CAR_Public/030306.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, March 6, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 46

                            Headlines                            

ALASKA: Economist Says Underpayment For Sockeye Salmon Exceeds $384M
BANK OF AMERICA: MO Court Okays Securities Settlement, Dismisses Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Dismisses Claims In Enron Securities Lawsuit
BAYER AG: Holocaust Lawyer To Help Settle 100 Baycol Cases Out of Court
CANADA: Quebec To Sue Generic Drug Firms Over Kickbacks To Pharmacists

CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Many Investor Suits Over Role in Enron Collapse
CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Numerous Suits Over Underwriting Activities in NY
GOODY'S FAMILY: Formulates Consent Decree For Race Discrimination Suit
HAMILTON BANCORP: Shareholders File Suit Alleging Misleading Statements
IBM: Recalls 56,000 Computer Monitors Due To Overheating, Fire Hazards

INTUIT INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set June 2003 in C.D. CA
MURRAY INC.: Recalls 270,000 Riding Lawn Tractors For Burn, Fire Hazard
OXFORD HEALTH: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit For Securities Violations in NY
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Suit Charges Non-Compliance With Merger Requirements
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Claim in Securities Suit

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Didn't Claim "Lights" Were Safer
UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Sue Trustees For Failing To Protect Interests
UNITED STATES: New Security System Draws Activists' Skepticism

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ATMEL CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in NJ
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
CORVIS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CORVIS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

CORVIS CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in MO
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MO
MCSI INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. OH
ROYAL AHOLD: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

ROYAL AHOLD: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ROYAL AHOLD: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
ROYAL AHOLD: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SAWTEK INC.: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Emerson Poynter Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                           *********

ALASKA: Economist Says Underpayment For Sockeye Salmon Exceeds $384M
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Economist Jeffrey Leitzinger of Los Angeles, testified as an expert
witness in a $1 billion class action on behalf of the fishermen.  He
said that damages for the underpayment caused by fixing prices for
sockeye salmon harvests between 1989 and 1995, should exceed $384
million, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  The fishermen were
underpaid an average of 42 cents a pound for 932,460,599 pounds of red
salmon, said Mr. Leitzinger.

The trial in the Superior Court in Anchorage, now in its fifth week,
stems from a class action filed on behalf of 4,500 commercial fishermen
who hold permits to fish the waters of Bristol Bay for sockeye salmon.  
The lawsuit contends that the Seattle-based processors and the Japanese
importers conspired to fix the prices in the lucrative Bristol Bay
fishery.

The court is allowing introduction of evidence dating back to 1989, but
Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski ruled that plaintiffs could only
collect damages for four years back from the date the complaint was
filed in the summer of 1995.

Mr. Leitzinger testified that after the 1988 sockeye season, the
behavior of the processors and importers indicated the existence of a
conspiracy.  Mr. Leitzinger said his opinion was based on five factors:

     (1) the alignment of prices,

     (2) no loss of market share to defendants,

     (3) the shift of monetary risk to the fishermen,

     (4) extensive price communications and

     (5) suppression of competition among the processors on trial

The economist also testified that he had noted evidence introduced
earlier at the trial of how processors withheld services which would
have helped smaller processors be competitive.  "That kind of conduct,"
said Mr. Leitzinger, " is a telltale sign of the existence of a
conspiracy."

He also said that when you have a system where everyone in an industry
knows what everyone else is doing, there is no need to post a
competitive price.  Importer didn't just announce they would pay lower
prices to processor, but told them to pay their suppliers less.

The trial began February 3, and is expected to take at least three
months.  So far, more than a dozen defendants have settled out of court
for an amount totaling more than $40 million.  Those funds are being
held in escrow until the trial has ended.  Then, Judge Michalski will
decide how the funds will be distributed.


BANK OF AMERICA: MO Court Okays Securities Settlement, Dismisses Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
dismissed the securities class action filed against the Bank of America
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors following the
merger of NationsBank Corporation and BankAmerica Corporation in
September 1998.  The suit was filed on behalf of:

     (1) persons who purchased NationsBank or BankAmerica shares
         between August 4, 1998 and September 30, 1998,

     (2) persons who purchased shares of the Corporation between
         October 1 and October 13, 1998, and

     (3) persons who held NationsBank or BankAmerica shares as of the
         merger

The claims on behalf of the purchasers and the persons who held
NationsBank shares as of the merger principally rested on the
allegation that the Company or its predecessors failed to disclose
material facts concerning a $1.4 billion financial relationship between
BankAmerica Corporation and D.E. Shaw & Co. that resulted in a $372
million charge to the Company's earnings in the quarter ending
September 30, 1998.

The claims of the persons who held BankAmerica shares as of the merger
principally rested on the allegation that the defendants misrepresented
a "takeover" of BankAmerica Corporation as a "merger of equals."  

In November 2002, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the
actions with prejudice.  The court entered the judgment after approving
a settlement providing for payment of $333.2 million to the classes of
purchasers and holders of NationsBank shares and $156.8 million to the
classes of purchasers of BankAmerica and Corporation shares and holders
of BankAmerica shares (all amounts to bear interest at the 90-day
Treasury Bill Rate from March 6, 2002 to the date of payment).

