CAR_Public/030305.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, March 5, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 45

                            Headlines                            

AETNA INC.: Trial for RICO, ERISA Suits Set September 2003 in FL Court
AETNA INC.: Trial For Provider RICO, ERISA Lawsuits Set December 2003
ALCOA INC.: To Settle Worker's Racial Discrimination Suit in N.D. Ohio
ALCOA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit, Plaintiff To Appeal
ANIMAL FEEDS: FDA Finds High Dioxin Levels in Feeds' Mineral Components

B&B INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Milk Products Due To Prohibited Drug Content
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: FDA Says Particles in Blood Pose No Threat to Safety
CALIFORNIA: Jail Charged With Taping Strip Searches Of Minor Offenders
DIGITAL ORIGIN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
EI DU PONT: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set For June 2003 in FL Court

FORD MOTOR: Dallas Attorney Asserts Public Mislead About Safety Shields
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit Settlement Held in NY
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Asks High Court To Review Certification of PA Suit
NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Three Suits Over AWP Manipulation in CA
NEW JERSEY: Property Reassessments Arouse Newark Residents Ire, Action

OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Claim in Securities Suit
OXFORD HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Six-Year-Old Securities Fraud Suit
RYANAIR: May Face Lawsuit, Other Surprises For Flight Cancellations
SERVIER: Reaches Agreement To Settle Canada Suit Relating to Diet Drugs
TEXAS: Merge of Medical Malpractice, General Tort Reform Bills Possible

TREVOR LAW: Attorney General Files Action For Unfair Business Practices


                    Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    
                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CARREKER CORPORATION: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
INTERCEPT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
MICROTUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
MONTEREY PASTA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court

PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
RURAL CELLULAR: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA

                           *********


AETNA INC.: Trial for RICO, ERISA Suits Set September 2003 in FL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for twelve class actions against Aetna, Inc. is set to commence
on September 22, 2003 in the United States District Court in Florida.  
The suits allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), and seek relief under common law theories and/or
state unfair trade statutes.

Each of former Aetna, the Company (including certain health maintenance
organizations that Aetna acquired from The Prudential Insurance Company
of America (Prudential), and Richard L. Huber (the former chairman of
former Aetna) are named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits.

The suits allege generally that defendants failed to adequately inform
members about defendants' managed care practices, including payments to
providers and utilization management practices.  Certain suits also
contain charges relating to the disclosure and determination of usual,
customary and reasonable charges for claims and related claims payment
practices.

In September 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class for the suits.  Merits discovery on the suits commenced in
September 2002.  The Company intends to continue to defend the suits
vigorously.


AETNA INC.: Trial For Provider RICO, ERISA Lawsuits Set December 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuits pending against Aetna, Inc. and other insurance
providers is set for December 8,2003 in the United States District
Court in Florida.  The suits allege generally that the Company and each
of the other defendant managed care organizations employ coercive
economic power to force physicians to enter into economically
unfavorable contracts, impose unnecessary administrative burdens on
providers and improperly deny claims in whole or in part, and that the
defendants do not pay claims timely or do not pay claims at proper
rates.

The suits further charge that the Company and the other defendant
managed care organizations conspired and aided and abetted one another
in the alleged wrongdoing.  In addition, a lawsuit brought on behalf of
the American Dental Association alleges improper disclosure and
determination of usual, customary and reasonable charges for dental
claims and related claims payment practices.  The suits allege
violations of:

     (1) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

     (2) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),

     (3) state unfair trade statutes,

     (4) state consumer fraud statutes,

     (5) state laws regarding the timely payment of claims, and

     (6) various common law doctrines

The lawsuits seek various forms of relief, including unspecified
damages, treble damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief.  The
plaintiffs in the suits generally seek to represent purported
nationwide classes and subclasses of physicians and other providers who
currently or formerly provided services to members of the Company
and/or Prudential.  Certain lawsuits also purport to bring class
actions on behalf of physicians and/or other providers in a particular
state, and plaintiffs in cases originally filed in state courts seek to
have those cases remanded to state courts for separate trial.

On September 26, 2002, the Florida court issued an order certifying a
global RICO class and certain sub-classes in the matter it has
designated as the lead provider case.  That order is the subject of a
pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.  Merits discovery on the suits commenced in
September 2002.


ALCOA INC.: To Settle Worker's Racial Discrimination Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa, Inc. agreed to settle a purported class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
it and the International UAW, on behalf of 400 African-American
employees of Cleveland Works, alleging discrimination in Cleveland's
apprenticeship program.  Plaintiffs sought certification of the class,
declaratory and injunctive relief, lost wages, entry into
apprenticeship programs, compensatory and punitive damages and costs
and expenses of litigation.

The complaint was served on May 23, 2002 and answered on June 12, 2002.  
Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification.  On January 15,
2003, the parties jointly advised the court that a settlement agreement
providing monetary and injunctive relief had been reached and that it
would be presented to the court for approval.


ALCOA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit, Plaintiff To Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the amended shareholder class action pending against Alcoa,
Inc., its Board of Directors, certain officers of the Company, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's independent accountants.

The suit, originally filed as a derivative suit by plaintiff Victoria
Shaev on behalf of the Company, alleged, among other things, that the
Company's proxy statement dated March 8, 1999 contained materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the proposed
Alcoa Stock Incentive Plan.

In March 2001, the court granted without prejudice the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.  In May 2001, Ms. Shaev
served an amended complaint making the same allegations as in the
previous complaint but styling the complaint as a class action on
behalf of shareholders.  The company served a motion to dismiss on June
25, 2001.  

