CAR_Public/030317.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, March 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 53

                           Headlines                            


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
ARIZONA: New Bill Limiting Lawsuits On Home Defects Approved In House
AUCTION HOUSES: Sotheby's, Christie's Settle To Avoid Other Lawsuits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces New Suit Over Drug Pricing Policies in TN

DUPONT: WV DEP Limits C8 Water, Air Levels In Plant Pollution Permits
ELECTRONIC DATA: Asks TX Court To Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits
HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Several Consumer Lawsuits Over Inkjet Printers
HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeal of TX Securities Settlement Approval Withdrawn

HEWLETT PACKARD: Named As Defendant in South Africa Apartheid Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: Female Inmates Bring Federal Suit Over Cook County Lockdowns
MISSOURI: Federal Judge Rules That Sex Offender List Must Remain Public
NL INDUSTRIES: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Environmental Damages Lawsuit
NL INDUSTRIES: Discovery Commences In Consolidated Suit Over Lead in OK

RETEK INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
RETEK INC.: Expects Securities Lawsuits in MN Court To Be Consolidated
SEARS ROEBUCK: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Being Consolidated in IL Court
SEARS ROEBUCK: Illinois Court Consolidates Employees' 401(K) Plan Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Presented In IL Smokers' Lawsuit

TRUDEAU CORPORATION: Recalls 45,200 Fondue Pots For Fire, Burn Hazard

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTROPOWER INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in DE
BAYER AG: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. MO
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
MONTEREY PASTA: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
SAWTEK INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SPRINT FON: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KS Court

                             *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Agilent Technologies, certain of its officers and directors and
certain investment bank underwriters.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of Company IPO shares, in violation of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from November 17, 1999 through
December 6, 2000, an earlier Class Action Reporter states.

On February 19, 2003 the court issued a ruling dismissing claims
against the Company based upon Section 10 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, but denying the motion to dismiss as to claims
against Agilent founded upon Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended.

This case is similar to numerous other cases filed in the Southern
District Court of New York concerning the IPO market of the late
1990's.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
and will defend itself vigorously.  


ARIZONA: New Bill Limiting Lawsuits On Home Defects Approved In House
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's House approved a bill backed by homebuilders to require
homeowner associations to get approval from a majority of their
memberships, excluding votes cast by sellers, before filing lawsuits
over shoddy construction, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  The
bill was approved 36 to 20 and now goes to the Senate.

State law already requires that the boards of home associations notify
all association members regarding planned lawsuits over construction
defects; the new bill takes the obstacles placed in the path of
homeowner associations wanting to sue over construction defects one
step further:  now they would have to get majority approval from the
association membership.

The bill approved by the House is another chapter in the ongoing fight
by homebuilders to lower their insurance costs, which the builders
blame on class actions filed by the homebuyers over construction
defects.

Last year, then-Governor Jane Hull signed into law legislation that
created a formal 90-day process for fixing construction defects without
buyers having to go to court.  Under that legislation, builders'
failure to follow the process could be used against them in court.  The
2002 law, labeled a compromise, still allowed homeowners safety or
life-threatening problems to go straight to court.

Supporters of the new bill argue that many homeowners are unaware that
their associations have sued over defects or that the existence of the
lawsuits filed on behalf of them could affect values of their
properties.  On the other hand, opponents have said the requirement for
a majority membership vote would effectively stifle lawsuits because it
would be just about impossible to get approval from that many owners.


AUCTION HOUSES: Sotheby's, Christie's Settle To Avoid Other Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Auction houses Sotheby's and Christie's, in an effort to clear the
legal mess left behind by a price-fixing conspiracy which sent tremors  
through the segment of the world that deals in high-valued fine art,
jewelry, furniture, and fine antiques, decided to pay $40 million to
settle an antitrust class action brought by overseas customers,
claiming price-fixing by the two houses, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The overseas settlement is designed to head off two other class action
claims.  Therefore, under the terms of the settlement, a lawsuit
threatened by Sotheby's and Christie's customers in England and another
suit by their customers in Canada will be dismissed, the houses said.
However, the settlement will be open to other overseas sellers as well.

Each auction house will pay $20 million in the settlement, which the
lawyers have said could eventually involve tens of thousands of
customers worldwide.  A judge still must give final approval to the
settlement.

"You are talking about dozens and dozens of auctions, with hundreds of
items in each auction, occurring in auction houses around the world,"
said Charles Wright, lead attorney in the Canadian suit.  The two
houses control nearly the entire highly lucrative worldwide auction
market in everything from furniture to antiques to fine art.  Mr.Wright
said he expected tens of thousands of Christie's and Sotheby's
customers eventually to apply for payouts from the instant settlement.

