nevada,

     (2) United States Department of the Navy,

     (3) Exxon Mobil Corporation,

     (4) Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP,

     (5) Speedway Gas Station and

     (6) John Does I-X

The suit asserts that a leukemia cluster has developed in the City of
Fallon, Nevada.  The suit alleges that the plaintiffs have been exposed
to unspecified "environmental carcinogens" at unspecified times in an
unspecified manner and are therefore "suffering a significantly
increased fear of serious disease."  The plaintiffs seek a
certification of a class of all persons in Nevada who have lived for at
least three months of their first ten years of life in the City of
Fallon between the years 1992 and the present who have not been
diagnosed with leukemia.

The suit purports to assert causes of action for nuisance and "knowing
concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts" against all
defendants, and seeks relief in the form of "a court-supervised trust
fund, paid for by defendants, jointly and severally, to finance a
medical monitoring program to deliver services to members of the
purported class that include, but are not limited to, testing,
preventative screening and surveillance for conditions resulting from,
or which can potentially result from exposure to environmental  
carcinogens," incidental damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants responded to the suit by filing motions to dismiss on
the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  On November 7, 2002, the court granted the motion to dismiss
and further dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants for
lack of Federal subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration and leave to amend, which was denied by the court
on December 30, 2002.  

On December 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an additional suit entitled
"Frankie Sue Galaz, et al v. United States of America, City of Fallon,
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Berry
Hinckley, Inc., and John Does I-X," in the same court, asserting the
same claims on behalf of the same purported class against virtually the
same defendants, including the Company.  On February 10, 2003, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Galaz complaint on the grounds
that it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  
This motion is currently pending before the court.

Based on the information available to date and the Company's
preliminary investigation, it believes that the claims against it in
the two suits are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.


RANDOM HOUSE: Voluntarily Recalls 360,000 Book Sets For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Random House, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 360,000 children's
board book sets.  The book sets were sold in cardboard boxes with
plastic snaps.  The plastic snaps can detach, posing a choking hazard
to young children.  The Company has not received any reports of
injuries involving these book sets.  This recall is being conducted to
prevent the possibility of injuries.
        
The boxed sets included in the recall have children's characters
on the front of the box, a colored plastic handle and plastic snaps.  
The book set titles are "MONSTERS TO GO!," "DISNEY PRINCESS - DISNEY
THE  PRINCESS COLLECTION 2," "DISNEY'S WINNIE THE POOH - A VERY MERRY
CHRISTMAS," and "BARBIE - MY BARBIE FUN BOX."  Each book set contains
four board books inside.  Only book sets with plastic snaps are
included in the recall.  Book sets with metal snaps are not part of the
recall.  
        
Book, discount department stores and online retailers sold the recalled
books nationwide from August 2002 through January 2003 for about $10.
        
For more details, contact Tri-State by Mail: c/o Anthony Armetta, 325
Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11788 to receive a free replacement book
set, and a refund for postage, or contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 805-8534 ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.randomhouse.com.


REZULIN LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek Class Certification For Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyers for 5,000 West Virginia residents recently appeared before
the state's Supreme Court, asking that class-action certification be
granted the lawsuit brought by these plaintiffs, all of whom have taken
the diabetes drug Rezulin, which has been linked to at least 63 deaths
nationwide, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Raleigh County Circuit Judge John A. Hutchinson denied the plaintiffs'
class action certification request, in 2001, saying tests did not
conclusively prove that the drug causes liver damage.  After a number
of liver-related deaths were linked to Rezulin, the Food and Drug
Administration, in 2000, banned the drug, which already had generated
$2.1 billion for manufacturer Warner-Lambert.

They are really saying that "diabetics are undeserving of being in a
class because they are sick," said Deborah McHenry, who was one of the
attorneys who represented the plaintiffs.  "But they weren't
(undeserving as a class) when the bean counters were preparing their
magic-bullet wonder drug (for their class to ingest)."