The suit was dismissed on the factual and legal merits of the matter.  
A notice of appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.


ANIMAL FEEDS: FDA Finds High Dioxin Levels in Feeds' Mineral Components
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that its
dioxin-monitoring program has found elevated levels of dioxin in some
mineral components used in animal feeds.  In response to notification
from FDA about the problem, both the supplier of one of the mineral
components (zinc oxide) and the mineral premix blender contacted their
customers and urged that they immediately stop further distribution of
their products made with this mineral component.  The implicated zinc
oxide premixes were used in livestock, aquaculture, and poultry feed
and feed products.

An additional mineral component (copper oxide) is also being
investigated as a possible source of dioxin.  Both mineral components
currently under investigation are reclamation products from industrial
metal production.

Because mineral premixes are diluted greatly in the finished animal
feed, it is unlikely that human health effects would occur from this
limited exposure.  At this point in the investigation, FDA does not
believe this poses a human health risk.

Based on present information, FDA has requested the recall of certain
animal feed and feed products.  The recalled products were distributed
to feed manufacturers and suppliers in Canada and eleven states,
namely:

     (1) California,

     (2) Iowa,

     (3) Illinois,

     (4) Minnesota,

     (5) Missouri,

     (6) Mississippi,

    (7) Nebraska,

     (8) New York,

     (9) Philadelphia,

    (10) Utah and

    (11) Washington

The investigation of this incident is continuing and, as further
information is learned, additional recalls of other products may be
necessary.

FDA is currently investigating whether similar products are being used
in other FDA-regulated feed, and whether other feed products
incorporated the mineral components.  FDA is working cooperatively with
state feed regulators and other relevant federal agencies to trace the
distribution of these products.


B&B INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Milk Products Due To Prohibited Drug Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
B & B International Connections, Inc. recalled 500ml glass bottles of
"Mozhayiskoe" (Product of Russia) Sterilized Milk and 1 liter packages
of 3.2% "Milaya Mila" (Product of Russia) Sterilized Milk because they
contain sulfonamide, a drug prohibited in food producing animals and
lactating dairy cattle.  In addition, people who have sensitivities to
sulfa drugs may run the risk of allergic reactions if they consume
these products.

The milk was distributed to retail stores in the New York metropolitan
area.  "Mozhayiskoe" sterilized milk is packaged in 500ml glass bottles
with the following codes: October 23, 2002 and November 12, 2002.  
"Milaya Mila" sterilized milk is packaged in a 1-liter tetra pack (box)
with the code December 12, 2002.  Both product packages are labeled
entirely in Russian.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  The recall was initiated after sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the
imported products contained sulfonamide, a drug prohibited for use in
lactating dairy cattle and food producing animals.

For more information, contact the Company by Mail: 2829 West 21st
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11224.


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: FDA Says Particles in Blood Pose No Threat to Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that there
was no evidence that the contaminated blood discovered by two regions
of the American Red Cross, containing unusual particulate matter in
some blood components, primarily red blood cells (RBCs), poses a threat
to blood safety at this time.

The contamination was discovered on January 30, when the American Red
Cross asked hospitals in Georgia and northern Florida to stop using
recently collected blood because some contained white particles visible
inside the bags, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.  The
quarantine eventually extended from Illinois and Missouri to Kentucky
and Tennessee.

The blood allegedly had mysterious white clumps in it, but the FDA said
it had no evidence yet linking the blood mystery to any harm.  The
person who died, for instance, was already severely ill long before
receiving a transfusion, and some of the other reports included
allergic reactions and infections that are fairly routine transfusion
side effects, the Associated Press reports.

Findings to date indicate that the particles are composed of normal
blood substances and that rates of adverse reactions to transfusions
have not increased since the blood particles have been observed.  All
analyses to date of possible infectious agents, chemical contaminants,
or blood bag defects have found no abnormalities that indicate a public
health risk.  Increasing evidence suggests that many of the particles
observed may be explained by the use of certain standard, accepted
procedures for preparation of red blood cells for transfusion.

Reports of unusual particles initially came from two regions of the
American Red Cross (ARC) and involved blood bags from only one
manufacturer.  However, additional surveillance resulted in similar
reports from other ARC and non-ARC centers in many parts of the country
and in collection bags from several manufacturers.

Early reports of adverse events in patients who received blood that
might have conceivably contained such particles raised the question of
whether they could be harmful.  However, follow up investigations by
the blood centers have so far failed to provide any evidence of any
increase in adverse reactions among patients who may have received
potentially implicated blood transfusions.

In addition, testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) found no evidence of infectious agents or increased levels of a
limited number of chemicals.  Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a major
blood bag manufacturer, in cooperation with the ARC and FDA, has
extensively tested their processes and materials, and these tests have
identified no unexpected materials or conditions.

FDA laboratories have also independently tested some collection bags of
the type for which questions of particulates were raised, and have
detected normal contents in the blood bags and no contaminants or
unexpected chemicals to date.  Studies on both the safety and on the
cause of the particulates are ongoing.  FDA, CDC, NIH, American
Association of Blood Banks (AABB), ARC, America's Blood Centers, state
health departments and a number of individual blood centers are all
sharing information and many are conducting studies to try to determine
why these blood particles are being seen and to detect any possible
risk to blood safety.

In one study, to address a possible effect on transfusion safety, the
Georgia Division of Public Health, with technical assistance from the
CDC, FDA, ARC and AABB, surveyed blood transfusion services in Georgia
about the occurrence of adverse events associated with blood
transfusion during January 2002 through January 2003.  This rate did
not significantly change over the 13-month period, and did not increase
during January 2003 when the particulates were first noticed.

One theory under investigation by FDA and the blood centers is that the
observed particles can result from certain physical conditions of blood
handling.  Whole blood is composed of red blood cells, plasma, white
cells, and platelets.  It is a long-term practice in the blood
industry, when blood platelets are not being prepared from whole blood,
to allow the platelets to remain in red blood cell units during and
after processing to remove plasma.

With the availability in recent years of automated methods for platelet
collection that yield more platelets from fewer donors, whole blood
donations are less commonly used as a source of platelets.  In these
whole blood donations, it is more efficient to leave the platelets in
the RBC fraction of the blood.  It is known that platelets sometimes
form visible particulates.

Preliminary studies show that the presence of these platelet particles
is most common following the preparation of units using methods that
allow the platelets to remain with the red blood cells.  Some veteran
blood bankers think that the observed particles are not unusual, though
it is unclear whether the frequency of this phenomenon has increased.

Other possible contributing causes of the observed particles have not
been completely ruled out and are still being studied in the laboratory
and the field.  Additional ongoing investigations include further
studies both to detect any potentially related adverse events and to
better understand how different methods of blood preparation may
contribute to particle formation.  These studies may help FDA to
determine whether any changes in current practices are desirable.

While these investigations are ongoing, FDA's current thinking is that
it is appropriate for blood collection establishments to inspect all
blood and blood components using the enhanced procedures that have been
in place for the last several weeks.  Until these issues are resolved
more definitively, FDA believes it is appropriate for blood collection
establishments to continue to quarantine any suspect products as a
precautionary measure, or else filter the products using procedures
that are adequate to remove white cells.  Current evidence suggests
that such procedures will remove all or most of the observed
particulates.

Dependent on further studies of the particulate matter, FDA may issue
guidance to the blood industry on appropriate measures needed to keep
the blood supply as safe as possible while not unnecessarily affecting
the availability of blood products, which are vital to the public
health.


CALIFORNIA: Jail Charged With Taping Strip Searches Of Minor Offenders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mark Merin, who filed a lawsuit two years ago on behalf of
seven people arrested for allegedly failing to disperse during a
protest at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, recently won
that bout in court.  Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Thomas
Cecil ruled that the county and Sheriff Lou Blanas were liable for
damages in the case because strip searches are prohibited in the course
of detaining minor offenders, the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA)
reports.  The lawsuit is now a class-action lawsuit, and a trial to
determine the amount of damages is scheduled to begin March 24.

However, Mr. Merin said the case has become more complex, because he
noticed video cameras in the search area when he toured the jail in
December.  When he asked questions he was told the cameras were
inoperative.  However, in the course of answering written questions,
attorneys representing the county and Sheriff Blanas said the cameras
had been in use since April 2001.

Mr. Merin said that he will use that fact to argue for punitive
damages, which could mean that the class action, which may end up with
thousands of plaintiffs, may be seeking damages in the millions against
Sheriff Blanas.

"He (Sheriff Blanas) does not seem to care what the law is, or even
about basic human dignity," said Mr. Merin.  "This shows total
disregard for privacy rights."

County representatives now acknowledge the use of cameras, saying that
the strip searches are necessary for safety purposes and the
videotaping is needed to maintain a record of what happens during a
search.

"They are simply a reasonable means of protecting staff and detainees
in the event a question ever arises as to what transpired," said
Terence Cassidy, an attorney who heads the county's defense team.


DIGITAL ORIGIN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed with
prejudice plaintiffs' claims in the consolidated securities class
actions pending against Digital Origin and one of its former directors,
Charles Berger.

The suit, which also names Splash Technology, certain of Splash's
directors and executives and certain of Splash's selling shareholders
as defendants, alleges, among other things, that the defendants made or
were responsible for material misstatements, and failed to disclose
information concerning Splash's business, finances and future business
prospects in order to artificially inflate the price of Splash common
stock.

The suit further alleged that the Company engaged in a scheme to
artificially inflate the price of Splash common stock to reap an
artificially large return on the sale of the common stock in order to
pay off its debt.

The suit was dismissed by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California without leave to amend.  Plaintiffs
appealed that ruling to the appeals court.


EI DU PONT: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set For June 2003 in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action pending against E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours is set for June 2003, in the United States District Court in
Florida.

The suit alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements
and omissions about Benlate(R) 50 DF, with the alleged effect of
inflating the price of the Company's stock between June 19, 1993, and
January 27, 1995.  The district court has certified the case as a class
action.  Discovery has concluded.  

The Company denies the allegations of fraud and misconduct, and intends
to continue defending itself in ongoing matters.  While management
recognizes that it is reasonably possible that additional losses may be
incurred, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this
time.


FORD MOTOR: Dallas Attorney Asserts Public Mislead About Safety Shields
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas City Attorney Madeleine Johnson said the Ford Motor Company is
misleading the public into believing that installation of safety
shields around the fuel tanks of the Crown Victoria police cars will
make them safer.  Ms. Johnson said that the truth is that a Crown
Victoria, equipped with the safety shield, failed its crash test, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

"Instead of the success Ford claimed for it, the crash test obviously
was an abject failure and calls seriously into question Ford's claims
that the new fuel tank shields are enough to solve Crown Vic fuel tank
safety problems," Ms. Johnson said.  Ford did not reveal that during
the crash testing there had been 40 ounces of leakage, federal
standards set the limit at one ounce, she continued.

The city of Dallas has sued Ford in order to determine whether the
Crown Victoria police cruiser is safe for law enforcement use.  The
legal action was taken after a Dallas police officer died in October,
when a motor vehicle plowed into the rear end of his slowly moving
Crown Victoria, and an explosion occurred.

The city learned about the leakage of gas during a crash test during
deposition testimony, taken before a Cleveland court, from Ford
officials in connection with some class actions involving Crown
Victorias.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said in reply to Ms. Johnson's charge,
that Ford never admitted in the deposition testimony that the Crown
Victoria flunked the test in the 75 mph crash.  There was leakage, said
Ms. Kinley, but the safety shields were never designed to prevent
leakage.

"The shields are not designed to keep fuel from leaking.  Any vehicle
would do that in that type of crash," said Ms. Kinley.  She then
described the kind of crash for which the safety shield is designed.  
In some impacts, the fuel tank is crushed and the gas often oozes out
of the seams to other areas, but that is not what usually causes a
fire.  The shields are intended to block sharp metal objects that may
puncture the tank during high speed, rear-end crashes.  Such an impact
creates a metal-on-metal spark that leads to fire.  The shields did
what they were supposed to do; they did not fail the test, Ms.
Kinsley asserted.

The parents of Dallas police Officer Patrick Metzler filed suit against
Ford last week.  They accused Ford of negligence in their son's death,
alleging that he would have survived the crash if a protective shield
had been installed around the car's gas tank.  At least 14 law
enforcement officers nationwide have died from fuel-fed fires in Crown
Victoria rear-end collisions.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit Settlement Held in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County heard a
fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by International Paper
Company, in the six class actions filed against Champion, which the
Company acquired, and 10 members of Champion's board of directors.  

The suit was filed on behalf of Champion shareholders and alleged that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger with UPM-Kymmene Corporation and the merger proposal
from International Paper.

The parties later signed a stipulation of settlement providing for the
settlement and final disposition of the suit.  Pursuant to the
stipulation, International Paper will donate $100,000 to a law school
designated by the court to fund educational programs in support of
corporate governance and shareholder rights.  International Paper will
also pay such attorneys' fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel as
may be awarded by the Court, up to $300,000.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Asks High Court To Review Certification of PA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court, seeking a review of an appeals court decision
upholding class certification for a consolidated antitrust lawsuit.

Two suits were filed in May 1999 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the
former Union Camp Corporation and other manufacturers of linerboard.  
These suits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for
linerboard and corrugated sheets during the period October 1, 1993,
through November 30, 1995.  These lawsuits seek injunctive relief as
well as treble damages and other costs associated with the litigation.
The cases were later consolidated.

The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases sought certification on
behalf of both corrugated sheet purchasers and corrugated container
purchasers.  In September 2001, the district court certified both
classes.  Defendants filed a petition appealing the certification
order, which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in its
discretion, granted.

In September 2002, the appeals court affirmed the district court's
certification decision.  On January 14, 2003, the defendants filed a
petition for certiorari seeking a review of the appeals court decision.  
Discovery in the case is ongoing.


NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Three Suits Over AWP Manipulation in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nabi Biopharmaceuticals was named as one of over 40 pharmaceutical and
biopharmaceutical defendants in three class actions, filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, two filed in the County of
San Francisco and one filed in the County of Alameda.

The cases each involve claims that insurers and consumers of
defendants' products made overpayments for those products based on an
alleged manipulation of Average Wholesale Price (AWP), a standard which
governs amounts that physicians, hospitals and other providers receive
as reimbursement for purchases of defendants' products.  The plaintiffs
seek damages, equitable relief and disgorgement of profits.

The three lawsuits are in their preliminary stages, and no class has
been certified.  To date, the Company been served in only one of the
three suits.  The lawsuits do not allege that the Company collected
monies from the putative plaintiffs.  The Company believes that, to the
extent the putative plaintiffs made any payments based on AWP, such
payments were made to physicians, hospitals and other providers, not to
the Company.  The Company denies any liability and intends to
vigorously defend the suits.


NEW JERSEY: Property Reassessments Arouse Newark Residents Ire, Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Newark, New Jersey, tens of thousands of property reassessments,
both residential and commercial, have been sent out to the owners, and
"now, what" is indeed the question, since for 42 years this is the
furthest that efforts to institute revaluation of property have ever
come, The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) reports.  So real does the
heightened tax bill seem, that a group of residents recently filed a
class action contending that the city should be able to get at least
$120 million for property tax relief from the collection of payroll and
parking taxes.

The Newark City Council is preparing to challenge the results of the
new assessments just as it has done over the four decades.  A council
consultant is investigating the possibility of a lawsuit against
Certified Valuations, the firm hired by the state to reassess Newark's
properties, in which allegations would be made that the inspections
were not done properly.  As was expected, more than 1,000 people
gathered recently on the steps of City Hall to protest.

Many property owners have contacted East Ward Councilman Augusto Amador
for help.  So far, said Mr. Amador, he has put together a database of
300 people who want help appealing their property assessment.  "The
inspections of the houses were either not performed or were not
performed properly," said Mr. Amador.  "I would not say they were
dishonest.  They were negligent."

Newark has gone longer than any New Jersey municipality without
revaluating its property.  In the 1970s, a group of council members
were arrested after refusing to institute revaluation.  In 2000, the
City Council reluctantly approved a resolution allowing the state to
take money from the budget to pay Certified Valuations.  Only the
threat that the city faced losing millions of dollars in special tax
revenues if the council did not approve the resolution, wrung approval
from that body.  Council members said they realize Newark's date with
revaluation has come, but they want to be sure the residents are
treated fairly, equitably.