In 2001, a federal judge approved a $537 million settlement of a
lawsuit by 130,000 US customers of the auction houses.  The two houses
split the payouts for these customers as well.

The United States government charged the two auction houses with
colluding in 1993 to end their costly rivalry by eliminating discounts
and charging nonnegotiable commissions, thereby depriving the sellers
of the opportunity to bargain for a lower price, a loss which has been
estimated to have cost sellers as much as $40,000 in commissions from
1993 to 1999.

Former Sotheby's chairman A. Alfred Taubman was convicted two years ago
of plotting with his Christie's chief, Anthony Tennant, to fix the
commissions paid by sellers of fine art from 1993 to 1999.  Mr. Tennant
lives in England; he has refused to come to the United States for trial
and cannot be extradited on antitrust charges.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action pending against it, its Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer.

Several suits were commenced in August 2002, alleging that that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misleading
statements that allegedly caused the Company's common stock to trade at
inflated levels.  In December 2002, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended class action, which named nine additional Baxter officers as
defendants.

In October 2002, the Company and members of its Board of Directors were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the same court by an alleged
participant in the Baxter Incentive Investment Plan (Plan), purportedly
on behalf of the Plan and a class of Plan participants who purchased
shares of Baxter common stock.  This lawsuit sets forth claims for
unspecified damages under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, and is based on allegations similar to those
made in the earlier securities lawsuits.  This suit was later
consolidated with the other suits mentioned above.

The Company believes that all of these lawsuits are without merit.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces New Suit Over Drug Pricing Policies in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a new class action filed in addition
to other pending suits on behalf of purchasers of Medicare and Medicaid
eligible drugs alleged to have been injured by the Company and others
as a result of pricing practices for the drugs.

Nine lawsuits were filed against the Company and several of its
subsidiaries in various federal courts as a result of pricing practices
for such drugs, which are alleged to be artificially inflated.  The
suits have been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts for consolidated pretrial case management
under Multi District Litigation rules.  Claimants seek damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under various state and/or federal
statutes.

In addition, in January 2002, the Attorney General of Nevada filed a
civil suit in the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County,
Nevada.  In February 2002, the Attorney General of Montana filed a
civil suit in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark
County, Montana.  These two lawsuits, which each name a subsidiary of
the Company as a defendant and seek damages, injunctive relief, civil
penalties, disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution, allege that prices
for Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs were artificially inflated in
violation of various state laws.

In October 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation issued
an order denying plaintiffs' motions to vacate orders transferring the
actions brought in Nevada and Montana to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for consolidated pretrial case
management under the Multi District Litigation rules.

The suit names the Company and a subsidiary as defendants, along with
others and is pending in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of a class of individuals and entities alleged to
have been injured as the result of artificially inflated prices of
prescription drugs.  The complaint seeks civil damages, injunctive
relief and costs.  

In January 2003, a subsidiary of Baxter International was named along
with others in a new suit filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for
the 30th Judicial District on behalf of a class of individuals alleged
to have been injured as the result of artificially inflated prices of
prescription drugs.  The complaint seeks treble damages, attorneys'
fees, interest and restitution of alleged losses.

Various state and federal agencies are conducting civil investigations
into the marketing and pricing practices of Baxter and others with
respect to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.


DUPONT: WV DEP Limits C8 Water, Air Levels In Plant Pollution Permits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits on both air and water levels for emission of the controversial
chemical C8, used by DuPont at its Wood County plant in West Virginia,
will be enforced as part of the company's pollution permits, a
spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)  
announced recently, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.

The DEP notified DuPont of the change in its permits by a letter, said
DEP attorney Perry McDaniel.  The permit change will give DEP the power
to enforce limits on the emissions of ammonium perfluorooctanoate,
commonly known as C8, from DuPont's Washington Works.  A report issued
by DEP's toxicology team last August set a limit of one microgram per
cubic meter as a long-term exposure level.  That means that the average
annual emission of C8 must be no greater than one microgram per cubic
meter at any area outside of DuPont's plant.

Mr. McDaniel said the agency has made it clear that the standard
imposed on DuPont's permits for C8 emissions "is a provisional number,
a number to use for compliance between now and the time that the US
Environmental Protection Agency comes out with an official standard.

"We thought it was important to do something, and this is the way we
could do that," said Mr. McDaniel.

The imposition of the emission levels at this time stems from a consent
order Dupont signed during the course of a class action filed by
residents who live near the Washington Works plant.  The class action
alleges that the Company knowingly discharged C8 into water supplies,
and that exposure to such discharges in the water has made the
residents sick.

DuPont agreed to limit C8 emissions - both air and water emissions -
from its plant in a December 2001 consent order that established
temporary guidelines while the US EPA develops permanent guidelines
for the chemical.