ROTO-ROOTER INC.: OH Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio State Court certified as a class action a consumer fraud suit
against Roto-Rooter, Inc., Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and
Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP, co-counsels for the plaintiffs said in a
joint statement.  The court certified a class of Roto-Rooter customers
in thirty-five states who were charged a fee purportedly for
"miscellaneous supplies."

An estimated two million customers were charged the fee in varying
amounts, as much as $9.95 or $12.95.  Plaintiff, a resident of
Cleveland, Ohio, alleges that the fee was pre-printed on form invoices
and served as an illegitimate device to boost Roto-Rooter's profits,
because the fee had no actual relation to any supplies used.  The class
certification order was entered yesterday afternoon by Judge Bridget M.
McCafferty of the Ohio Court of Common Pleas.  The court has not made
any ruling on the merits of any claims or defenses asserted by any
party.

Commenting on the court's order, Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D.
Selbin stated, "Judge McCafferty's order was thorough and well-written.  
We are gratified that the Judge recognizes that a class action is the
appropriate tool for consumers to take on shady corporate practices."

Joshua Cohen of the Ohio law firm of Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP,
stated, "We believe that Roto-Rooter improperly charged customers
across the country collectively millions of dollars.  Because the
amount charged each customer wouldn't warrant an individual lawsuit, a
class action is the only way these customers will have their day in
court."

The defendants named in the class action are:

     (1) Roto-Rooter, Inc.,

     (2) Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc.,

     (3) Roto-Rooter Management Company,

     (4) Roto-Rooter Corporation, and

     (5) Chemed Corporation

Plaintiff alleges that from October 1999, through July 1, 2002, all
Roto-Rooter company-owned stores were providing customers with a
preprinted invoice assessing a "miscellaneous supplies" charge on
every service call.  Company-owned stores were allegedly required to
use the preprinted form invoices on every job.  The complaint alleges
that that the fee was collected on service calls for drain cleaning or
plumbing work regardless of whether miscellaneous supplies were
actually used.  

If questioned by customers, the complaint alleges that Roto-Rooter
intentionally misrepresented or concealed the nature of the charge and
the basis for the "miscellaneous supplies charge."  The multi-state
class certified by the Ohio court consists of all persons and entities
who reside in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia, and
who were charged a miscellaneous supplies charge in connection with
services provided by a Roto-Rooter company-owned store during the
period of October, 1999, through July 1, 2002.

For more details, contact Jonathan D. Selbin by Mail: 780 Third Avenue,
48th Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 355-9500 by E-mail:
jselbin@lchb.com or contact Joshua Cohen by Mail: The Western Reserve
Building - Suite 705, 1468 West Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 by
Phone: (216) 781-7956 by E-mail: jrc@crklaw.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Says Army Delays Access To Nazi Gold Train Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Patricia Seitz told Justice Department
attorneys and those for the US Army that "your superiors are dragging
their feet," and "the conduct is unacceptable."  Judge Seitz was
referring to a request by Hungarian Jews, who are suing the US
government, and want access to examine Holocaust Commission records
about a Nazi gold train commandeered by US troops, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The Hungarian Jews are suing the government, saying that the United
States illegally sold or distributed the contents of the train seized
in 1945, days after the Allied victory over the Germans in World War
II.

Samuel Dubbins, an attorney for the families, wrote Judge Seitz last
week to complain, "The United States still continues to do everything
in its power to delay further a proper accounting for its conduct."

The families claim riches seized from 800,000 people were loaded onto a
train that moved from Hungary to Austria to avoid the advancing Soviet
troops days after Germany's surrender.  However, US troops intercepted
the 44-car train, and its 1,200 Oriental carpets, gold, silver, jewelry
and other valuable were sold or looted.  Compensation was never made to
the owners of the property.  Survivors say the handling of the train's
contents violated US Army policy and international treaties.  The
lawsuit was filed in 2001, as a class action, covering anyone with
property on the train.