Mayor Sharpe James said he understands the concerns of residents
concerning revaluation.  He said his plan to merge the city's watershed
and water utilities into a nonprofit would enable the city to float
bonds that would provide the city with revenue and thereby relieve the
residents' burden.  "Passage of the Water Optimization bill will
provide $90 million that immediately will mitigate the effects of
revaluation and reduce property taxes," Mayor James said.

While many residents' tax bills will increase, others, who were paying
too much, will see a decline.  Newark's average assessment is $12,000,
and the average tax bill is about $2,994.

Dennis Gale, professor of public administration and political science
at Rutgers-Newark, said the city, which has seen growth in development
over the last few years, needs a revaluation to continue growing.  
"Newark cannot proceed with its renaissance without a better system of
collecting taxes," said Professor Gale.  "An equitable property tax
system is going to send a message to developers that things have
equalized and maybe Newark deserves a second look."


OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Claim in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss one of the claims in the consolidated securities
class action pending against Overture Services, Inc., certain
underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering, and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed
compensation to the underwriters, and improper practices by the
underwriters, and seek unspecified damages.  The suit was later amended
to include claims under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act of 1934.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous public
companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock
since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for
failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On October 8,
2002, the court entered an order of dismissal as to all of the
individual defendants in the Company IPO litigation, without prejudice.
On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Rule
10b-5 claims against the Company.

The Company continues to deny the allegations against it and believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the amended complaint.


OXFORD HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Six-Year-Old Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Health Plans, Inc. (OHP) agreed in principle with the plaintiffs
to settle the 1997 securities class action litigation pending against
the Company for $225 million.  The settlement is subject to the
execution of documents for filing with the court and approval by the
court after notice to the class.

The excess insurance carriers for the first $25 million under the
Company's previously disclosed $200 million excess insurance policies
have agreed to contribute $25 million to the settlement, but the other
carriers under the policies have refused to contribute to this
settlement.  Accordingly, the Company will be required to pay $200
million of the settlement and, as previously disclosed, will be
required to pay the excess insurance carriers an additional premium of
$8 million.  The Company will fund the settlement (including the
additional premium and litigation expenses) with cash and financing.

"We are pleased to put this matter behind us and focus entirely on the
future of Oxford.  We do not believe that funding of this settlement
will have a significant effect on our existing share repurchase program
during the remainder of 2003," said Charles G. Berg, president and
chief executive officer, in a statement.

The Company previously incurred a charge of $151.3 million,
representing its previous $161.3 million settlement offer net of $10
million in primary directors and officers insurance coverage, and a $20
million charge for additional legal expenses related to trial.  In
connection with the settlement announced today, the Company expects to
incur an additional pre-tax charge of between $40 and $45 million in
the first quarter of 2003, which charge, along with prior charges, will
fully cover all of the Company's expenses relating to settlement costs,
legal fees expenses.

As previously disclosed, the Company had offered $161.3 million to the
plaintiffs representing the full amount of the retention under the
insurance carriers' interpretation of the excess insurance policies.  
Under the insurance carriers' interpretation of the excess insurance
policies, the Company was obligated to pay the $161.3 million retention
and the additional $8 million premium, and, if the excess insurance
carriers fully participated in the $225 million settlement, the Company
would have been obligated to pay approximately $6.4 million in co-
insurance.  Accordingly, the Company's settlement without the full
benefit of the excess insurance coverage will result in the Company
paying an additional approximately $32.3 million.

The Company is considering its options with respect to the excess
insurance carriers that refused to contribute to the settlement,
including the possibility of bringing legal action against these
carriers for recovery of at least $32.3 million under the terms of the
excess insurance policies.

These securities class actions, which were brought in 1997 following
the October 27, 1997 decline in the price of the Company's common
stock, are described in more detail in the Company's annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.


RYANAIR: May Face Lawsuit, Other Surprises For Flight Cancellations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryanair, which took over Buzz airline on January 31, told 100,000
passengers who had bought tickets on Buzz for April, that their flights
have been canceled, following its takeover of the airline, The
Guardian reports.

However, Hampster solicitors, Ian Guyster & Co., are considering
launching a class action on behalf of the angry customers.  The law
firm says that the airline's act is a breach of contract, and, as such,
the airline is liable for more than just the original airfare under the
rules of contract law.

"On the face of it, the claims that will be made against the airline
seem virtually unanswerable.  We would need to know more about the
contractual arrangements between Ryanair and Buzz before starting
proceedings, but I hope enough irate passengers come forward to make a
group action worthwhile," said Ian Guyster of Ian Guyster & Co.

As indicated above, Ryanair told passengers of the cancelled April
flights that the airline would refund only the original fare to people
who had bought Buzz tickets for April.  Mr. Guyster has said that what
is involved is a breach of contract, and that the courts abide by the
basic rule that if someone breaches a contract, the victim can choose
between being put in the position he would have been had the contract
not been made, or he may choose having the cost of performing the
contract another way.

This means, among other things, that those who elect to take their
trips on alternative airlines will be able to claim the difference in
fares.  People who cannot obtain a flight to or from the same airport
as they had booked with Buzz, will be entitled to reasonable transport
costs.  The same principle operative as to these matters is applicable
to such matters as making new arrangements:  if this is particularly
time-consuming or inconvenient, for example, further compensation may
be payable.

However, as Mr. Guyster also indicated above, more would need to be
known about how Ryanair and Buzz arranged their contractual
arrangements as to their responsibilities to their passengers under the
law.


SERVIER: Reaches Agreement To Settle Canada Suit Relating to Diet Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian pharmaceutical company Servier agreed to settle the national
class action filed on behalf of Canadian patients who used the weight
loss medications Ponderal and Redux.

The agreement in principle was reached under the supervision of Justice
Warren K. Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court, and is made without
any admission of liability.  The settlement, once finalized, will be
subject to Court approval.

The national class is represented by the Toronto law firm of Rochon
Genova.  The British Columbia Sub-class is represented by the law firm
of Klein Lyons.  The Company is represented by the law firm of Ogilvy
Renault.

Documentation is currently being finalized under the continuing
supervision of Justice Winkler. Further information will be made
available when the details are finalized.


TEXAS: Merge of Medical Malpractice, General Tort Reform Bills Possible
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Joseph Nixon, R-Houston, said he plans to merge the two bills he
is sponsoring: medical malpractice insurance and general tort reform,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.  Such a union would encourage
dealing with the two matters in a more efficient and comprehensive
fashion, Mr. Nixon said.

"It makes a lot of sense; it gives everyone an opportunity to
thoroughly vet how all the tort reform is going to work and interact,"
he continued.

Critics are calling the plan a political strategy that would use the
less controversial malpractice insurance bill to carry to passage the
more controversial tort lawsuit changes that have no discernible
bearing on the malpractice insurance crisis or public access to health
care.

Rep. Steven Wolens, D-Dallas, said in Saturday editions of the Austin
American-Statesman,  "This is not good for doctors, it is not good for
the medical profession and it is not good for Texas.  They (the
legislators) shouldn't do it."

House Bill 3 aims, according to the report, to solve the crisis caused
by recent large increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums,
which some doctors say are driving them out of business.  The bill
places a cap on the award malpractice plaintiffs could receive for such
noneconomic damages as pain and suffering.  The bill contains numerous
other provisions making it harder for patients to sue their doctors.

House Bill 4 is a general bill "aimed at making it harder for Texans to
sue anyone at all," according to the report.  The provisions shift the
balance of power in lawsuits toward the defendants with restrictive
class action rules, and by shielding manufacturers from lawsuits if
their products meet state or federal standards and by limiting the fees
of plaintiffs' lawyers.

Rep. Nixon says all the "stuff" would pass independently, and it will
pass together.  "This is just an opportunity to consider it all in a
clear and coordinated fashion," said Mr. Nixon.  Because Republican
Governor Rick Perry has designated medical malpractice a crisis, the
merged bill can be passed and enacted at an accelerated pace.

"I don't see the justification for burdening HB3 (medical malpractice)
with this mammoth bill (HB4, general tort reform), which is really a
hodgepodge of tort reform ideas that have been rejected in prior
sessions," said Thomas Jacks, a trial lawyer and former president of
the Texas Trial Lawyers Association.

Joseph Cunningham, a Waco doctor, who is chairman of the Texas Medical
Association's Council on Legislation, said the group is "going to
support the leadership" in its efforts to pass malpractice legislation
in whatever form it deems best.  If the combined bill passes the House,
it is unclear how the Senate will respond to the joining of so many
unconnected proposals, Mr. Jacks said.


TREVOR LAW: Attorney General Files Action For Unfair Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a consumer protection
action against the Trevor Law Group of Beverly Hills, alleging the firm
committed unfair business practices in slapping thousands of small
businesses with abusive lawsuits filed solely to obtain nuisance
settlements and attorneys fees.

The Attorney General filed his complaint under the Unfair Competition
Act (UCA) - Business and Professions Code Section 17200 - the same
statute the Trevor Law Group used to sue auto repair shops, restaurants
and markets in the Los Angeles area.

"The Trevor Law Group operates a shakedown operation designed to
extract attorneys fees from law-abiding small business owners," Mr.
Lockyer said in a statement.  "With its unlawful practices, the Trevor
Law Group has abused one of the state's most important consumer
protection statutes and dishonored attorneys who practice law in the
public interest."

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of
the people of California, seeks full restitution of money acquired by
the defendants as a result of their violations of Section 17200.  The
lawsuit also asks the court to impose civil penalties of not less than
$1 million.  Additionally, the complaint requests the court to order
the defendants to drop all lawsuits that they have brought under the
UCA and false advertising law.  

Finally, the Attorney General's complaint seeks a permanent injunction
barring the defendants from filing new lawsuits under the UCA and false
advertising statute without court approval.

The action also names as defendants:

     (1) the Consumer Enforcement Watch Corporation (CEWC), the
         organization used by the Trevor Law Group as the plaintiff in
         their cases,

     (2) Damian Trevor,

     (3) Shane C. Han,

     (4) Allan Hendrickson, and

     (5) CEWC owner Ron Jamal Kort

The complaint alleges the Trevor Law Group and CEWC have "abused the
process of law" and unlawfully exploited a UCA provision that permits
private plaintiffs to represent the public in bringing actions for
unfair or unlawful business practices.

The defendants have filed 22 lawsuits in which they have named as
defendants 2,207 auto repair shops, more than 1,000 restaurants and
markets, and 210,000 "Does," or unnamed plaintiffs, according to the
complaint.  In the lawsuits that name multiple defendants, the
complaint alleges there is no connection among the businesses, nor is
there a relationship between the businesses and their alleged
misconduct.  That lack of connection violates Code of Civil Procedure
Section 379.

"Defendants represent they are in the business of enforcing consumer
laws through litigation," the complaint states.   "Defendants are
actually in the business of extracting money from small businesses
under the guise of purporting to enforce consumer protection laws .
defendants' real purpose is to obtain monetary payment for themselves
to which they are not entitled."

According to the complaint, the defendants formed the CEWC in April
2002 to serve as named plaintiff in their Section 17200 lawsuits.  They
then filed the actions based solely on notices of regulatory violations
they found on government agencies' Websites - violations the regulators
deemed insufficient to warrant disciplinary action.