C8 is a key chemical in the manufacturing of Teflon, which is what
Dupont makes at its Wood County, West Virginia, plant.  So far, it has
not been regulated by either state or federal agencies.  Little is
known for certain about the chemical, including its effects on human
health, which is why the C8 limits set for the chemical's emissions on
Dupont's pollution permits had to be provisional, conditioned upon the
guidelines to be developed by EPA research.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Asks TX Court To Consolidated Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas to consolidated several class
actions pending against it and certain of its officers.

Several suits were filed from September through December 2002 in
response to the Company's September 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement,
publicity about certain equity hedging transactions that it had entered
into, and the drop in the price of EDS common stock.  The cases allege
violations of various federal securities laws and common law fraud
based upon purported misstatements and/or omissions of material facts
regarding our financial condition.

In addition, five class actions have been filed on behalf of
participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan against the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and, in some cases, its directors,
alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and made
misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of Company shares.

The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.  As these matters
are in the earliest stages, the Company is not able to determine the
actual impact on its consolidated financial statements; however, the
Company does not expect the impact to be material.


HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Final Approval To Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
granted final approval to a settlement proposed by Hastings
Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAST) to settle a consolidated securities
class action pending against it and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.

Several suits was commenced in 2000 after the Company restated its
consolidated financial statements for the first three quarters of
fiscal 1999 and the prior four fiscal years.  The suits assert various
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  On May 15, 2000, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company,
its current and former directors and officers at the time of the
Company's June 1998 initial public offering and three underwriters,
Salomon Smith Barney, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. and Furman Selz, LLC
asserting various claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Motions to dismiss these actions were filed by
the Company and, on September 25, 2001, were denied by the court,
according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story.

On September 12, 2002, the Company announced that an agreement in
principle to settle the actions described above had been reached. The
settlement requires a payment of $5.75 million ($3.25 million of which
the Company estimates will be funded from amounts remaining under the
Company's director and officer insurance policy after the payment of
litigation expenses) and the assignment to the plaintiff settlement
class of any claims the Company may have had against KPMG Peat Marwick,
LLP, the Company's outside auditors at the time of the March 7, 2000
announcement.  The settlement resolves all claims against the Company,
its current and former defendant officers and directors and the
defendant underwriters.  Based on the foregoing, the Company recorded a
loss contingency of $2.5 million, or $0.22 per share, during the second
quarter of fiscal 2002.  

"We are pleased that these lawsuits have been brought to a close," John
H. Marmaduke, President and Chief Executive Officer, said in a
statement.  ". we are now able to devote all of our time to managing
our business."

For more details, contact Dan Crow, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Hastings Entertainment, Inc. by Phone: 1-806-351-2300, ext.
6000 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.gohastings.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces Several Consumer Lawsuits Over Inkjet Printers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard faces several consumer class actions filed in different
states across the country.  The various plaintiffs throughout the
country claim to have purchased different models of HP inkjet printers
over the past four years.  The basic factual allegation of these
actions is that when the affected consumers purchased HP printers, they
received half-full or "economy" ink cartridges instead of full
cartridges.  Plaintiffs claim that HP's advertising, packaging and
marketing representations for the printers led the consumers to believe
they would receive full cartridges.

One suit is an unfair business practices consumer suit filed in state
court in Riverside County, California.  Similar suits have been filed,
in coordination with the original plaintiffs, in 32 additional states.  
These actions seek injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees under
various state unfair business practices statutes and common law claims
of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The Company obtained summary judgment against plaintiffs in the
California action, which the plaintiffs are appealing.  The Company
also obtained summary judgment in Kansas and Arizona.  The matter has
been certified as a class action in North Carolina state court, and a
trial date has been set for June 9, 2003.  The Ohio and New York
litigation has been dismissed.  In Connecticut, the trial court denied
the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action.  In Oregon and
Washington, the case has been dismissed without prejudice.  The
litigation is in various stages in other jurisdictions.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Appeal of TX Securities Settlement Approval Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Hewlett
Packard in the United States District Court in the Southern District of
Texas voluntarily withdrew their appeal of the approval of the
settlement for the suit.

The consolidated suit was brought against Compaq Computers, which the
Company acquired, and certain present and former directors and officers
of Compaq, on behalf of all persons who purchased Compaq common stock
from July 10, 1997 through March 6, 1998.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by withholding information and making
misleading statements about channel inventory, factoring of receivables
and Compaq marketing programs in order to inflate the price of Compaq's
common stock, and further alleges that a number of individual
defendants sold Compaq common stock at those purportedly inflated
prices.  In July 2000, the case was certified as a class action, but
this action was later vacated by the United States Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Compaq reached a mediated settlement with lead plaintiffs and their
attorneys in the amount of approximately $29 million, of which
approximately $28 million is covered by insurance.  The parties
presented this settlement to the federal court for approval in June
2002.  The final hearing on the fairness of the settlement was held on
November 1, 2002.  On November 25, 2002, the court entered two orders.  
One order approved the settlement and granted a final judgment and
dismissal with prejudice.  The second order awarded fees and expenses
to plaintiffs' counsel.