The families are claiming that the government has backed away from an
agreement to pursue access to presidential records after weeks of
talks, because a motion that could delay the case indefinitely was
pending.  Attorneys for the families said that the Justice Department
and the Army had been working on the wording of an agreement for a
records search to be performed by the National Archives on former
President Clinton's presidential papers in Little Rock, Arkansas.  
President Clinton had appointed members to the Holocaust Commission.

The US government has asked for dismissal of the case, but Judge Seitz
ruled last August that Hungarian Jews and their heirs should be allowed
to pursue the lawsuit.  Furthermore, the judge refused to allow a pre-
trial appeal on the dismissal.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Schemed To Artificially Inflate Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholders of UnumProvident Corporation have filed two class
actions against the foremost disability insurer in federal court, in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, charging that the defendants improperly denied
some claims in order to artificially inflate its stock price, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

At least two complaints seeking class action status have been filed
since the company announced February 5 that it has recorded investment
losses of $93 million and was responding to a Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation for information relating to its investment
disclosures.

The complaints allege that UnumProvident, President and CEO Harold
Chandler and chief financial officer Robert C. Grieving inflated the
price of the company's securities by failing properly and promptly to
state losses to its investments and by improperly denying insurance
claims, in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program.

"As with most securities suits, somebody told a lie," said Samuel
Rudman, a partner of New York-based Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates and
Rudman, one of the law firms representing the shareholders in the case.

Mr. Chandler and Mr. Grieving "knew that by concealing Unum Provident's
true financial results they could foster the perception in the business
community that Unum Provident was a 'growth company,' " asserted the
first complaint.  The second complaint contends the company's
"forward-looking statements" in financial disclosures are not protected
from litigation because UnumProvident officials knew such statements
were false.

The filings cover a period beginning May 7, 2001, after UnumProvident
announced earnings of $147.6 million after-tax operating income.  The
company's stock then rose $3.75 to reach $32.27 nine days later on the
New York Stock Exchange.  The day after the company announced its $93
million loss this month, shares closed at $14.45, a drop of 55 percent
from the 2001 high.  UnumProvident shares closed at $12.78 last
Tuesday.

A court hearing will be held by mid-April to determine whether the case
will continue.  If defendants' motion to dismiss is not granted, lead
plaintiff and lead counsel will be designated, the latter usually being
the attorney or firm representing the largest group of shareholders,
Mr. Rudman said.

UnumProvident was created by the merger, in 1999, of The Provident
Companies of Chattanooga and the Unum Corporation in Portland, Maine.  
The company employs about 6,000 people.


VENTAS INC.: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Shareholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice
the stockholder derivative filed against certain of Ventas, Inc.'s
officers and directors on behalf of the Company and Kindred, Inc. and

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants damaged
Kindred and the Company by engaging in violations of the securities
laws, including engaging in insider trading, fraud and securities fraud
and damaging the reputation of Kindred and the Company.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages, interest, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees and other costs, and any extraordinary
equitable and/or injunctive relief permitted by law or equity to assure
the plaintiff has an effective remedy.

The company believes the allegations in the suit are without merit.  On
October 4, 2002, Kindred filed with the court a motion to dismiss this
action as to all defendants, including the Company, for lack of
prosecution by the plaintiffs.  

On October 17, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice.  On October 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed with the
court a motion to vacate that order of dismissal in order to allow
further briefing.  Kindred, on behalf of the Company, intends to
continue to defend this action.


VENTAS INC.: DE Court Refuses To Allocate Portions of Reorganization
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court refused to set aside portions of Ventas,
Inc.'s releases from its reorganization plan for plaintiffs of a class
action filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and employees, originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain current and former
officers and employees of the Company engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
conceal the true nature and substance of the 1998 Spin Off resulting
in:

    (1) a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act,

    (2) bankruptcy fraud,

    (3) common law fraud, and

    (4) a deprivation of plaintiffs' civil rights

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to act affirmatively
to explain and disclose the fact that the Company was the entity that
had been known as Vencor, Inc. prior to the 1998 Spin Off and that a
new separate and distinct legal entity assumed the name of Vencor, Inc.
after the 1998 Spin Off.  