Shortly after filing the suit, the complaint alleges, the Trevor Law
Group and CEWC used form letters to contact the businesses to try to
obtain quick settlements.  They told auto repair shop owners the cases
typically settled for $6,000 to $26,000.  The settlement range they
provided restaurant and market owners was $7,000 to $13,000.  If all
the named businesses settled at the low end of the ranges, the
complaint notes, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC still would realize a
$20.2 million windfall.

The form letters also falsely told business owners that settling the
case would protect them from similar lawsuits filed by other
plaintiffs.  Further, the complaint alleges, the Trevor Law Group and
CEWC demanded the settlements be kept secret from the public, whose
interests the defendants purported to serve.  Finally, according to the
complaint, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC entered into an illegal
agreement which called for the firm to share with CEWC some of the
money it received from settlements.


                    Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

March 6-7, 2003
VACCINE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Commons, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 13-14, 2003
MOLD INSURANCE LITIGATION CONFERENCES - FEATURING A KEYNOTE
ADDRESS BY MELINDA BALLARD
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

March 17-18, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 20-21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 23-24, 2003
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Long Beach
Contact: 818-505-1490

March 27-28, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Hotel Nikko, San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

April 2-5, 2003
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 4-5, 2003
TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

April 4-5, 2003
TOXIC TORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: 818-505-1490

April 8, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2003
HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2003:
ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

April 15, 2003
WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 28-29, 2003
EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 28-29, 2003
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Hotel Nikko, San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

May 1, 2003
TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

May 1-2, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 2003
Andrews Publication
New Orleans Grande Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: seminar@andrewspub.com

May 5-6, 2003
THE CURRENT STATE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN PA & NJ
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7-8, 2003
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

May 14-15, 2003
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Jose
Contact: 818-505-1490

June 2-3, 2003
BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 2-3, 2003
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 9, 2003
ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
CCA-TREA-TED WOOD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
American Law Institute
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 16-17, 2003
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

June 16-17, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 26-27, 2003
THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC
Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006; cservice@northstarconferences.com

August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

TBA
Water Contamination Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
Fair Labor Standards Conference
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

March 06-31, 2003
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS
ACTION LITIGATION IN TEXAS
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 06-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 2, 2003
TOXIC MOLD: WHAT REAL ESTATE PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW NOW
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

April 15, 2003
LITIGATING POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

May 14, 2003
CLASS ACTION BASICS
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOR LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

______________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class
Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

                    
                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CARREKER CORPORATION: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, 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,  
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
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, throughout the class period, Carreker filed financial
statements with the SEC which represented that the Company was
consistently delivering numerous consecutive quarters of record,
double-digit growth, which the Company attributed to the strong demand
for its products and Carreker's business model.

In addition, according to the complaint, the Company expressly assured
investors of its "dedication to transparent reporting practices" and
highlighted the supposed "quality and integrity of (Carreker's)
accounting and corporate governance practices."

These statements were materially false and misleading, according to the
complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company had been
improperly recognizing revenues throughout the class period, thereby
artificially inflating its revenues, income and earnings per share.

On December 10, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was investigating whether revenues were improperly recognized
by being booked at once instead of ratably over a period of time, as
required by applicable generally accepted accounting principles.  This
belated disclosure severely and negatively impacted Carreker's stock
price, causing it to fall by 22.6% in one day on extremely heavy
trading volume, from a December 9 close of $5.08 per share to close at
$3.93 per share on December 10.

Subsequently, the SEC initiated an investigation, which is ongoing,
into the Company's accounting practices.  On January 28, 2003, the
Company announced that it would be restating the financial reports it
has filed since 1998.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: (866) 264-3995 or by E-
mail: gademi@ademilaw.com


INTERCEPT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
purchasers of securities of InterCept, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT) between
September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003.

The suit is brought against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  Plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, defendants
made material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures due to their false assurances that the adult pornography
internet portion of their merchant processing business was
insignificant and due to their failure to disclose that VISA
regulations implemented on November 1, 2002, which were targeted
specifically to address risks of internet pornography card processing,
had caused a material loss of business.

Specifically, olaintiff alleges that defendants knew by the time their
fourth quarter earnings estimate was issued on November 4, 2002 that
they would suffer a material loss of business because defendants were
aware by November 1, 2002 which of their customers had met the deadline
to become sponsored merchants under the new VISA regulations.

In a January 9, 2003 press release, INTERCEPT announced that it was
revising its fourth quarter 2002 earnings per share estimate downward
to $0.92 to $0.98 from its earlier, November 4, 2002, estimate of $1.11
to $1.15.  The Company cited "reduced revenues in our merchant area
result(ing) primarily from the iBill operations, which experienced a
large loss of merchant customers following the implementation of a new
credit card association rule in mid-November."  

Following these disclosures, shares of INTERCEPT declined from the
class period high of $19.11 per share to close near $7.00 per share on
January 10, 2003 on unusually high volume.  By the close of trading on
January 10, 2003, the stock had lost more than half of its value just
prior to the disclosure.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia, 30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999
(toll-free) or by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com


MICROTUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Microtune, Inc. (Nasdaq: TUNE) from April 22, 2002 to February 20,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Microtune, 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 issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports
with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and
financial performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         immediately recognizing as revenue certain sales which should
         have been categorized as deferred revenue, as payment was not
         assured and in fact was not made for substantial periods of
         time;

     (2) that the Company failed to disclose that a material portion of
         its revenues had not in fact been paid for;

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

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements issued during the class period were materially  
         false and misleading.

On February 20, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, after the close
of regular trading, Microtune shocked the market by announcing that its
loss for the fourth quarter of 2002, the period ending December 31,
2002, was $80.2 million, or almost double the loss of $47 million which
it had reported in the same period of the prior year.  Despite having
shipped $16.1 million of product during the fourth quarter of 2002, the
Company announced that it would only be reporting revenues of $2.2
million "as a result of charges relating to five customers, including
(a) credits granted and/or (b) lack of timely payments."

As a result of this development, the Company announced that its Board
of Directors has directed its audit committee to conduct an inquiry of
the events that led to these "material negative charges."  The next
morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of Microtune fell
more than 35%, to approximately $1.20 per share, a far cry below their
class period high of $13.81 per share, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


MONTEREY PASTA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 (NasdaqNM:
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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Parametric
Technology Corporation (Nasdaq: PMTC) from October 19, 1999 through
December 31, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, 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, in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Federal securities laws
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 Guri Ademi by Phone: (866) 264-3995 or by E-
mail: gademi@ademilaw.com.  


ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. d/b/a
Royal Ahold, Inc. (NYSE: AHO) between June 7, 2001 and February 24,
2003, 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 June 7, 2001 and February 24, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Ahold American Depositary Receipts (ADR's).  The
complaint alleges that in 2001 and 2002 Ahold issued quarterly press
releases reporting the Company's results of operations and financial
condition.  These press releases and it public filings with the SEC
represented that the Company was growing at a breakneck pace.

The complaint further alleges that on February 24, 2002 Ahold shocked
the market; it issued a press release announcing that Ahold's operating
earnings for fiscal year 2001 and expected operating earnings for
fiscal year 2002 "have been overstated by an amount that the company
believes may exceed U.S. $500 mln," and that the overstatements would
require the restatement of Ahold's financial statements for fiscal year
2001 and the first three quarters of 2002.

The release further stated that the Company was investigating the
legality of certain transactions at its Argentine Disco unit, and that
the investigation had uncovered certain transactions that were
"questionable."  The Company further announced that, "in view of the
above" its CEO and CFO were resigning; the Company was deferring the
announcement of its full year financial results scheduled for March 5,
2003; and that Ahold's auditors had suspended the fiscal year 2002
audit pending completion of these investigations.

On this news, the price of Ahold securities plummeted. As illustrative,
the ADRs closed at $10.69 on Friday, February 21, 2003.  The Company's
announcement was released at about 2:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on
Monday, February 24, 2002.  The ADRs opened on the next trading day at
$4.36, fell to $3.60 and closed the day at $4.16, down 61% from the
previous day's closing price.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


RURAL CELLULAR: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of Rural Cellular Corporation (NASDAQ: RCCC)
publicly traded securities during the period between May 7, 2001 and
November 12, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused Rural
Cellular's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  Then, on
November 12, 2002, after the market closed, defendants revealed that
Rural Cellular's fiscal 2001 through Q2 2002 results had been
materially misstated and would have to be restated.

Rural Cellular has now admitted that it inappropriately recorded
transactions included in its FY 2001 through Q2 2002 results, and has
restated those results to remove millions in improperly reported income
(which illegally decreased the Company's losses) such that its FY 2001
through Q2 2002 financial statements were not a fair presentation of
Rural Cellular's results and were presented in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:
TELM) from May 17, 2001 through February 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Qwest agreed to purchase Tellium products, in return, Qwest
         executives received lucrative shares of Tellium in conjunction
         with its IPO, a fact that was not disclosed to the public;

     (2) Qwest did not need the large number of switches they had
         ordered from Tellium and, in fact, had no strong obligation to
         purchase more switches in the future and could avoid their
         contractual obligations with relative ease;

     (3) after issuing positive statements about the Company's
         financial standing, defendants unloaded large amount of their
         shares; and

     (4) because the Company issued false and misleading statements
         about Tellium's business and the Qwest contract, the Company's
         shares have been traded at artificially inflated prices, as
         high as $29 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (Nasdaq:TKTX),
alleging the biopharmaceutical firm issued false and misleading
statements to the public regarding the chances for approval of a new
drug.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all investors who bought
Transkaryotic common stock from January 4, 2001 through January 14,
2003.

The lawsuit claims the Company misled the public about its chances of
achieving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market
Replagal, an enzyme therapy for the treatment of Fabry disease.  
Shareholders contend that the company knew throughout the class period
that the FDA considered its clinical trial data on Replagal to be
unreliable.

Some of the facts began to emerge on October 2, 2002, nearly two years
after the FDA's findings, when Transkaryotic admitted:

     (1) that the FDA had determined the drug's primary pain reduction
         data was "uninterpretable" and

     (2) that Transkaryotic had decided to rely on other data --
         gathered from cardiac and renal clinical trials -- in its FDA
         application.

Six days later, Transkaryotic further acknowledged that the FDA had
also advised the company in early 2001 that it did not consider
Replagal's cardiac or renal data sufficient to support approval.

In response to the initial announcement, Transkaryotic common stock
plummeted from its closing price of $33.25 per share on October 2, 2002
to $12.75 at the end of the next trading day.  Transkaryotic and the
FDA disclosed additional facts on January 14, 2003, during an Advisory
Committee hearing.  At that meeting, the FDA stated its reasons for
believing that the pain data was not interpretable and further, that it
had informed Transkaryotic of its reasoning at least as early as
January 2001.

Trading in Transkaryotic common stock was halted during the Advisory
Committee meeting.  It closed at $6.49 per share on January 15, 2003.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern or Nicole S. Robbins by Mail:
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or
(617) 542-8300 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.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  * * *