On December 17, 2002, a notice of appeal of both orders was filed.  On
February 3, 2003, an agreed motion for voluntary dismissal of the
appeal was filed and the appeal was dismissed.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Named As Defendant in South Africa Apartheid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Company was named as a defendant along with other
multinational corporations in the class action filed in United States
District Court in the Southern District of New York on behalf of
current and former South African citizens and their survivors who
suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and other companies helped
perpetuate, and profited from, the apartheid regime during the period
from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to agencies of the
South African government.  Claims are based on:

     (1) the Alien Tort Claims Act,

     (2) the Torture Protection Act,

     (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and

     (4) a variety of other international laws and treaties relating to
         violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against
         humanity.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the creation of
a historic commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion,
punitive damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  
This matter is in the early stages of litigation.


ILLINOIS: Female Inmates Bring Federal Suit Over Cook County Lockdowns
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven current and former female inmates have filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the US District Court in Chicago, Illinois, on
behalf of female pretrial detainees at Cook County jail, and alleging
that the detainees are denied timely medical attention and are unable
to communicate with guards during monthly prolonged lockdowns, which,
according to the lawsuit, include practices that are abusive and
dehumanizing, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Thomas Morrissey and Robert Farley
Jr., who in 2001, settled with the county for nearly $7 million, plus
an additional $3 million in legal fees, a lawsuit that alleged female
inmates at the jail were improperly strip-searched.  Mr. Morrissey said
they would go into US District Court to seek a temporary restraining
order to stop the non-emergency lockdowns for plaintiffs named in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit does not contest random cell searches or the need for
lockdowns during emergencies.  However, the lawsuit does challenge as
unconstitutional the monthly regular practice of confining inmates to
their cells from 1:30 pm Friday until Sunday late afternoon, denying
them access to telephones, showers and timely communication with
guards.

"During lockdowns, the 'Jail' shirks its duty to protect inmates from
harm from other inmates by isolating them behind solid steel cell doors
with either two or three other detainees," the lawsuit says.  "The
conditions of the lockdown are 'dungeon'-like in that the plaintiffs
can rarely be seen or heard by the correctional officers through the
steel cell door."

The lawsuit offers some graphic examples of the attack of one inmate
upon another during a lockdown, as well as an instance of an inmate
slashing herself with a broken light bulb, all during a lockdown.


MISSOURI: Federal Judge Rules That Sex Offender List Must Remain Public
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court in Missouri Judge Nanette K. Laughrey ruled that
because the public has a right to know where convicted sex offenders
live, the state's list of such offenders must remain open.  Without the
list, wrote Judge Laughrey, the public would not be able to take steps
to protect themselves and their children, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

"While this case poses a difficult question, the court concludes that
the harm to the plaintiffs is outweighed by the harm to the public,"
Judge Laughrey wrote.

The judge's decision arose out of a motion seeking to bar state and
local authorities from publicly releasing to the public a list of
released sex offenders' names, claiming that these lists stigmatized
nonviolent sex offenders.

The list of convict's names and their addresses in turn is based on a
version of Megan's Law, a statute named after a New Jersey girl
murdered by a sex offender in 1994.  Missouri is among several states
that adopted a version of Megan's Law.

The Missouri law requires those convicted of sex crimes to register
their names and addresses with local authorities.  A recent amendment
closed a residency loophole that excluded some offenders.  Information
about sex offenders is available to the public through a local
sheriff's office.

The judge's ruling came after the US Supreme Court last week overturned
a section of a Connecticut law that excluded those convicted of lesser
crimes from public lists.  Judge Laughrey cited the Supreme Court's
findings in her decision.  Her ruling struck down a motion filed by six
men who claimed that Missouri's law unfairly grouped together those
with nonviolent and violent convictions.  A felon convicted of underage
sex, for example, is subject to the same public scrutiny as a serial
rapist.

Judge Laughrey had granted the six men class action status last
October, in effect, allowing them to represent 17,000 convicted sex
offenders required to register in Missouri.  However, the recent ruling
by Judge Laughrey did not affect an earlier motion filed in September
by three Kansas City area men, when Judge Laughrey granted the three a
preliminary injunction that barred authorities from making their
criminal information public.  However, the three men still were
required to register.

The injunction remains in effect, but is being challenged in the US
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis.