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants filed misleading documents
in the plaintiffs' state court lawsuits that were pending at the time
of the 1998 Spin Off and that the defendants deceptively used the
Delaware bankruptcy proceedings of Vencor, Inc. (now known as Kindred
Healthcare, Inc.) to stay lawsuits against the Company.

As a result of these actions, the plaintiffs maintain that they and
similarly situated individuals suffered and will continue to suffer
severe financial harm.  The suit seeks compensatory damages (trebled
with interest), actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, declaratory and injunctive and any and all
other relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled.

Before any class of plaintiffs was certified, this action was dismissed
in its entirety on February 4, 2002 because it was deemed to be an
impermissible collateral attack on the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's
confirmation order.  The plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal of the
district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

However, on plaintiffs' motion, the appeal was stayed after the
plaintiffs separately filed a motion with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
seeking, among other things, to have the Delaware Bankruptcy Court set
aside portions of the releases of the Company contained in the Kindred
Reorganization Plan, as such releases might apply to the plaintiffs.  
On September 19, 2002, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  The Sixth Circuit appeal has been resumed by the
plaintiffs.  Kindred, on behalf of the Company, intends to contest the
Sixth Circuit appeal vigorously.


WASHINGTON DC: Suits Filed v. Over Police Action During Demonstrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 400 people were arrested in a small park next to the expanded
White House Security zone, during demonstrations against the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund on September 27 of 2002, Associated
Press Newswires reports.  The incident has led to a class action filed
by the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild,
because of arrests characterized as "pre-emptive and wrongful" and
detention conditions described as "inhumane" by D.C. Council member,
Kathleen Patterson, D-Ward 3, who chairs the council's Judiciary
Committee.

Ms. Patterson's remarks, which were based on an internal review of the
September 27 demonstration arrests and detentions, were made during a
recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee at which Mayor Anthony
Williams and his top aides defended the police department's handling of
political protests and accompanying arrests.

"We must bring this illegal government conduct to a halt," said Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard, co- counsel for the plaintiffs arrested during the
September 27 demonstration.  As lead attorney for the Partnership for
Civil Justice, Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard contends district officials have
engaged in "unconstitutional preventive detention tactics."  

The September 27, 2002, lawsuit is but one of several class actions
filed on behalf of more than 1,100 demonstrators since April 2002.  
Some demonstrators have charged that they were held for more than 18
hours, while a computerized booking procedure was bogged down.  Mayor
Williams said the police are revising some of their procedures to
improve the general treatment of detainees and expedite their
processing following arrests.


WEST VIRGINIA: EPA Faces Lawsuit Over Non-review Of State's Water Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Rivers Coalition has sued the EPA on behalf of West
Virginia residents because that agency has failed to act on clean water
standards the state revised in 2001, in order to comply with the
federal Clean Water Act's mandate that updated water quality standards
be imposed regularly on the state's waterways, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The environmental group's complaint says EPA's Region III office in
Philadelphia, has not acted on standards the state revised in 2001, to
comply with the federal Clean Water Act.  The standards were drafted in
response to EPA concerns over previous standards submitted in 1998 and
1994.

States must review and, if necessary, revise their water quality
standards every three years.  Revisions must be submitted to the EPA
for approval.  Failure of the EPA to act on West Virginia's proposals,
says the Coalition's executive director Jeremy Muller, means the state
"is not using protective water quality standards as it writes permits
and develops river cleanup plans."

"West Virginia gets polluted water because EPA is sitting back and not
requiring the state to fix these standards," said Mr. Muller.