There remain pending several actions in California that have been
stayed since April 2000, when the Missouri Federal Court enjoined the
plaintiffs in those actions from purporting to prosecute their claims
on behalf of a class.  Several class members, including two lead
plaintiffs, are appealing from the Missouri court's judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Dismisses Claims In Enron Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
dismissed several claims in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Bank of America Corporation, and other commercial and
investment banks, over its role in the collapse of energy giant Enron
Corporation.  

The suit also names as defendants certain current and former Enron
officers and directors and certain lawyers and accountants.  The suit
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On May 8, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court later granted in part, dismissing the claims asserted
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.  A Section 11
claim on a single securities offering remains pending against the
Company.


BAYER AG: Holocaust Lawyer To Help Settle 100 Baycol Cases Out of Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for plaintiffs in the class action against Bayer AG over the  
cholesterol drug Baycol (also known as Lipobay) said he will attempt to
settle about 100 cases out of court, Reuters reports.

Michael Witti, who became prominent for helping Holocaust victims gain
compensation from the German government and industry three years ago,
said he would get his clients the same amount of money per head paid in
Baycol cases in the United States.  

"I believe five percent of the 2,000 Baycol patients I represent in
Germany are cases of serious damage and will be settled out of court,"
Mr. Witti, one of Germany's most prominent lawyers, told Reuters in a
telephone interview from Berlin.  "I will aim to get the same deal for
them as US patients have got out of Bayer."

The pharmaceutical firm faces over 7,000 lawsuits, filed after it
recalled its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol in August 2001.  The drug is
now linked to over 100 deaths.  Earlier this month, the German firm
settled almost 500 of these lawsuits out of court for about $125
million.

Mr. Witti said he would attempts to settle the first cases in Germany
within two months, and expected the first payments in summer.  US
courts tend to pay much more in compensation cases than European ones.  
He said he was waiting only for documents to be finalized before
starting talks with Bayer.  Mr. Witti is also trying to get the German
cases consolidated with American cases currently pending in a
Minneapolis court.

"We will try and include the German cases in the US hearing.  If they
do not do this on the grounds that you need a US passport in order to
receive damages from Bayer, it will be a real pity," he told Reuters.  
"We think Bayer will not be stubborn, for a very good reason: it's
cheap to settle these cases now . It must settle cases of heavy damage
before they become part of a class action as I believe it could end up
paying 10 times as much later."

He continued that he sees a clear legal parallel between the Holocaust
cases and their international class on the one hand, and Baycol on the
other.  He further said Bayer's problems might be exacerbated by the
current cold climate in US-German relations due to differences over
Iraq.  "The current political friction between Germany and the U.S. is
bad for Bayer . Anti-German lobbyists could create problems for them
now," Mr. Witti told Reuters.

"We're not aware of settlement attempts by Michael Witti," a Bayer
spokesman said, Reuters reports.


CANADA: Quebec To Sue Generic Drug Firms Over Kickbacks To Pharmacists
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec government plans to file a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court
in Canada by the end of June, demanding compensation from generic drug
manufacturers who allegedly have been paying kickbacks to pharmacists,
The Toronto Star reports.  It is believed the case will have national
repercussions.  A Montreal law firm already is seeking court
authorization for a class action.

The generic drug makers have been giving rebates, discounts and gifts
to pharmacists who promote their products, alleged Nathalie Pitre, a
spokeswoman for the Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec.  These are
practices forbidden under Quebec law, and we will demand reimbursement,
Ms. Pitre told the Toronto Star.

La Presse, the Montreal daily, reported recently that generic drug
makers spent about $500 annually on such incentives for pharmacists
throughout Canada.  The newspaper said 85 percent of Quebec pharmacists
accepted various kinds of benefits worth 30 to 50 percent of the value
of the medicines.

The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association issued a statement
noting that generic companies operate in a competitive market, selling
their products to pharmacies in Quebec.

"Like any business, they market and promote their products to their
customers," the statement said.  Such practices may be legal in some
provinces, but Quebec law explicitly forbids them, the Toronto Star
states.

The Montreal law firm of Kugler Kandestin is asking for court
authorization for a class action against the generic drug manufacturers
on behalf of consumers who allegedly paid inflated prices.

"It's an awful lot of money, and it's been going on at least since
1995, if not earlier, said Gordon Kugler, a partner with the law firm.  
He said that the class action is for the benefit of consumers and
taxpayers who have overpaid in a regulated industry.  Mr. Kugler
observed it is possible similar practices are engaged in across Canada,
but they might not be illegal in all the other provinces.

In the House of Commons for the federal government, Conservative MP
Loyola Hearn said such practices might be keeping generic drug prices
artificially high across Canada, and asked whether a federal
investigation was planned.

Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan said Ottawa works closely with the
provinces, and "whenever evidence is brought forward of non-compliance
or inappropriate activity, action is taken."


CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Many Investor Suits Over Role in Enron Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. and its underwriting arm Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
(SSB) faces numerous lawsuits over its role in the collapse of energy
giant Enron Corporation in late 2001.

In April 2002, the Company and, in one case, Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
(SSB) were named as defendants along with, among others, commercial
and/or investment banks, certain current and former Enron officers and
directors, lawyers and accountants in two putative consolidated class
action complaints that were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas seeking unspecified damages.  

One action, brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Enron
securities, titled "NEWBY, ET AL. V. ENRON CORP., ET AL.," alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

The other action, brought on behalf of current and former Enron
employees, titled "TITTLE, ET AL. V. ENRON CORP., ET AL.," alleges
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended (ERISA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), as well as claims for negligence and civil
conspiracy.

On May 8, 2002, the Company and SSB filed motions to dismiss the
complaints.  In December 2002, the motions to dismiss the NEWBY
complaint were denied.  The motion to dismiss the complaint in TITTLE
remains pending.

In July 2002, the Company, SSB and various of its affiliates and
certain of their officers and other employees were named as defendants,
along with, among others, commercial and/or investment banks, certain
current and former Enron officers and directors, lawyers and
accountants in a putative class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the Yosemite Notes and Enron Credit-Linked Notes, among
other securities, titled "HUDSON SOFT CO., LTD. V. CREDIT SUISSE FIRST
BOSTON CORPORATION, ET AL.."

The amended complaint alleges violations of Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks unspecified
damages.

Additional actions have been filed against Citigroup and certain of its
affiliates, along with other parties, relating to its role in the Enron
collapse including:

     (1) three actions brought in different state courts by state
         pension plans, alleging violations of state securities law and
         claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment;

     (2) an action by banks that participated in two Enron revolving
         credit facilities, alleging fraud, gross negligence, and
         breach of implied duties in connection with defendants'
         administration of a credit facility with Enron;

     (3) an action brought by several funds in connection with
         secondary market purchases of Enron debt securities, alleging
         violations of the federal securities law, including Section 11
         of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and claims for
         fraud and misrepresentation;

     (4) a series of putative class actions by purchasers of NewPower
         Holdings common stock, alleging violations of the federal
         securities law, including Section 11 of the Securities Act of
         1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934, as amended;

     (5) an action brought by two investment funds in connection with
         purchases of Enron-related securities for alleged violations
         of state securities and unfair competition statutes;

     (6) an action brought by several investment funds and fund owners
         in connection with purchases of notes of the Osprey I and
         Osprey II Trusts for alleged violation of state and federal
         securities laws and claims for common law fraud,
         misrepresentation and conspiracy;

     (7) an action brought by several investment funds and fund owners
         in connection with purchases of notes of the Osprey I and
         Osprey II Trusts for alleged violation of state and federal
         securities laws and state unfair competition laws and claims
         for common law fraud and misrepresentation;

     (8) an action brought by the Attorney General of Connecticut in
         connection with various commercial and investment banking
         services provided to Enron;

     (9) a putative class action brought by clients of SSB in
         connection with research reports concerning Enron, alleging
         breach of contract;

    (10) actions brought by several investment funds in connection with
         the purchase of notes and/or certificates of the Osprey
         Trusts, the Marlin Trust, and the Marlin Water trust, as well
         as the purchase of other Enron or Enron-related securities,
         alleging violation of state and federal securities laws, and
         common law civil conspiracy and fraud;

    (11) an action brought by a retirement and health benefits plan in
         connection with the purchase of certain Enron notes, alleging
         violation of federal securities law, including Section 11 of
         the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, violations of state
         securities and unfair competition law, and common law fraud
         and breach of fiduciary duty; and

    (12) an action brought by two broker/dealers in connection with the
         purchase of certain notes, alleging violation of federal and
         state securities laws.

Several of these cases have been consolidated with the NEWBY action and
stayed pending the court's decision on the pending motions of certain
defendants to dismiss NEWBY.

Additionally, Citigroup has provided substantial information to, and
has entered into substantive discussions with, the Securities and
Exchange Commission regarding certain of its transactions with Enron.  
Citigroup and certain of its affiliates also have received subpoenas
and requests for information from various other regulatory and
governmental agencies and Congressional committees, as well as from the
Special Examiner in the Enron bankruptcy, regarding certain
transactions and business relationships with Enron and its affiliates.  
Citigroup is cooperating fully with all such requests.


CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Numerous Suits Over Underwriting Activities in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., its underwriting arm, Salomon Smith Barney, and
certain executive officers and current and former employees have been
named as defendants in numerous putative class action complaints by
purchasers of various securities in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suits allege the defendants violated federal securities law,
including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable
basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of
interest with companies in connection with published investment
research, including:

     (1) Global Crossing, Ltd.,

     (2) WorldCom, Inc.,

     (3) AT&T Corporation,

     (4) Winstar Communications, Inc.,

     (5) Rhythm NetConnections, Inc.,

     (6) Level 3 Communications, Inc.,

     (7) Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.,

     (8) XO Communications, Inc., and

     (9) Williams Communications Group Inc.

Almost all of these actions are pending before a single judge in the
Southern District of New York for coordinated proceedings.  The court
has consolidated these actions into nine separate categories
corresponding to the companies named above.

Additional actions have been filed against Citigroup and certain of its
affiliates, and certain of their current and former directors, officers
and employees, along with other parties, including:

     (1) three putative class actions filed in state courts and
         federal courts on behalf of persons who maintained accounts
         with SSB asserting, among other things, common law claims,
         claims under state statutes, and claims under the Investment
         Advisers Act of 1940, for allegedly failing to provide
         objective and unbiased investment research and investment
         management, seeking, among other things, return of fees and
         commissions;

     (2) approximately fifteen actions filed in different state courts
         by individuals asserting, among other claims, common law
         claims and claims under state securities laws, for allegedly
         issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact
         and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest
         with companies in connection with published investment
         research, including Global Crossing and WorldCom, Inc.;

     (3) approximately five actions filed in different state courts by
         pension and other funds asserting common law claims and
         statutory claims under, among other things, state and federal
         securities laws, for allegedly issuing research reports
         without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing
         to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection
         with published investment research, including WorldCom, Inc.
         and Qwest Communications International Inc.; and

     (4) more than two hundred arbitrations asserting common law claims
         and statutory claims under, among other things, state and
         federal securities laws, for allegedly issuing research
         reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly
         failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in
         connection with published investment research.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Formulates Consent Decree For Race Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goody's Family Clothing Inc (Nasdaq NM: GDYS) reached a settlement for
the racial discrimination class action filed against it and Robert M.
Goodfriend, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer.  The
Company has submitted a proposed consent decree to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for its preliminary
approval.

The proposed consent decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the
lawsuit, alleging that the Company discriminated against a class of
African-American employees at its retail stores through the use of
discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by maintaining
unequal terms and conditions of employment.

The proposed settlement provides for a payment by the Company in the
aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class members (including the
named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as well as the Company's
implementation of certain policies, practices and procedures regarding,
among other things, training of employees.  The Company expects that
$3.1 million of such payment will be covered by its insurance.  The
proposed consent decree explicitly provides that it is not an admission
of liability by the Company and the Company continues to deny all of
the allegations.


HAMILTON BANCORP: Shareholders File Suit Alleging Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale has filed suit on behalf of some of
the shareholders of the former Hamilton Bank against that bank's
holding company Hamilton Bancorp and three of its former executives,
alleging that the investors were misled by statements painting "a false
picture of the bank's compliance with the regulators," according to a
report by The Miami Herald.

In the last six months of Hamilton Bank's "once-high-flying" life in
Miami, shares were still being bought up by shareholders who were
misled as to the seriousness of the dispute with the regulators.  
Executives continued to resist meeting regulators' demands.  Lastly,
Hamilton Bank issued almost a dozen press releases and financial
reports, many of which, as the lawsuit's complaint contends, gave the
impression that the bank had put its problems behind it.  The
shareholders' lawsuit represents this narrow period of time, the class
period - the final six months before the bank was closed.

"The company was continuing to misrepresent . that it was cooperating
with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, . that it was
putting in internal controls and providing against loan losses," said
Kenneth J. Vianale, attorney for the shareholder group.

Fed up, at last, with an almost consistent pattern of resistance and
non-compliance, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed
Hamilton Bank on January 11, 2001.  Named in the lawsuit, as well as
the former holding company Hamilton Bancorp, are:

     (1) former Hamilton Chairman and CEO Eduardo A. Masferrer,

     (2) former Executive President Juan Carlos Bernace and

     (3) former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
         Lucius T. Harris

Nearly every depositor recovered funds when the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation liquidated the bank and millions of dollars in
loan payments were recovered.  However, the shareholders lost
everything.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently cited the Company's
failure to file earning statements and issued a final ruling revoking
the registration of Hamilton Bancorp, holding company for Hamilton
Bank.


IBM: Recalls 56,000 Computer Monitors Due To Overheating, Fire Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to repair 56,000 computer
monitors.  The monitor's circuit board can overheat and smoke, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.  The Company has received five reports of
monitors overheating and smoking, including one report of minor
property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled IBM monitors include the G51 CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) and
G51t Touch Screen CRT models.  The G51 and G51t monitors have the
following model numbers on a label on the back of the unit: 6541-02N,
6541-02E, 6541-02S, 6541-Q0N, 6541-Q0E, and 6541-Q0S.  The label on the
back of the recalled G51 models also has a date of manufacture between
June 1997 and September 1997.  The "IBM" logo can be found on the front
of the units, which were manufactured in China and Malaysia.

IBM, MicroTouch Systems, and major retail stores nationwide, including
Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, and Radio Shack, sold the monitors from
June 1997 through December 1998 for about $370.

For more information, contact the IBM Repair Center by Phone:
(866) 644-3155 between 9 am and 7 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit
the Company's Website: http://www.ibm.com/pc/g51recall.  


INTUIT INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set June 2003 in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by Intuit, Inc. has been
set for June 2003 in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division.  The court has already
granted preliminary approval for the agreement.

The suit alleged violations of various federal and California statutes
and common law claims for invasion of privacy based upon the alleged
intentional disclosure to third parties of personal and private
customer information entered at Intuit's Quicken.com Web site.  The
complaints sought injunctive relief, orders to disgorge profits related
to the alleged acts, and statutory and other damages.

A similar lawsuit, Almanza v. Intuit Inc. was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Bernardino County, Rancho
Cucamonga Division.  

On January 6, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval to a
settlement between the Company and the plaintiff's counsel in all of
the remaining cases.

The proposed settlement terms are not material to the Company.  The
Company currently believes that the ultimate amount of liability, if
any, for any pending claims of any type (either alone or combined) will
not materially affect its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  


MURRAY INC.: Recalls 270,000 Riding Lawn Tractors For Burn, Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 270,000 riding
lawn tractors.  The fuel tank can crack and leak fuel, posing a burn
and fire hazard to consumers.

Murray has received 101 reports of fuel tanks leaking.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled lawn tractors were sold under the MURRAY(r) and STANLEY(r)
brand names and have 38-, 40-, 42-, 46-, and 52-inch cutting decks.  
The brand name is printed on the front or side of the lawn tractor and
the model number can be found on a nameplate under the seat.  The
following models are included in this recall:

405014X92, 405015X92, 40508X92, 425007X92, 42515X92, 42516X92,
425302X92, 425303X92, 425614X92, 42576X92, 465305X92, 465603X92,
46581X92, 425605X692, 465606X692, 525607X69, 405002X8, 425003X8,
425008X8, 425009X8, 42544X8, 38560X181, 42583X6, 465616X6, 40541,
465617, 40541X99, 425611X99, 465612X99, 465615X99, 465622X99,
425003X71, 465619X71, 465620X71

Retail and hardware stores, including Wal-Mart and Home Depot, sold the
lawn tractors nationwide from November 2000 through January 2003 for
between $800 and $1,500.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 876-1634 between
8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the company's Website:
http://www.murray.com.    


OXFORD HEALTH: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit For Securities Violations in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Health Plans Inc., one of the New York area's biggest health
insurers, agreed recently to pay $225 million to settle a securities
fraud suit brought by investors, according to a report by The New York
Times.

Oxford Health said in a statement that it would pay $200 million of the
settlement and that its insurers would pay $25 million.  The Company
expects to take an additional pretax charge of $40 million to $45
million for the first quarter of 2003, to fully cover its legal
expenses.

The settlement closes a legal case that has burdened Oxford Health for
almost six years.  The class actions brought by investors was scheduled
for trial next week, but Oxford Health's agreement to settle for $64
million more than had been offered last year seemed to encourage the
parties to reach settlement.

Investors had sued Oxford Health after its stock fell by 63 percent on
October 27, 1997, following an announcement that the company would have
a third-quarter loss because of billing delays and errors.

Oxford Health, initially, had offered $161.3 million to settle the
lawsuits and investors had sought as much as $2 billion in damages.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Suit Charges Non-Compliance With Merger Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smithfield Foods, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed by the United States
Justice Department, charging the Company with failing to properly
notify antitrust enforcers about stock purchases it made during its
attempts to buy rival IBP Inc. in 2000, Reuters reports.

IBP rejected the Company's bid in favor of a competing bid from Tyson
Foods, Inc. in January 2001, after a brief bidding war.  Under US
antitrust laws, in some cases, a company is required to pre-notify
antitrust authorities if they are planning to buy stock as part of a
possible merger.  That transaction could be exempt if the stock deal is
"solely for the purpose of investment."

The department said that was not the case in the Smithfield stock
acquisitions, Reuters reports.  "Companies cannot evade (the
requirement) by ignoring the plain language of the exemption," Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Deborah Majoras said in a statement.

The Company had no immediate comment on the lawsuit, according to
Reuters.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Claim in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed one of the claims in the consolidated securities class action
pending against Telecommunication Systems, Inc., certain of its current
officers and a director, and several investment banks that were the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period August 8, 2000 through December6, 2000, alleges that
the underwriters agreed to allocate common stock offered for sale in
the Company's initial public offering to certain purchasers in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
purchasers to make additional purchases of common stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege that all
of the defendants violated Sections11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and that the underwriters violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The claims against the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have been
dismissed with the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, and believes that
more than 300 other companies have been named in nearly identical
lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same law firms that
represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Company.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Didn't Claim "Lights" Were Safer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette maker Philip Morris is on trial in a non-jury trial before
Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron, in Madison County, Illinois, for
allegedly defrauding smokers of light cigarettes by claiming light
cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes. Lawyers for the
plaintiffs are expected to ask for a judgment in the billions,
according to a report by the Belleville News-Democrat (IL).

Lawyers for Philip Morris, who began presenting their defense on
February 13, contend that Philip Morris never claimed light cigarettes
are safer.  "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette.  If you are
concerned about your health, you should quit," said John Mulderig, a
Philip Morris attorney, during an interview.

The consumer fraud class action began January 21, and attorneys on both
sides expect the trial to end in a week or two.  The class action
claims Philip Morris defrauded about 1.1 million Illinois smokers by
leading them to believe Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights produce
less nicotine and tar than regular cigarettes.  The lawsuit, which
seeks punitive damages, alleges that the light cigarettes are actually
more harmful, because people draw on them harder to get a desired level
of nicotine.

Plaintiffs' attorneys believe if punitive damages are awarded against
Philip Morris, the company will have to take light cigarettes off the
market or rename them.

The defense argued that the federal government labeled light cigarettes
as safer, based on government tests.  However, the plaintiff attorneys
claim the company has designed light cigarettes to perform well on
machine tests, all the while knowing people would still get just as
much tar and nicotine from puffing harder, as tests show smokers of
light cigarettes do.

Richard Carchman, a scientist who works as a consultant for Philip
Morris, testified this week that tests do not show that Marlboro Lights
are more dangerous than regular Marlboro.


UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Sue Trustees For Failing To Protect Interests
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of United Airlines employees recently filed a lawsuit against
the trustees of the airline's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP),
alleging that the plan's trustees failed to protect the employees'
interests, thereby costing them billions of dollars in lost
investments, according to a report by Reuters English News Service.

The proposed class action was filed in the United States District Court
in Chicago, Illinois, alleging that the committee that ran ESOP was not
acting objectively when it chose to hold stock in United's parent
corporation, UAL Corporation, as it plunged in value.  UAL filed the
largest bankruptcy in aviation history in December 2002.

Hagens Berman, a Seattle law firm, represents the United employees.  
The firm recently released a written statement presenting the details
of the lawsuit.  United, which is 55 percent-owned by its employees,
did not immediately return calls for comment.

The lawsuit claims that "the plan trustees fell short of their duty
when they failed to move ESOP holdings to less risky, more appropriate
investments, all the while failing to disclose that the stock was an
imprudent investment."   State Street Bank, the plan's independent
trustee, began to sell UAL stock last fall when it determined the plan
had too much capital invested in UAL shares.  United's ESOP now holds
about 20 million UAL shares.

State Street Bank has been in court since December, in fact, to get
authorization to sell more shares in order to protect shareholder
value, since generally the shares are rendered worthless in a
bankruptcy.  However, a bankruptcy judge ruled last week that State
Street cannot sell more shares, because the sales would jeopardize an
important tax benefit to United.


UNITED STATES: New Security System Draws Activists' Skepticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government and transportation officials have
formulated a new system that would check background information and
assign a threat level for every passenger of a commercial flight, the
Associated Press reports.

The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) was
ordered by US Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Delta
Air Lines will try it out at three undisclosed airports beginning next
month, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the
year, with transport officials saying a contractor will be picked soon
to build the nationwide computer system.  The system will check such
things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare
passenger names with those on government watch lists.

Activists have protested the institution of the computer system, saying
the potential for unconstitutional invasions of privacy and for
database mix-ups that could lead to innocent people being branded
security risks runs high.  

"This system threatens to create a permanent blacklisted underclass of
Americans who cannot travel freely," Katie Corrigan, a lawyer for the
American Civil Liberties Union told AP.  There also is concern that the
government is developing the system without revealing how information
will be gathered and how long it will be kept.

The system's defenders say it will determine who is potentially
dangerous while ensuring law-abiding citizens aren't given unnecessary
scrutiny.  Transportation officials say the system will use databases
that already operate in line with privacy laws and won't profile based
on race, religion or ethnicity.  "What it does is have very fast access
to existing databases so we can quickly validate the person's
identity," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told AP.

An oversight panel is also being formed.  The Transportation Security
Administration assured that they will set up procedures to resolve
complaints by people who say they don't belong on the watch lists.  
Transportation Department spokesman Chet Lunner told AP a Federal
Register notice saying the background information will be stored for 50
years is inaccurate.  He said such information will be held only for
people deemed security risks.

Jay Stanley, an ACLU spokesman, was skeptical.  "When it says in print,
50 years, we'd like to see something else in print to counter that," he
told AP.

Capt. Steve Luckey, an airline pilot who helped develop the system,
told AP CAPPS II will help discern a passenger's possible intentions
before he gets on a plane.  Unlike the current system, in which data
stays with the airlines' reservation systems, the new setup will be
managed by TSA.  Only government officials with proper security
clearance will be able to use it.

CAPPS II will collect data and rate each passenger's risk potential
according to a three-color system: green, yellow, red.  When travelers
check in, their names will be punched into the system and their
boarding passes encrypted with the ranking.  TSA screeners will check
the passes at checkpoints.  The vast majority of passengers will be
rated green and won't be subjected to anything more than normal checks,
while yellow will get extra screening and red won't fly, the Associated
Press reports.

Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action
Project, which advocates airline safety and security, is skeptical the
system will work.  "The whole track record of profiling is a very poor
to mixed one," Mr. Hudson told AP, noting incorrect profiles of the
Unabomber and the Washington-area snipers.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ATMEL CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Atmel
Corporation (Nasdaq:ATML) between January 20, 2000 and July 31, 2002
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, George
Perlegos, and Donald Colvin.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Atmel's financial results during the class
period.  In particular, the Complaint alleges that from April 1999
until sometime in 2001, Atmel supplied its key customer, Seagate, with
computer chips that were used in the millions of disk drives that
Seagate sold to the public.  Unbeknownst to Seagate and the investing
public, Atmel's chips were defective and caused Seagate's disk drives
to fail, as outlined in a lawsuit filed by Seagate at the end of the
class period.

In its lawsuit, Seagate alleges that it sustained millions of dollars
in damages as a result of Atmel's defective computer chips, and that
Seagate's damages continue to grow as the extent of the problem becomes
known.  During the class period, defendants failed to disclose the
widespread problem with its computer chips, and in fact, reported
record profitability and revenues.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the price
of Atmel securities was artificially inflated throughout the class
period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer
damages.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (888) 873-3999 or
(404) 873-3900 by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of Bio-Technology General (Nasdaq: BTGC) from April
19, 1999 through August 2, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that Bio-Technology, a company that researches,
develops, manufactures and markets bio-pharmaceutical products, and
certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning Bio-Technology's earnings and revenue.  

Specifically, Bio- Technology falsely reported earnings during 1999,
2000, and 2001 through inappropriate revenue recognition practices,
including recognizing revenue on shipments to distributors when
significant uncertainties existed concerning the realization of the
invoiced amounts.  On August 2, 2002, defendants announced that
reported financial results would be restated to eliminate revenue that
had been improperly recorded.  The Company has now restated its results
for each of the years ended December 31, 1999, December 31, 2000 and
December 31, 2001.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of
all purchasers of Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE:BBI) securities between April
24, 2002 and December 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Blockbuster's financial results
and business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company was being negatively affected by a decline in
         rental game margins;

     (2) that the Company's fiscal 2003 projections did not include
         Video-on-Demand impact on the Company's revenue and income;

     (3) that the Company's core rental business was eroding due to
         declining DVD purchase prices; and

     (4) as a result, defendants did not and could not have genuinely
         believed their projections for the Company's financial results
         for fiscal 2002 and beyond were accurate when made.

As a result of these false statements, Blockbuster's stock traded at
artificially high levels during the class period allowing the
individual defendants to sell more than $13 million of their own
shares.  On December 18, 2002, however, Blockbuster shocked the market
when it revealed that its revenue would be a fraction of its previous
forecast, resulting in a decline of the price of the Company's stock of
more than 25% in one day.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
by E-mail: AVozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.faruqilaw.com


CORVIS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq: CORV)
publicly traded securities during the period between August 22, 2000
and January 29, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10-b(5).  Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants
repeatedly issued false and misleading "Buy" recommendations on Corvis,
while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited
partnerships to sell their Corvis shares.

Moreover, the suit alleges that Mr. Johnson had invested in the limited
partnerships which he privately advised to sell their Corvis shares.  
As a result of defendants' actions, the suit charges that Corvis shares
traded at artificially elevated prices during the class period, and
that plaintiff and the class were damaged.

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


CORVIS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Corvis Corporation
(Nasdaq: CORV) from August 22, 2000 through January 29, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that Robertson Stephens Inc. and its former managing
director and stock analyst Paul Johnson violated the federal securities
laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading "Buy" recommendations
regarding Corvis during the class period.  Specifically, Paul Johnson
issued "Buy" recommendations on Corvis to the public while privately
advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships in which he
had invested to sell their Corvis shares.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net


CORVIS CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq:
CORV), between August 22, 2000 and January 29, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges Robertson Stephens, Inc. and its former managing
director and senior research analyst, Paul Johnson, with violations of
federal securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants repeatedly issued false and misleading "Buy" recommendations
on Corvis -- a maker of optical networking equipment -- while privately
advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships to sell
their Corvis shares.

The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, the market price of Corvis common stock was
artificially inflated, maintained or stabilized during the class
period, inflicting damages on investors who purchased the stock at the
time, relying on the integrity of the market price of the stock.

On January 9, 2003, the SEC and the National Association of Securities
Dealers charged Paul Johnson for issuing Buy ratings on Corvis to the
public while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited
partnerships (in which Johnson had invested) to sell their Corvis
shares.

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


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in MO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of institutions, individuals and other investors who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Interstate Bakeries
Corp. (NYSE:IBC) between September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002, in
the United States District Court in Missouri.  In addition to IBC, the
suit names as defendants the senior officers and directors of the
Company during the class period, namely:

     (1) Frank W. Coffey,

     (2) Mark Dirkes,

     (3) James R. Elsesser,

     (4) Robert P. Morgan,

     (5) Charles A. Sullivan,

     (6) Richard D. Willson and

     (7) Paul E. Yarick

The suit charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements regarding IBC's business and financial condition
during the class period.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, inter alia, defendants mislead
investors and the market regarding IBC's sales of critical products,
the Company's ability to increase prices of certain products without
adversely impacting market share and profits and IBC's ability to
maintain profits in the face of higher ingredient and commodity prices.

For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by Phone:
866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Interstate Bakeries
Corporation (NYSE:IBC) from September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Interstate Bakeries Corporation 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 regarding
the Company's financial performance and future prospects.

Specifically, defendants claimed that the Company was experiencing a
rebound in the sales of its sweet cake products, which had slowed down
in the previous quarter, and described how the Company would be able to
increase prices for certain bread products and maintain its anticipated
level of profitability in the face of increasing commodity prices.

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 the beginning of the class period, the Company was
         actually experiencing a negative variance with respect to cake
         sales as compared to the prior year and, therefore, had not
         seen any indication of any rebound in cake sales; and

     (2) the Company did not maintain sufficient centralized control
         over price increases to ensure that the Company could raise
         prices on bread products without damaging profitability;
         defendants knew that an increase in prices typically would
         result in a sacrifice in market share and the Company actually
         was exposed to significant risk with respect to its ability to
         attain profits based upon commodity prices.

On December 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, IBC shocked the
market by reporting extremely poor second quarter earnings, which it
attributed primarily to weak sales of its sweet cakes.  Following this
announcement, shares of IBC common stock plunged in value by over 35%,
from $23.16 per share on December 16, 2002, to $15.00 per share on
December 17, 2002, on extremely heavy trading volume that was almost
fifty (50) times more active than normal.  

Prior to the disclosure of the Company's true financial condition,
certain of the individual defendants and other IBC insiders sold shares
of their personally held common stock for gross proceeds in excess of
$16 million.

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


MCSI INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division on behalf of purchasers of MCSI, Inc. (Nasdaq: MCSI) stock
during the period between July 24, 2001 and February 26, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning MCSI's financial results and
business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that MCSI
touted the success of its businesses -- particularly the high-margin
systems integration business.

These statements were false and misleading as they failed to disclose
that MCSI's business was actually corroding and that its integration
business was not operating on as a successful level as represented.  As
a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period, allowing insiders to sell massive
amounts of stock following two follow-on public offerings.

On February 26, 2002, however, the Company shocked the market by
reporting a 29% decline in shares for the fourth quarter of 2001.  In
reaction to this announcement, shares of MCSI common stock plunged by
40%, falling from $17.35 per share close on February 25, 2002 to a
close of $10.40 per share on February 26, 2002.

For more details, contact David Scott or Neil Rothstein by Phone:
1-800-404-7770 or by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of securities of KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V. d/b/a ROYAL
AHOLD, Inc. (NYSE:AHO) between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003.  The
suit is brought against AHOLD, certain of its officers and directors,
and its subsidiary, US Foodservice, Inc.

During the class period, defendants issued many statements and filed
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", which will require
the Company to restate its previously issued financial reports for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002.  On the day of this disclosure, 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.  The market capitalization loss on this one day alone was over
$4 billion.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (888) 873-3999 or
(404) 873-3900 by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Koninklijke Ahold, N.V. (Nasdaq:AHO) common stock
between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, 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, thereby artificially inflating the price of Ahold securities.

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


ROYAL AHOLD: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the 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 May 15, 2001 and February 21,
2003, inclusive, against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and its accountants, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

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 period, 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 U.S. 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 Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Koninklijke (translated as "Royal") Ahold, N.V.
(NYSE:AHO) securities between March 6, 2001 through February 21, 2003,
inclusive,

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Ahold's financial results and
business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Ahold failed to disclose that
the Company had materially overstated its income by improperly
including far higher promotional allowances-provided by suppliers to
promote their products-than the Company had actually received in
payment.  Moreover, the Company engaged in certain transactions which
were possibly illegal and were improperly accounted for. As a result,
the price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated
throughout the class period.

On February 24, 2003, however, Ahold shocked the market by announcing
that it would restate its financial results for its fiscal year, 2001
and for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2002.  Defendant
revealed, among other things, that due to overstatements of income
related to promotional programs, earnings have been overstated by at
least $500 million.  Following the release of this news, Ahold's stock
price declined in excess of 60% to close at $4.16 per share,
significantly below the class period high of $32.65.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.faruqilaw.com


SAWTEK INC.: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Sawtek, Inc., now a subsidiary of
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq: TQNT) between January 27, 2000,
and May 24, 2001, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida against the Company
and:

     (1) Kimon Anemogiannis,

     (2) Gary A. Monetti and

     (3) Raymond A. Link

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 January 27, 2000, and May 24, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Emerson Poynter Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Veritas Software Corporation (Nasdaq:VRTS) common
stock during the period between January 24, 2001 and January 16, 2003,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results during the class
period.  In particular, it is alleged that the Company improperly
accounted for transactions with AOL Time Warner whereby the Company's
revenue and income was materially overstated during the class period.

The transactions in question involve a $50 million software purchase by
AOL Time Warner and a $20 million advertising purchase from AOL Time
Warner.  On January 17, 2003, the Company announced the restatement of
its 2000, 2001, and 2002 financial results as a result of the improper
accounting.  The suit alleges that as a result of these false and
misleading statements the price of VERITAS securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other
members of the Class to suffer damages.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Gary L. Bloom,

     (2) Kenneth E. Lonchar, and

     (3) Paula A. Sallaberry

For more details, contact Tanya Autry by Phone: (800) 663-9817 (Toll
Free) or by E-mail: shareholder@emersonfirm.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  * * *