NL INDUSTRIES: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Environmental Damages Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries asked the Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana to
dismiss the class action filed against it on behalf of an alleged class
of all persons and entities who own or have owned property or have
resided within a one-mile radius of an industrial facility formerly
owned by a subsidiary of the Company in Indianapolis, Indiana.  

Plaintiffs allege that they and their property have been injured by
lead dust and particulates from the facility and seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages and a removal of all alleged lead
contamination under various theories, including negligence, strict
liability, battery, nuisance and trespass.  

The Company has denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.  In
2002, the court dismissed plaintiffs' allegations that the case should
be certified as a class action.  The defendants have moved to dismiss
the remainder of the case.  The court has not yet ruled on this motion.  
Discovery is proceeding.


NL INDUSTRIES: Discovery Commences In Consolidated Suit Over Lead in OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed against
NL Industries, Inc. and several other defendants in the United States
District Court in and for Ottawa County, Oklahoma.  

One suit was filed on behalf of a minor against the Company and other
defendants and alleges that defendants' former mining operations near
Picher, Oklahoma resulted in damage to the plaintiff as a result of the
ingestion of lead from mining co-products.  The Company has denied the
material allegations of the complaint.  The case was removed to federal
court and the United States was added as a third-party defendant.
Discovery is proceeding.  Trial is scheduled for August 2003.  

In 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in four additional cases
with substantially similar allegations to the first case.  Each of
these cases has been removed to federal court and the United States
added as a third-party defendant.  These cases have been consolidated
with the first case for purposes of discovery.  


RETEK INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action pending
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.   

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company and the individual officers and directors, which the court
approved and entered as an order in March 2002.

In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they
elected to proceed with their claims against the Company and the
individual officers and directors only under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The amended complaint alleges
that the prospectus filed in connection with the IPO was false or
misleading in that it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain of the underwriters' customers in
         return for receiving shares in the IPO; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly agreed
         to purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in
         the aftermarket in return for an allocation of shares in the
         IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters offered to provide
positive market analyst coverage for the Company after the IPO, which
had the effect of manipulating the market for the Company's stock.  
Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the omissions from the
prospectus and alleged market manipulation through the use of analysts,
the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated
between November 18, 1999 and December 6, 2001, and that the
defendants are liable for unspecified damages to those persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during that period.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants, along with
the rest of the issuers and related officer and director defendants,
filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues.  Opposition and
reply papers were filed.

The Court rendered its decision on February 19, 2003, which granted
dismissal in part of a claim against one of the individual defendants
and denied dismissal in all other respects.  The suits may now proceed
to the discovery phase.

The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously.  
Securities class action litigation can result in substantial costs and
divert the Company's management's attention and resources, which may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of
operations.


RETEK INC.: Expects Securities Lawsuits in MN Court To Be Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. expects that plaintiffs of several securities class actions
pending against it and certain of its current officers in the United
States District Court in Minnesota will file a consolidated suit.

The complaints allege, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the
complaints allege that, among other things, between October 17, 2001
and July 8, 2002, defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or concealed material adverse facts from the market in press
releases, presentations and SEC disclosures.

The complaints claim that Company and the individual defendants misled
the market with respect to, among other things the Company's alliance
with IBM, its ability to develop certain software, and its expectations
regarding certain customer sales.  Plaintiffs further allege that
defendants manipulated financial statements and failed to disclose
problems with existing and potential customer deals, which led to the
Company's stock price being artificially inflated during the class
period.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other unspecified
relief.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel on
February 14, 2003.  After a consolidated suit is filed, defendants will
answer or respond to these allegations.

The Company disputes plaintiffs' allegations in the federal suits and
believe that the allegations are subject to a variety of meritorious
defenses.  While there can be no assurance, and while the outcome of
suit cannot be predicted with certainty, management currently believes
that the ultimate outcome of the litigation is unlikely to have a
material adverse affect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Being Consolidated in IL Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions pending against Sears Roebuck & Co. are
being consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The suits name as defendants the Company and certain current and former
officers and allege that certain public announcements by the Company
concerning its credit card business violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The plaintiffs purport to represent classes of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common shares between January
17, 2002, and October 17, 2002.

Another similar suit is pending in the United States District Court in
the Northern District of California.

In the opinion of management of the Company after consulting with legal
counsel, and taking into account insurance and reserves, the ultimate
liability is not expected to have a material adverse effect on annual
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources of the Company.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Illinois Court Consolidates Employees' 401(K) Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
consolidated three class actions pending against Sears Roebuck & Co.,
and of its certain officers and directors, alleged fiduciaries of Sears
401(k) Savings Plan.  The suit seeks damages and equitable relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan, and allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in
connection with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares
and alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition.  