Regulations stemming from the federal Clean Water Act require the EPA
to a standard submitted to the agency in 60 days, or reject it within
90 days.  If a state then fails to address the concerns, which must
accompany the EPA's rejection, then the federal agency must itself
write updated standards for the state to follow.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada 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) common stock during
the period between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, inclusive.  
This action has been expanded to include investors of Amerco 8.5%
Series A preferred shareholders (preferred stock) (NYSE: ao--pa) who
purchased their shares between February 12, 1998 and October 15, 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.

Moreover, on October 15, 2002, Amerco defaulted on a $100 million bond
issue payment.  The very next day, Amerco preferred stock fell to a
class period low of $8.55.

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


ARIBA INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against
Ariba, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARBAE) and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  This suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities,
other than defendants, who purchased Ariba common stock between January
11, 2000 and January 15, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Ariba and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws.  It alleges that
beginning in January of 2000 and throughout the class period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements in press releases and
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding
Ariba's revenue growth and projections.  These statements falsely
portrayed Ariba's business prospects and artificially inflated and
maintained the price of Ariba common stock.

On January 15, 2003, Ariba announced that it would restate all of its
financial results for ten quarters, covering the quarter ended March
31, 2000 through the quarter ended June 30, 2002, and the fiscal years
for 2000 and 2001.  The Company further announced on that date that it
may be delisted by the NASDAQ Stock Market because it has not filed its
annual report with the SEC for 2002.  Ariba's stock plunged 15% on the
day of this announcement.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Hae Sung Nam, by Mail: 805
Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952
by Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


ATMEL CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Shareholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a shareholder derivative lawsuit against
Atmel Corporation (Nasdaq:ATML) on behalf of the Company.

The suits allege, generally, that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between January 20, 2000 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Atmel securities.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
(212) 213-6222


CARREKER CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Carreker Corporation (Nasdaq: CANIE) and certain of its officers, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Carreker common stock from May 20, 1998 through December 10, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated 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 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the market
between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002.  According to the
complaint, Carreker filed financial statements during the class period
with the SEC which represented that revenues, income, and earnings were
growing consistently and robustly, and that the Company had achieved
several consecutive quarters of record growth, attributing its
purported success to the Company's business model and strong demand for
its products.

The complaint also alleges that the Company expressly assured investors
of its "dedication to transparent reporting practices," highlighting
the "quality and integrity of (Carreker's) accounting and corporate
governance practices."  According to the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading in that Carreker omitted to
disclose that it had artificially inflated its reported revenues,
income, and earnings throughout the class period by engaging in
improper revenue recognition practices.

On December 10, 2002, Carreker stunned the market when it disclosed
that it was investigating whether the Company improperly recognized
revenues by accounting for revenues up-front, or in a single quarter,
instead of over several quarters ratably, as required by applicable
generally accepted accounting principles.  The improper recognition of
revenues will require the restatement of Carreker's financial
statements filed during the class period beginning with the 1998 fiscal
year report.

In response to the disclosure of Carreker's true financial condition,
its common stock plummeted from a close of $5.08 on December 9, 2002 to
$3.93 per share at the close of trading on December 10, 2002.  The
decline represents a one day loss of almost 23%.  Subsequently, the SEC
commenced an investigation into the Company's accounting practices,
which is ongoing.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Casey
M. Preston or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax:
215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


CARREKER CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Suit in TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Carreker Corporation (NASDAQ: CANIE)
between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, against the Company,
John D. Carreker, Jr., and Terry L. Gage.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false financial statements between May 20, 1998 and December
10, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.  The Company has announced that it will restate its
financial results during this period.

For more details, contact Kenneth or Julie Vianale by Mail: 5355 Town
Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, Florida 33486 by Phone:
561-391-4900 or by E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Two Lawfirms Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC and Berger & Montague, PC filed
a securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserting claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5, against:

     (1) Georgeson Shareholder, Inc.,

     (2) Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc., a wholly owned
         subsidiary,

     (3) Georgeson Shareholder Securities Corporation, a wholly owned
         subsidiary, and

     (4) AT&T Corporation

The suit was filed on behalf of all security holders who, during the
period from December 2000 through the present, exchanged MediaOne Corp.
shares for shares of AT&T pursuant to the June 2000 merger between AT&T
and MediaOne, using Georgeson as the exchange agent.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant AT&T authorized defendant Georgeson to
engage in a "post-merger clean-up," pursuant to which Georgeson
disseminated notices urging shareholders who had not already done so,
to promptly exchange their MediaOne shares for AT&T shares.  Plaintiff
further alleges that Georgeson's notices misled shareholders into
believing that they were required to exchange their shares through
Georgeson, or else to forfeit all value of the shares, and further
allege that Georgeson charged an exorbitant "processing fee" for this
service, amounting to twelve percent (12 %) of the value of each
shareholder's stock.  In fact, however, shareholders could have
exchanged their shares directly through the transfer agent or other
brokers at little or no cost.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Mary Ann Fink of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue,
NW Suite 500 - West Tower Washington, DC 20005 by Phone: 888/240-0775
or 202/408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.comor contact Peter R. Kahana, or  
Kimberly A. Walker of Berger & Montague, PC by Mail: 1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888/891-2289 or 215/875-3000 by Fax:
215/875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


LEXENT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all shareholders of Lexent, Inc. against Kevin M.
O'Kane, the Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of Lexent, and
Hugh J. O'Kane, the Company's Chairman, charging that they violated
their fiduciary duties in connection with their recent offer to acquire
the remaining shares of the Company they do not currently own for $1.25
per share in cash.  Kevin M. O'Kane and Hugh J. O'Kane collectively own
approximately 52% of Lexent's outstanding shares, and are the only
members of the Company's Board of Directors.

For more information, contact James E. Miller by Phone: 1-866-540-5505
by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com, or Scott R. Shepherd, by
Phone: 1-877-891-9880 by E-mail: shepherd@classactioncounsel.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Royal Ahold, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors.  The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V. d/b/a ROYAL
AHOLD, Inc. (NYSE: AHO) between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003,
inclusive.

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

During the class oeriod, defendants issued many statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's
net income and financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted
and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during
the class period, AHOLD had significantly overstated its operating
earnings for its US Foodservice division.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient
internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true
financial condition of AHOLD, which lead to the value of the Company's
net income and financial results being materially overstated at all
pertinent times.

On February 24, 2003, before the market opened for trading, AHOLD
announced that it discovered over $500 million in "overstatements of
income related to promotional allowance programs", requiring the
Company to restate its previously-issued financial reports for fiscal
years 2001 and 2002.  Following this report, shares of AHOLD declined
over 60%, to close at $4.16 per share, on volume of more than 16
million shares traded, or nearly thirty times the average daily volume.

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


ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Lawsuit in MD Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, against Royal Ahold NV (NYSE:AHO), two of the Company's top
officers/directors, and the Company's independent auditor, Deloitte &
Touche Registered Accountants, on behalf of investors who purchased the
American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Ahold during the period between
May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings.  In
particular, defendants overstated operating earnings by $500 million in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by recognizing more money in promotional
allowances provided by suppliers to promote their goods than that
Company actually received.

Before the market opened on February 24, 2003, Ahold announced that it
will restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2001 and the
first three quarters of fiscal year 2002 to correct the inappropriate
accounting for discounts from suppliers at its US Foodservice division,
which is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.  The Company also
announced that its Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers,
defendants Cees van der Hoeven and Michael Meurs, respectively, had
been fired and that several US executives had been suspended.

In addition, the Company announced that it has uncovered "questionable"
transactions in its investigation of certain transactions and the
accounting treatment thereof at its Argentine subsidiary, Disco.  In
response to the Company's announcement, Ahold's ADRs fell $6.52, or
61%, to $4.16 on volume of 16,197,900 units traded.  The Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC) has launched an investigation of the
Company's accounting practices.

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

                               *********


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  * * *