In the opinion of management of the Company after consulting with legal
counsel, and taking into account insurance and reserves, the ultimate
liability is not expected to have a material adverse effect on annual
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources of the Company.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Presented In IL Smokers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing Illinois smokers of Marlboro Lights and
Cambridge Lights asked Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron, in Madison County,
Illinois, for a judgment of $21.3 billion against cigarette maker
Philip Morris, saying it's time to end the ruse" about light
cigarettes, the Belleville News-Democrat reports.

Philip Morris attorney George Lombardi said Mr. Tillery's request for
punitive damages is outrageous.  He said further that the Company's
light brands are sold in 49 other states where more verdicts could be
issued.  Mr. Lombardi told Judge Byron he is "holding the fate of this
company and its employees in your hands."

In his closing argument, Mr. Tillery said Philip Morris's introduction
of light cigarettes was a "perfectly executed" fraud on smokers who
thought they were getting a safer cigarette.  "It's time to end the
ruse," he said.  "The one thing this litigation can do is end the ruse
of lights."

Plaintiff attorneys claim Philip Morris designed light cigarettes with
small vent holes that would enable them to perform well on tar and
nicotine tests conducted with government machines.  However, the
company knew smokers would cover the holes and smoke more or inhale
deeper to get their desired nicotine levels, Mr. Tillery said.

He continued Philip Morris was faced with a problem in the late 1960s
when light cigarettes were just being developed by the tobacco
companies because people were starting to learn about the dangers of
smoking.  "What's the solution:  design a cigarette they can present as
a psychological crutch," Mr. Tillery said -- an "absolutely brilliant
marketing strategy, and it took over the market."  Today about 80
percent of all cigarettes sold in America are light brands.

Mr. Lombardi also presented his closing arguments.  He argued that the
Federal Trade Commission had devised the machine tests for the tar and
nicotine levels and it was the public health community that encouraged
smokers to favor the light cigarettes.  Light and regular cigarettes
have always carried the same warnings about health hazards.

Mr. Lombardi argued that the company never claimed light cigarettes
were safer than others, but "the belief inside Philip Morris was that
low-tar cigarettes were actually delivering less tar."  Mr. Lombardi
said the use of the phrase "lower tar and nicotine" on packages of
light cigarettes "simply means that those cigarettes had lower tar and
nicotine under the FTC test method."

Mr. Lombardi said when Philip Morris decided to name the products
"lights," the Company was only trying to describe the flavor as
compared to full-flavor brands.  He said the word "light" at the time
did not have the meaning that it does today, because Philip Morris was
the first to use the term with a product.

Mr. Lombardi said class members are not entitled to any economic
damages because light cigarettes cost the same as regular cigarettes.


Mr. Tillery asked Judge Byron to award his firm and others who assisted
him, legal fees in the amount of 29 percent of the total judgment.
Judge Byron said that he would likely award plaintiff attorney fees
based only on a percentage of the compensatory damages awarded to the
1.1 million class members, not on punitive damages.

Mr. Lombardi said 29 percent of the $7.1 billion sought in compensatory
damages would be about $2.1 billion, and a fee that large would not be
justified in "any case in American jurisprudence."

Judge Byron said he has decided that any punitive damages will go to
the state's Department of Human Resources rather than the plaintiff
class.  He said any leftover money that is not claimed by class members
would be awarded to the nine law schools in Illinois and the two law
schools in St. Louis, as well as groups that provide legal services for
the poor in Illinois, the American Cancer Society and possibly
domestic-violence programs.

Mr. Tillery asked Judge Byron to award his firm, and others who
assisted him, legal fees in the amount of 29 percent of the total
judgment.


TRUDEAU CORPORATION: Recalls 45,200 Fondue Pots For Fire, Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trudeau Corporation is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 45,200
fondue pots sold as a part of a 17 piece set at Bed, Bath and Beyond
stores.  The plastic handles that are attached to the fondue pots can
melt and crack during heating on a range top, posing burn and fire
hazards to consumers.  The Company has received 13 reports of the
plastic handles breaking or melting, which involve 6 reports of burn
injuries to hands, feet, and other body parts.
        
The recalled fondue pots are labeled on the box as model number 82-384.  
The pots are brushed stainless steel, with a brushed stainless steel
fork guide on the rim of the pot.  The sets included six black
stoneware sauce/condiment bowls and six chrome-plated forks with color-
coded tips.  There is a black triangular-shaped handle with a center
hole on either side of the fondue pot.  The fondue pot sits on a black,
four-legged stand, which houses the burner.  The fondue sets were sold
under the brand name "Trudeau."
        
Bed, Bath and Beyond stores nationwide sold the fondue sets from August
2001 through July 2002 for about $20.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 659-4844 anytime
to receive a replacement fondue pot with handles that will not melt or
crack, and an incentive gift set of six stoneware fork rests, or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.trudeaucorp.com.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ASTROPOWER INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against
defendants AstroPower, Inc. (Nasdaq:APWR), Allen M. Barnett (CEO and
President), and Thomas J. Stiner (CFO), on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of AstroPower between February 22, 2002 and August 1,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market during the class period.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company claimed that it was well positioned to take
advantage of the increasing demand for solar power products.  
Throughout the class period, the Company reported strong revenue and
earnings growth and that, as a result of these statements and reports,
the Company's per share stock price reached a Class Period high of $27
on March 28, 2002.

However, throughout the class period, which was not disclosed to the
investing public, the Company was unable to effectively manage its
expanding and increasingly complex operations and it was unable to
allocate resources among its various manufacturing facilities to
effectively meet regional demand or to tailor its production capacity
to actual demand.  To maintain the illusion that its operations were
successful, the Company reported artificially inflated revenue and
earnings by, among other things, recording revenue in advance of
shipment, contrary to its stated principles of revenue recognition.

On August 1, 2002, after the close of trading, the Company announced
its results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting that
revenues and net income had not grown but, on the contrary, second
quarter income was $365,000, or $0.02 per diluted share compared to
$1.7 million, or $0.07 per diluted share in the year-earlier second
quarter and revenue of $20.4 million represented only a one percent
increase over reported revenue for the prior quarter and was
approximately $4.9 million below analysts' consensus estimate.
AstroPower's share price plunged 48%, or $7.12, to $7.77on this
announcement.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: (888) 844-5862 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com


BAYER AG: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Bayer (AG) Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE:BAY), and certain
present and former members of its Board of Management, on behalf of
purchasers of Bayer AG American Depositary Shares (ADRs) from June 27,
1997 through February 21, 2003, inclusive (Prior to January 23, 2002,
Bayer AG ADRs traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol BAYZY), in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout the class
period defendants misrepresented Bayer AG's success in marketing it's
Baycol cholesterol lowering drug.  Defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading because Bayer AG's own scientists were
stating internally that Baycol, when administered with other popular
medications or at high dosages, caused unacceptable risk of serious
side effects.

In fact, throughout the class period Bayer AG was informed that
patients taking Baycol were experiencing serious and life threatening
side effects.  Baycol was belatedly withdrawn from the market in August
2001 after the FDA raised serious concerns about the safety of Baycol
in light of reports of Baycol patients dying.  

The true facts concerning defendants' knowledge of the dangers of
Baycol and the Company's potential liability to Baycol patients were
not completely disclosed until February 22, 2003, in connection with
court filings in various personal injury actions commenced against
Bayer AG by persons who had been prescribed Baycol and had suffered
severe side effects.  These court documents demonstrated defendants'
early knowledge of the risk of serious or life threatening side effects
to patients taking Baycol, including the knowledge that patients taking
Baycol were found to have 5 to 10 times the chance of developing a life
threatening illness -- rhabdomyolysis -- as patients taking other
similar medicines.

The price per share of Bayer AG ADRs fell approximately 17% when Baycol
was withdrawn from the market in August 2001.  Following the February
22, 2003 disclosure of the true state of defendants' knowledge of the
dangers of Baycol, Bayer AG ADRs declined an additional 27%, from
$17.15 per share to $12.58 days after the revelation -- more than 68%
below the trading price at the beginning of the class period ($39.75).

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. MO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, on behalf of all who purchased the common stock of Interstate
Bakeries Corporation [NYSE: IBC] between September 17, 2002 and
February 10, 2003, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that IBC and certain of its officers and
directors issued false and misleading statements regarding its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, defendants asserted 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 statements about the Company's sweet cake product
sales and its ability to increase prices for certain bread products
were materially false and misleading because they omitted and/or
misrepresented several adverse facts, such as:

     (1) the fact that from the beginning of the class period, IBC was
         really experiencing a negative variance concerning its cake
         sales as compared to the prior year and had not seen any
         indication of a rebound in cake sales; and

     (2) the Company did not maintain adequate centralized control over
         price increases to ensure that bread product prices could be
         raised by IBC while avoiding decreased profitability;
         defendants knew that increasing prices usually resulted in a
         loss of market share and the Company actually exposed itself
         to considerable risk concerning its ability to realize profits
         based upon commodity prices.

Before the Company's true financial condition was revealed, certain of
the individual defendants and other IBC insiders sold shares of their
common stock for aggregate proceeds of over $16 million.

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


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NYSE: KG) between April 26, 1999, through March 11, 2003, inclusive.

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

King Pharmaceuticals manufactures, markets and sells primarily branded
prescription pharmaceutical products to general and family
practitioners and internal medicine physicians and hospitals across the
United States.  The suit alleges that during the class period
Defendants misrepresented that the prices paid by governmental Medicaid
agencies were the "best price" -- i.e., the cheapest price offered to
distributors and other purchasers -- for a particular drug, resulting
in government overpayment for drugs purchased through the Medicaid
program.

The complaint further alleges that the Company recognized revenue
subject to "pharmaceutical rebate" payments provided by King
Pharmaceuticals to distributors to stock up on the Company's blood-
pressure drug, Altace(R).  On March 11, 2003, defendants disclosed that
the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating King
Pharmaceuticals and has subpoenaed, among other things, the Company's
"best price" lists and all documents related to the pricing of the
Company's pharmaceutical products to any governmental Medicaid agency
during 1999 and the accrual and payment of rebates on Altace.  News of
the SEC investigation caused a 23% drop in the price of King
Pharmaceuticals' stock on the day the investigation was disclosed.

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.  


MONTEREY PASTA: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Monterey Pasta Company (Nasdaq:
PSTA) common stock during the period between July 11, 2002 and December
16, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements throughout the class period concerning the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants described the
Company's dependence on two of its largest customers for continued
revenue growth, but failed to disclose that one its major customers had
adopted a new pilot purchasing program which would negatively impact
the Company's earnings growth in both the short and long- term.  

When, at the end of the class period, defendants finally disclosed that
its revenues were being negatively impacted by this new purchasing
program, its shares fell $2.59 per share, or 37.8%, to close at $4.26
per share, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, against Provident Financial Group, Inc.,
(Nasdaq:PFGI), Robert L. Hoverson (President), and Christopher J. Carey
(CFO), on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Provident between
March 30, 1998 and March 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market between March 30, 1998 and March 5, 2003.  Specifically,
the suit alleges that Provident filed quarterly and annual financial
reports with the SEC which were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that the Company had improperly accounted for
certain auto lease financing transactions, thereby materially inflating
the Company's reported earnings throughout the class period.

On March 5, 2003, the Company issued a press release admitting that it
had improperly accounted for nine auto lease financing transactions
originated between 1997 and 1999 in a manner which inflated its
reported earnings from 1997 through 2002, inclusive.  The Company
further revealed that the transactions were improperly reported as
"off-balance sheet" transactions and that it would be restating its
operating results downward for the years 1997 through 2002.

Provident common stock plummeted, falling 20% in one day, from a March
4, 2003 close of $28.08 per share to $22.46 on March 5 as a result of
this disclosure.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.  


SAWTEK INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Sawtek, Inc. securities -- currently a subsidiary of TriQuint
Semiconductor, Inc. (NASDAQ: TQNT) between January 7, 2000 and May 24,
2001, inclusive.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain of its
executive officers violated federal securities laws.

Sawtek designs, develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of
electronic signal processing components, based on "surface acoustic
wave" or SAW technology, primarily for use in the wireless
communications industry.  Plaintiff alleges that during the class
period, defendants misrepresented Sawtek's financial performance by
improper "channel stuffing" -- inflating revenue by shipping more
products than distributors could sell -- and by disseminating false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's revenue and business
prospects despite a widespread downturn in the wireless and
telecommunications markets.

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

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


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District Court of California on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased securities of Solectron
Corporation, (NYSE:SLR) between September 17, 2001 and September 26,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Solectron securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results and condition.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among
others, that the Company was carrying tens of millions of dollars of
obsolete and unsaleable inventory that should have been written down.

As a result, Solectron's reported financial results were artificially
inflated during the class period; and were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On September 26, 2002, after the market closed, Solectron issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter
of 2002 and fiscal year 2002.  The Company also reported that it was
booking a pre-tax charge of $97 million to reserve for inventory
revaluation and write-off.  Solectron attributed the bulk of the charge
to "inventory risk assumed by Solectron's product-oriented Technology
Solutions business unit."  Following this announcement, shares of
Solectron common stock dropped to $2.16 from a class period high of
$16.25.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or
by E-mail: NKaboolian@abbeygardy.com


SPRINT FON: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KS Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, on behalf of
purchasers of Sprint FON Group (NYSE: FON) and PCS Group (NYSE: PCS)
common stock between August 11, 2000 and February 13, 2003, inclusive
against the Company and:

     (1) Ernst & Young LLP,

     (2) William Esrey and

     (3) Ronald Lemay

The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market.  Specifically, the Company's press
releases and SEC filings overstated the Company's earnings and net
assets by failing to reserve for the likely reversal of over $100
million in tax benefits attributable to highly questionable tax
shelters used by Sprint Corporation's executive officers, and
Defendants failed to reveal that these tax shelters caused a conflict
of interest between the executives and Sprint Corporation and its
accountants.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2002 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *