CAR_Public/030320.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Thursday, March 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 56

                            Headlines                            

AGILE SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses In Part Consolidated Securities Suit
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Retiree Adds Defendants To Lawsuit For Former Partners
BLUE COAT: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Faces ERISA Lawsuit Over CMS 401(k) Plan in E.D. MI
DIGITAS INC.: NY Court Dismisses In Part Consolidated Securities Suit

ENGAGE INC.: NY Court Dismiss in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Expects Dismissal of Injury Lawsuits Over Firestone Tires
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in MI
FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Certification Proceedings Ongoing For IL, TX Suits
FORD MOTOR: Court Reverses Certiorari Ruling in Credit Card Fraud Suit

FORD MOTOR: FL Court Denies Certification To Suit Over Insurance Policy
FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Certification For 1999 Mercury Villager Suit
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Ask CA Court To Certify 1995 Windstar Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: Three Statewide Suits Over Defective Seat Backs Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Faces Several Race Based Premiums Lawsuits in NY, TN, PA

FORD MOTOR: TX Court Certifies F-150 Radiator Suit, Other Suits Pending
FORD MOTOR: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Nationwide Securities Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: To Appeal IL Court's Refusal to Dismiss Side Release Suit
FORD MOTOR: Moves For Consolidation of Crown Victoria Suits in N.D. OH
FORD MOTOR: Named As Defendant in NY Suit Over South Africa Apartheid

FORD MOTOR: Hydraulic Braking Systems Suit Remanded To OK State Court
FORD MOTOR: Michigan Residents File Suit Over Property Values, Distress
FORD MOTOR: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Deceptive Trade Practices Suit
FORD MOTOR: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Importation of Cars From Canada
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Expects Court To Approve Securities Settlement in March

MOSA SPORTS: Recalls 1,250 "Five 40" Bicycle Helmets For Injury Hazard
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: PA Court Approves 401(K} Plan Lawsuit Settlement
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Asks Court To Dismiss 401(k) Participants' Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NM Court Denies Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: To Appeal OH Court's Verdict in Consumer Lawsuit

PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit Remanded To NY Court
TOWER RECORDS: Reaches Agreement To Settle Records Price-Fixing Lawsuit

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
COSI INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
INTERCEPT INC.: Landskroner - Grieco Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in E.D. TN
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN

MICHAELS STORES: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
VOICEFLASH NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL

                           *********

AGILE SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses In Part Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Agile Software Corporation and:

    (1) Bryan D. Stolle,

    (2) Thomas P. Shanahan,

    (3) Morgan Stanley and

    (4) Deutsche Bank Securities

The complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock from August 19, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The complaint alleges liability under 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 the grounds that the registration statement
for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (i) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
         commissions paid to the underwriters; and

    (ii) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined
         prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in other
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in
1999 and 2000.  Those cases have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  
On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss.  The
court denied the motions to dismiss claims under the Securities Act of
1933 in all but 10 of the cases.  In the case involving the Company,
these claims were dismissed as to the initial public offering, but not
the secondary offering.  

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against us and 184 other issuer
defendants, on the basis that the amended complaints in these cases
alleged that the respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted
follow-on offerings after their initial public offerings.  As a
consequence, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a)
claims against the individual defendants.  The motion to dismiss the
Section 10(a) claims was granted with prejudice as to the individual
defendants.

The Company believes that the allegations against the defendants in the
litigation are without merit.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Retiree Adds Defendants To Lawsuit For Former Partners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Viets, a retired partner from Arthur Andersen LLP, who is suing
several accounting firms that had added large parts of Andersen's
business - Andersen partners and clients - to their own firms last
year, amended his lawsuit to include Andersen's management team and
other partners as defendants in his lawsuit, The Wall Street Journal
reports.  The amended complaint named as a defendant "class" all the
former Andersen personnel who were partners as of January 2002.

Mr. Viets, who was with the firm for 35 years, is seeking class action
status on behalf of about 250 former partners.  He is asking for
compensatory damages in excess of $200 million to cover lost retirement
payments, as well as punitive damages exceeding $400 million, according
to the amended complaint.

The suit, when first filed in an Indiana state superior court, charged
the defendant accounting firms with interfering with contractual
relations as well as conspiring to acquire Andersen's assets at below
fair value.  The defendant accounting firms moved at that time, to have
the case dismissed.

The recently filed amended complaint expands the lawsuit to name
Andersen's five-member executive team as defendants, as well as the
partner class indicated above, claiming that the partners along with
management and the accounting firms "looted" Andersen's assets, leaving
the paltry remains to the retired partners.

Andersen did, however, suffer from dwindling assets after an
indictment, and later conviction, on a criminal-obstruction-of-justice
charge, in March 2002, resulted in loss of clients on a large scale,
which effectively put Andersen out of business, The Wall Street Journal
reports.  Andersen is appealing its criminal conviction.

The amended complaint alleges further that by November 2002, all
remaining individual Andersen partners had resigned, leaving power to
the executive team, who then also resigned from the partnership, after
admitting four limited liability corporations, named Omega Management I
through IV, the only remaining partners at the present time.  The
complaint alleges these actions were taken to isolate the former
management from liability.

The lawsuit is being watched closely, because it is testing how much
legal liability, if any, and the nature of the legal liability, will be
faced by firms that acquired Andersen partners and clients last year
during the course of Andersen's collapse.

The accounting firms named as defendants in the first, non-amended
complaint included the six remaining largest firms:  

     (1) Deloitte & Touche LLP,

     (2) Ernst & Young LLP,

     (3) Grant Thornton LLP,

     (4) KPMG LLP,

     (5) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and

     (6) consulting firm Bearing Point Inc., formerly KPMG Consulting
         Inc.


BLUE COAT: 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 filed
against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., some of its officers and directors and
the firms that underwrote its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit generally alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's initial public offering, and maintained
artificially high market prices through tie-in arrangements which
required customers to buy shares in the after-market at pre-determined
prices.

The suit further alleges that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, by making material false and
misleading statements in the prospectus incorporated in the Company's
Form S-1 registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in November 1999.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against over 300 other public companies, their
underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out of each
company's public offering.  The lawsuits against the Company, along
with these other related securities class actions currently pending in
the Southern District of New York, have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  Oral argument on these omnibus motions to
dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.

The Company's officers and directors have been dismissed without
prejudice in this litigation.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied
in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company.  The court's order did not dismiss
any claims against the Company.  As a result, discovery may now
proceed.

The Company believes a negative outcome would not have a material
adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial
condition.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Faces ERISA Lawsuit Over CMS 401(k) Plan in E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company was named as a defendant along with CMS Energy
Corporation, CMS Marketing Services and Trading Company and certain
named and unnamed officers and directors in a consolidated class action
filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of CMS Energy's
401(k) Plan.  The suit is filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.  

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and seek restitution on behalf
of the Plan with respect to a decline in value of the shares of CMS
Energy Common Stock held in the Plan.  Plaintiffs also seek other
equitable relief and legal fees.  These cases will be vigorously
defended.  The Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.


DIGITAS INC.: NY Court Dismisses In Part Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Digitas, Inc., several of its officers and directors, and five
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).  The suit was filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock since March 13,
2000, the date of the offering.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose that the underwriters had
engaged in conduct designed to result in undisclosed and excessive
underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage
commissions and also that this alleged conduct of the underwriters
artificially inflated the Company's stock price in the period after the
Offering.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other things,
damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.  

Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's officers
and directors were dismissed without prejudice.  Effective February 19,
2003, the Section 10(b) claim against the Company was dismissed.  The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.  
Management currently believes that resolving these matters will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
its results of operations, however, litigation is inherently uncertain
and there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome or effect of
these actions.


ENGAGE INC.: NY Court Dismiss 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 Engage Inc., several of its present and former officers and
directors and the underwriters for its July 20, 1999 initial public
offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of those persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaints each allege that the defendants failed to
disclose "excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to
the underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of our
stock to preferred customers and alleged agreements among the
underwriter defendants and preferred customers tying the allocation of
IPO shares to agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at
pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose
these alleged arrangements made the Company's prospectus incorporated
in our registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July
1999 materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.

Pursuant to an omnibus agreement negotiated with representatives of the
plaintiffs' counsel, the individual officer and director defendants
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice in October 2002.
On February 2003, the court denied in part and granted in part the
various issuer and underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated suit.  The claims against the Company remain.

The Company believes that these allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' claims.  As the
litigation is in an initial stage, the Company is not able at this time
to estimate the possibility of loss or range of loss, if any, that
might result.


FORD MOTOR: Expects Dismissal of Injury Lawsuits Over Firestone Tires
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company expects the dismissal of over a hundred personal
injury cases related to accidents in the United States allegedly caused
by tread separations involving Firestone tires on the Company's Ford
Explorer SUV.  Most of these cases have been consolidated into a single
case now pending in the United States District Court in Indianapolis.

Plaintiffs in these cases have never been injured in an accident
involving Firestone tires, but they seek to recover, on behalf of all
purchasers of Ford Explorers with Firestone tires, the alleged
diminution in vehicle value caused by the use of those tires or by the
alleged instability of Explorers.  Plaintiffs also seek punitive
damages.

In the case pending in Indianapolis, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that the case cannot be maintained as
a nationwide or statewide class action.  Plaintiffs' petition for a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court was denied.  
Plaintiffs are likely to begin focusing on one or more of the 15 cases
that have not yet been transferred to Indianapolis.  These cases were
filed in state courts in:

     (1) Illinois (2 cases),

     (2) Pennsylvania,

     (3) South Carolina (2 cases),

     (4) Wisconsin,

     (5) Arkansas (2 cases),

     (6) California (2 cases),

     (7) Louisiana,

     (8) Ohio,

     (9) Texas,

    (10) Connecticut, and

    (11) Florida

Some of these cases have been removed to federal court and are likely
to be transferred to the court in Indianapolis, where they will be
subject to the Seventh Circuit's order denying class certification.  
Some of these cases, however, will remain in state court where the
trial courts will be free to reconsider the issue of class
certification.

In one of the cases filed in Illinois, and in one of the cases filed in
South Carolina, the trial courts have already certified statewide
classes.  In those cases, however, plaintiffs are not relying on any
alleged defects in the Ford Explorer, rather, they allege only that
Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires installed on Ford Explorers and
Mercury Mountaineers are defective.

Since the Company has already agreed to replace all of these tires, it
is seeking to have these cases dismissed as moot.  The Company will
also be seeking appellate review of these rulings.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a consolidated class action
pending against Ford Motor Company in the United States District Court
in Detroit, Michigan, alleging securities fraud and violations of Rule
10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased Company stock during the
period from March 1998 through August 2000.

The plaintiffs allege that, during that period of time, the defendants
made misrepresentations about the safety of Ford products and the Ford
Explorer in particular, and failed to disclose material facts about
problems with Firestone tires and the safety of Ford Explorers equipped
with Firestone tires.  The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of these
misrepresentations or omissions, they purchased Ford stock at inflated
prices and were damaged when the price of the stock fell upon
announcement of the recall and subsequent revelations.

The court later dismissed the consolidated suit with prejudice. The
court denied plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint
and plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  
All briefs on appeal have been filed and the parties are awaiting oral
argument.


FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Certification Proceedings Ongoing For IL, TX Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification proceedings are ongoing in two purported class
actions pending against the Ford Motor Company in Texas and Illinois
alleging claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of
consumer protection statutes.

The Texas case purports to assert claims on behalf of Texas residents
who have experienced paint peeling in certain 1984 through 1992 model
year Ford vehicles.  The Illinois case purports to assert claims on
behalf of residents of all states except Louisiana and Texas who have
experienced paint peeling on most 1988 through 1997 model year Ford
vehicles.

Plaintiffs in both cases contend that their paint is defective and
susceptible to peeling because we did not use spray primer between the
high-build electrocoat (HBEC) and the color coat.  The lack of spray
primer allegedly causes the adhesion of the color coat to the HBEC to
deteriorate after extended exposure to ultraviolet radiation from
sunlight.  Plaintiffs in both cases seek unspecified compensatory
damages (in an amount to cover the cost of repainting their vehicles
and to compensate for alleged diminution in value), punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and interest.

In the Texas case, the trial court certified a class of Texas owners
who experienced paint peeling because of the alleged defect.  That
order was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court, but the trial court
granted a renewed motion for class certification and certified two
classes consisting of original owners of class vehicles who experienced
peeling paint and all original owners who paid the Company or a Ford
dealer to repaint their vehicles.  The Company's appeal from this order
to the Texas Court of Appeals is pending.

In the Illinois case, the trial court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff's motion for class certification is pending.


FORD MOTOR: Court Reverses Certiorari Ruling in Credit Card Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in
favor of Ford Motor Company in the consolidated class action filed over
the June 1997 termination of the Ford/Citibank credit card rebate
program.

Five purported nationwide class actions and two purported statewide
class action were filed against the Company, and Citibank.  The actions
allege damages in an amount up to $3,500 for each cardholder who
obtained a Ford/Citibank credit card in reliance on the rebate program
and who is precluded from accumulating discounts toward the purchase or
lease of new Ford vehicles after December 1997 as a result of the
termination of the rebate program.  Plaintiffs contend that:

     (1) defendants deceptively breached their contract by unilaterally
         terminating the program,

     (2) defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of the
         interest charges and fees collected from cardholders, and

     (3) that defendants conspired to deprive plaintiffs of the
         benefits of their credit card agreement.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, or alternatively, reinstatement
of the rebate program, and punitive damages, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees.  The five purported nationwide class actions were
filed in state courts in Alabama, Illinois, New York, Oregon and
Washington, and the purported statewide class actions were filed in a
California state courts.  The Alabama court has conditionally certified
a class consisting of Alabama residents.

The Company removed all of the cases, except the most recently filed
California state court case filed in December 2002, to federal court
which consolidated and transferred the cases to federal court in
Washington for pretrial proceedings.  In October 1999, the federal
court dismissed the consolidated proceedings for lack of jurisdiction
and sent each action back to the state court in which it originated.

The Company appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court.  The United
States Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for a writ of
certiorari but dismissed the writ after oral argument.  Five of the
cases will be remanded to state courts in Alabama, California,
Illinois, New York and Washington.  The case in Oregon has been
dismissed.


FORD MOTOR: FL Court Denies Certification To Suit Over Insurance Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Florida refused to grant class
certification to a class action filed against the Michigan Mutual
Insurance Company, alleging that the Ford Commercial, General Liability
and Business Automobile Insurance Policy, and the Personal Auto
Supplement to that policy, provides uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage and medical payments coverage to retail lessees of Ford
vehicles (e.g., to Red Carpet lessees).

Ford Motor Company is required to defend and indemnify Michigan Mutual.  
The Company believes the complaint rests on an untenable interpretation
of the Michigan Mutual policy, which was intended to cover company cars
and lease evaluation vehicles.  

Unfortunately, however, the Florida Court of Appeals in a prior action
brought by a single individual, has accepted plaintiffs' interpretation
of the policy.  The Florida court's opinion should not be controlling
in federal court, however, and the Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment based on the policy language and the intention of the
parties.

Plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion, cross-moved for summary
judgment in their favor, moved to amend their complaint, and moved for
class certification.  The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and the request to certify the question for immediate appeal, but
also denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  The Company expects
the plaintiffs will renew their motion for class certification.


FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Certification For 1999 Mercury Villager Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Ohio denied the motion to certify a
nationwide class for a lawsuit pending against Ford Motor Company on
behalf of all persons who own or lease 1999 Mercury Villagers.

The complaint alleges that the vehicle has a defective throttle body
assembly that causes the gas pedal to intermittently lock or stick in
the closed position.  The complaint alleges breach of warranty,
negligence, and violation of consumer protection statutes.  

Plaintiffs seek an order requiring the Company to recall the vehicles.  
They also seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages,
attorneys fees, and costs. Plaintiffs' motion to certify a statewide
class is pending.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Ask CA Court To Certify 1995 Windstar Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Company in
California State Court have asked for class certification for the suit.  
Another similar suit is pending in Illinois state court.

The suits allege that the Company marketed, advertised, sold, and
leased 1995 Windstars in a deceptive manner by misrepresenting their
quality and safety and actively concealing defects in the
transmissions.  The California case is limited to owners and lessees of
that state, while the Illinois case purports to represent owners and
lessees from all states.

Plaintiffs contend that transmissions in the Windstar have prematurely
suffered from shifting problems and acceleration failures, requiring
early replacement at substantial expense to owners.  The cases assert
several statutory and common law theories, and seek several types of
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages,
and injunctive relief.


FORD MOTOR: Three Statewide Suits Over Defective Seat Backs Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the four purported statewide class actions pending against
Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation and DaimlerChrysler AG
over defective seat backs have been dismissed.  The suits were filed in
state courts in Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York.

The suits allege that seat backs with single recliner mechanisms are
defective.  Plaintiffs in each of these suits alleged that seats
installed in class vehicles (defined as almost all passenger cars made
after 1991) are defective because the seat backs are unstable and
susceptible to rearward collapse in the event of a rear-end collision.  
The purported class in each state consists of all persons who own a
class vehicle and specifically excludes all persons who have suffered
personal injury as a result of the rearward collapse of a seat.  
Plaintiffs allege causes of action for:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) strict liability,

     (3) implied warranty,

     (4) fraud, and

     (5) civil conspiracy

Plaintiffs also allege violations of the consumer protection statutes
in the various states.  Plaintiffs seek "compensatory damages measured
by the cost of correcting the defect, not to exceed $5,000 for each
class vehicle."  

The Company's motions to dismiss were granted in Maryland, New
Hampshire, and New York, and its motion for summary judgment was
granted in New Jersey.  The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court's ruling.  The Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland's
highest court) has agreed to review the dismissal of the Maryland case.  
Plaintiffs' appeals are pending in New York and New Jersey.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Several Race Based Premiums Lawsuits in NY, TN, PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces a class action in the United States District
Court in New York, alleging that its credit subsidiary's pricing
practices discriminate against African-Americans.  Specifically,
plaintiffs allege, "although Ford Credit's initial analysis applies
objective criteria to calculate the risk-related 'Buy Rate,' Ford
Credit then authorizes a subjective component in its credit pricing
system - the Mark-up Policy - to impose additional non-risk charges."

A second case, pending in federal court in Nashville (Claybrook v.
Primus) contains similar allegations concerning Ford Primus accounts.  
A third case was filed in the Pennsylvania federal district court in
which a Latino community-based organization, Ceiba, Inc., has made
similar allegations on behalf of Latino Americans.  Ford Credit is only
one of several defendants in the Pennsylvania case.


FORD MOTOR: TX Court Certifies F-150 Radiator Suit, Other Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas state court granted class certification to a lawsuit filed
against Ford Motor Company, alleging that the Company defrauded
purchasers of approximately 400,000 1999-2001 F-150 trucks by falsely
representing that certain option packages included "upgraded"
radiators.  The nationwide class includes all purchasers of 2000 and
2001 F-150 trucks with heavy duty or trailer packages.  The Company is
appealing that ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals.

Another case recently was filed in state court in South Carolina and
purports to represent a statewide class.  The Company removed the case
to federal court and filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the
outcome of the appeal in Texas.  Another case, previously pending in
state court in New York, has been dismissed and plaintiffs have
appealed.

Prior to the filing of these suits, the Company implemented a program
that gives affected customers a choice of $100 cash, a $500 coupon, or
installation of an upgraded radiator.  However, plaintiffs' are
alleging that the program should cover additional vehicles and that
they should be reimbursed for loss of use of the vehicle while the
radiators are being replaced, and that they are entitled to attorney
fees.


FORD MOTOR: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Nationwide Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company asked the United States District Court in New York
to dismiss the purported nationwide class action filed against it,
alleging securities fraud and violations of Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all
persons who purchased Company stock between December 1, 1999 and
January 12, 2002.

The plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Company entered
into a series of contracts for the purchase of platinum group metals
(PGM) at historically high prices and failed to properly hedge these
purchases, thereby exposing the Company to losses when the price of PGM
fell.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company made statements in its public
disclosures about our commodity purchase practices and hedging programs
that misled investors as to our exposure to loss from PGM purchases.  
As a result, plaintiffs allege that they purchased Ford stock at
inflated prices and were damaged when the Company "wrote-down" the
value of its PGM by $1 billion on a pre-tax basis.

The Company's motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud or
fraudulent intent with sufficient particularity under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act is pending.  Plaintiffs have sought
numerous extensions and have not yet filed a response to this motion.


FORD MOTOR: To Appeal IL Court's Refusal to Dismiss Side Release Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company intends to appeal an Illinois state court's ruling
denying its motion to dismiss a class action alleging that the side
release buckles installed in 1969 through 1998 Ford vehicles are
defective because they "could unlatch from inertial forces."

The suit was filed against the Company, as well as against General
Motors Corporation, allegedly on behalf of all Illinois owners of
vehicles with the defective buckles.  The complaint seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, including a payment to each class member of the
cost of installing different buckles.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiffs
have suffered no injury, but the court denied this motion.


FORD MOTOR: Moves For Consolidation of Crown Victoria Suits in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces a total of nineteen purported class actions
have been filed on behalf of government entities that own Ford Crown
Victoria Police Interceptors, alleging that the vehicles are
susceptible to fuel leaks and fires when struck from the rear at high
speed.

Sixteen of the actions have been consolidated into a Multi District
Litigation proceeding in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio.  The three remaining actions are pending in Illinois
and Louisiana (two cases).

The Company has removed these actions to federal court, and is
requesting that they be consolidated into the MDL proceeding.  Of the
nineteen purported suits, two purport to represent a nationwide class,
the other cases purport to represent statewide classes.

The complaints seek a recall of the affected vehicles, an injunction,
compensatory and punitive damages and other relief.  Five additional
purported class actions relating to non-police Ford Crown Victoria
vehicles, with similar allegations and demands for relief, have been
filed in Arkansas, Illinois and Ohio. The Arkansas and New Jersey cases
purport to represent a nationwide class, the others purport to
represent owners in the relevant state.


FORD MOTOR: Named As Defendant in NY Suit Over South Africa Apartheid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company was named as a defendant in a class action filed in
the United States District Court in New York against scores of other
United States and European corporations on behalf of South African
citizens who suffered alleged "crimes against humanity" and other forms
of violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.

The legal theories asserted in this litigation are similar to the legal
theories advanced in the World War II forced and slave labor lawsuits,
which resulted in the formation of a humanitarian fund pursuant to a
multi-national accord.  The current lawsuit alleges that the Company
and other automobile manufacturers (including General Motors
Corporation and DaimlerChrysler AG) helped perpetuate the apartheid
regime by selling vehicles to the South African military and police.

This matter is in the early stage of litigation and the Company is
preparing its response.


FORD MOTOR: Hydraulic Braking Systems Suit Remanded To OK State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Ford Motor Company has been remanded to
Oklahoma State Court, after it was removed to Oklahoma federal court.  

The suit, filed on behalf of all purchasers of 1999 through 2002 model
year F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550 Ford Super Duty Trucks and 2002
Excursions with hydroboost hydraulic braking systems, alleges that
these trucks are unsafe because they suffer diminished power assist
to the brakes or steering when the driver is simultaneously braking and
steering.  The complaint alleges breach of warranty and fraud, and
seeks the cost of retrofitting the trucks to eliminate the alleged
danger, compensation for diminished resale value, and other relief.


FORD MOTOR: Michigan Residents File Suit Over Property Values, Distress
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces a class action filed in Dickinson County State
Court in Michigan, on behalf of approximately 900 property owners in
the Kingsford, Michigan Area.  The suit also names as defendant
Kingsford Products Company.

The lawsuit seeks damages for diminution in property values and
emotional distress as a result of environmental issues in the area
allegedly related to the Company's former automobile parts, chemical
distillation and charcoal production plant in Kingsford, Michigan.  The
Company and Kingsford Products have been cooperating with the State of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to investigate and address
environmental issues in the area.


FORD MOTOR: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Deceptive Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company intends to ask a Texas federal court to dismiss two
class actions filed against it, alleging it breached express warranties
and committed unfair and deceptive trade practices by selling fifteen-
passenger vans that "cannot safely transport more than nine persons."

The first suit was filed in Harris County State Court, and is based
upon warnings and recommendations issued by the federal government with
respect to fifteen-passenger vans and the relatively higher rate of
rollovers experienced by this class of vehicles in comparison to
passenger cars, especially when they are fully loaded and driven at
high speed.  The complaint alleges a national class of persons who
purchased fifteen-passenger vans within the last four years and a
subclass of purchasers who currently reside in Texas and currently own
fifteen-passenger vans manufactured between 1990 and the present.

The complaint seeks actual and multiple damages for the alleged
"difference between the value of a van which can safely carry 15
passengers and one which can safely transport no more than 9."  In the
alternative, the complaint seeks "to have the Defendants modify/repair
their existing `15 passenger vans' and to provide training to all
drivers of such vans so that such vans can be used as warranted."  The
complaint also seeks exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs and
interest.

On January 15, 2003, the Company received a summons and complaint in a
second case, also in state court in Texas, containing similar
allegations.  The suits were moved to Texas federal court.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Importation of Cars From Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces eleven antitrust class actions filed in
federal courts in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida, and New
York (seven cases) and six antitrust class actions were filed in state
courts in California (four cases), Arizona, and New York on behalf of a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who purchased a new car
manufactured by one of defendants after January 1, 2001.  The suit
names as defendants the Company, Ford Motor Company of Canada, several
other motor vehicle manufacturers and their US and Canadian affiliates.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the law by entering into
agreements in restraint of trade to "prevent new cars sold in Canada
from being imported into the United States."  Plaintiffs allege that by
so doing, the new car manufacturers maintained prices in the United
States at an artificially high level, causing plaintiffs and members of
the class to pay more for new cars than they would have in the absence
of the alleged wrongdoing.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages in these
actions.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Expects Court To Approve Securities Settlement in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation expects the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California to approve the settlement it
proposed for the securities class action against it, in March 2003.

The suit names as defendants Safeskin Corporation, which the Company
acquired, and certain of its former officers and directors are
defendants in two cases filed in 1999, prior to the acquisition of
Safeskin by the Company.  One case is a class action alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and the other is a
shareholder derivative action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, waste
of corporate assets and gross negligence in connection with a stock
repurchase program undertaken by Safeskin.

In December 2002, a settlement agreement was entered into pursuant to
which all claims against Safeskin and the other defendants in these two
cases are to be released and dismissed with prejudice and without
admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party in exchange for $55
million, most of which is covered by insurance.

The Company recorded a charge of $21 million in the fourth quarter of
2002 related to this matter.  The settlement is subject to notice to
the class and approval by the court.


MOSA SPORTS: Recalls 1,250 "Five 40" Bicycle Helmets For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MOSA Sports is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,250 "Five 40" brand
bicycle helmets.  These helmets fail impact testing required under
CPSC's Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets, violating the Consumer
Product Safety Act.  Riders wearing these helmets are not adequately
protected from falls, and could suffer head injuries.
        
The Company has not received any reports of injuries or incidents
involving these helmets.  This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injuries.
        
The Five 40 helmets are black, white or red, and have the name "Five
40" printed on the front and back of the helmet.  The "V" in the "Five"
is much larger that the other letters.   A label inside the helmet
reads "990803" along with the model name "540."  These helmets were
manufactured in China.
        
Sporting good stores nationwide sold these helmets from October 1999
through September 2001 for about $25.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 804-0211 between
9 am and 4 pm PT Monday through Friday.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: PA Court Approves 401(K} Plan Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania approved a settlement proposed by Prudential Securities,
Inc. and other defendants in a class action filed by a participant of a
Rite-Aid Sponsored 401(k) plan.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Rite Aid Corporation,

     (2) Prudential Insurance,

     (3) Prudential Retirement Services, Inc.,

     (4) Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC and

     (5) the Rohrbaugh Group

In March 2003 the Court issued a final order approving the settlement
of this matter.  The settlement details were not disclosed.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: NM Court Denies Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari
filed by parties in a purported national class action against
Prudential Insurance, Inc.

The suit was initially filed in the District Court of Valencia County,
New Mexico, based upon the alleged failure to adequately disclose the
increased costs associated with payment of life insurance premiums on a
"modal" basis, i.e., more frequently than once a year.  Similar actions
have been filed in New Mexico against over a dozen other insurance
companies.

The complaint includes allegations that the Company should have
disclosed to each policyholder who paid for coverage on a modal basis
the dollar cost difference between the modal premium and the annual
premium required for the policy, as well as the effective annual
percentage rate of interest of such difference.  Based on these
allegations, plaintiffs assert statutory claims including violation of
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, and common law claims for:

     (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) unjust enrichment and

     (4) fraudulent concealment

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, both in unspecified amounts, restitution, treble damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company filed an
answer denying the claims.  Thereafter, both the Company and the
plaintiffs filed separate motions for summary judgment.

In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial summary
judgment to plaintiffs as to liability, permitting an appeal of the
order and staying the case pending completion of the appeal proceeding.  
Both the Company and plaintiffs filed petitions for writ of certiorari
to the New Mexico Supreme Court.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Asks Court To Dismiss 401(k) Participants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Insurance, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey to dismiss a purported nationwide class
action against it, Prudential Financial Corporation and various present
and former officers and directors of the companies.

The suit alleges that the treatment of the costs of the sales practices
litigation and settlement resulted in an inappropriate allocation of
demutualization consideration under the 401(k) Plan and that such
allocation was not accurately described to the policyholders prior to
voting.  The complaint asserts claims based on:

     (1) common law fraud,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) tortious interference and

     (4) violations of the RICO statutes

The court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: To Appeal OH Court's Verdict in Consumer Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Securities, Inc. intends to appeal the Ohio court of Common
Pleas for Marion County's verdict in the class action filed against it
and Jeffrey Pickett, a former Prudential Securities financial advisor,

The suit alleges that Mr. Pickett transferred, without authorization,
his clients' equity mutual funds into fixed income mutual funds in
October 1998.  The claims were based on theories of:

     (1) conversion,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) breach of fiduciary duty and

     (4) negligent supervision

In October 2002, the case was tried and the jury returned a verdict
against Prudential Securities and Mr. Pickett for $11.7 million in
compensatory damages and against Prudential Securities for $250 million
in punitive damages.

The Company said in a disclosure to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission that it will try to have the verdict set aside and,
failing that, appeal.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit Remanded To NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
purchaser class action filed against Prudential Securities, Inc. and
other underwriters to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In November 1998, plaintiffs filed a purported class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against over two dozen underwriters of initial public offering
securities, including the Company.  A number of similar actions brought
on behalf of purported classes of both IPO purchasers and IPO issuers
were consolidated under the name "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation."

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix at
7% the spread that underwriting syndicates receive from issuers of
securities in certain offerings in violation of the federal antitrust
laws, and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In February 2001, the court dismissed the purchaser cases for lack of
antitrust standing, without leave to replead.  Plaintiffs appealed that
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  
In January 2003, the appeals court reversed the dismissal and remanded
the action to the district court on the ground that it was improper for
the court to find as a matter of law that the alleged conspiracy did
not affect IPO prices.


TOWER RECORDS: Reaches Agreement To Settle Records Price-Fixing Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached recently in the lawsuit brought by attorneys
general of 40 states, and consolidated in the US District Court, in
Portland, Maine, accusing major record labels and large music
retailers, facing competition from discount retailers like Target and
Wal-Mart, of conspiring to set minimum music prices, the Tulsa World
reports.  A hearing before Judge D. Brock on final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for May 2.

Approximately 3.5 million US residents who purchased music between 1995
and 2000, the class period, registered for claims by the March 5
deadline, according to Maine's Assistant Attorney General John
Brautigam.

Claimants will share $44 million allocated for the claimants if the
class action settlement receives final approval by Judge Brock.  When
computed, a share of the price-fixing settlement will amount to about
$12.60 each.  Beyond the $44 million in cash, the agreement's terms
would provide 5.5 million CDs valued at $75.7 million to public
institutions and nonprofit organizations.  Under the terms of the
agreement, major music distributors would be prohibited from tying
cooperative advertising efforts to retailers' advertised prices.

The named defendants in the lawsuit, apart from the Company, are:

     (1) Sony Music Entertainment,

     (2) EMI Music Distribution,

     (3) Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation,

     (4) Universal Music Group,

     (5) Bertelsmann Music Group,

     (6) Musicland Stores and

     (7) Trans World Entertainment


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.
(Nasdaq: AKLM) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 11, 2002 and September 19, 2002, inclusive.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements which described the Company's increasing
income and improving financial performance.  As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was engaging in aggressive sales practices,
         known as channel stuffing, whereby it induced customers to
         take product that they neither wanted, needed or could sell in
         the short-term;

     (2) that the Company was currently experiencing severe and
         continued operating problems at the Company's internal studios
         regarding the development, content, cost, market testing,
         distribution and sales of the Company's products;

     (3) that the Company was currently experiencing decreased demand
         for the Company's products, including Turoc: Evolution and
         Aggressive In-Line, among others, resulting in the Company's
         inability to meet revenue and earnings guidance provided by
         defendants for fiscal 2002 and beyond;

     (4) that the Company's distribution and retails sales tracking
         information systems were inadequate causing the Company to
         materially underestimate the Company's allowances for sales
         returns and price concessions;

     (5) that the Company's development of computer games with mature
         themes, including BMX XXX, among others, had materially
         impeded the Company's ability to access broad-based retail
         channels for the Company's products, thus impeding the
         Company's ability to meet revenue and earnings forecasts; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions, projections and
         forecasts concerning the Company and its operations were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all times.

The class period ends on September 19, 2002, when Acclaim shocked the
market by issuing a press release announcing that the Company now
expected to report an operating loss for the 4th quarter of 2002,
primarily because of sharply lower revenues that fell below defendants'
guidance by 25%, among other reasons.  In addition, the Company lowered
its guidance for the first and second quarters of its 2003 fiscal year,
as well as for the 2003 fiscal year.

Market reaction to defendants' belated disclosures was swift and
severe.  Upon hearing the news, the market for Acclaim common shares
collapsed, losing over 29% of their value in a single day's trading to
close at $1.56 per share on September 19, 2002 and losing over 73% of
their value when compared to the class period high of $5.85 per share
reached on April 19, 2002.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Russell J. Gunyan, Jackie
Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by E-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


COSI INC.: 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 who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Cosi,
Inc. (Nasdaq:COSI) pursuant to or traceable to a registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with the Company's Initial Public
Offering which were declared effective on November 25, 2002 through and
including February 3, 2002.

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 Cosi's business prospects.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cosi failed to disclose that
the funds raised by the IPO would be insufficient to implement the
Company's expansion plan of opening 53-59 new restaurants as set forth
in its prospectus.

Moreover, at the time of the IPO, defendants should have known that the
costs of the Company's ambitious expansion plan would be greater than
the proceeds raised in the IPO, making it unlikely that the Company
could successfully implement its business plan.  On February 3, 2003,
however, Cosi shocked the market by announcing the resignation of its
CEO and co-founder and that it was curtailing its very aggressive
growth strategy.  According to the Company, instead of opening 53-59
restaurants, Cosi now intends to open just six restaurants.

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


INTERCEPT INC.: Landskroner - Grieco Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intercept, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT)
between September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) John W. Collins,

     (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

     (3) Scott Meyerhoff, and

     (4) Garrett M. Bender

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws.  Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material disclosures
during the class period due to their false assurances that the adult
pornography internet portion of their merchant processing business was
insignificant and due to their failure to disclose that VISA
regulations implemented on November 1, 2002, which were targeted
specifically to address risks of internet pornography card processing,
had caused a material loss of business.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jack Landskroner by Mail: 1360 West 9th St.,
Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 by Phone: 866-522-9500 (toll-free), by
E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.landskronerlaw.com.  


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in E.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG) between February 16, 2000 through March
10, 2003, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in
press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
including the Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with
the Company's acquisition of Jones Pharma, Inc. during the class
period.

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants issued statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and
the strong demand for its branded pharmaceutical products, notably
Altace and Levoxyl.  The suit further alleges that the Company failed
to disclose:

     (1) that certain of its rebate and pricing practices subjected it
         to heightened governmental scrutiny;

     (2) that the Company had understated the level of generic
         competition for Levoxyl; and

     (3) that the Company had engaged in questionable sales to VitaRx
         and Prison Health Services during 1999 and 2000

On March 11, 2003, King Pharmaceuticals announced unexpectedly that it
was the subject of an SEC investigation for its pricing and rebate
practices.  As a result of this announcement, the price of King
Pharmaceuticals common stock declined to $12.17 per share from $15.90
per share.

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


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

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 Complaint 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
Phamramceuticals' stock on the day the investigation was disclosed.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg by
Phone: (310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: 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
purchasers of Michaels Stories, Inc. (NYSE:MIK) securities between
August 8, 2002 and November 7, 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 Michaels Stores' financial results
and business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Michaels Stores consistently represented that its financial condition
was strong and that the Company was increasing market share and would
continue to do so in the foreseeable future, despite a known downturn
in the consumer goods market.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period, allowing certain defendants to
sell over $15.3 million worth of their personally held Michaels Stores
common stock.  On November 7, 2002, however, Michaels Stores stunned
the market when it announced that October same store sales only
increased 2% for the quarter.

Contrary to prior representations, the Company was not "in great
shape", it did not have "considerable momentum" and was not proceeding
according to guidance sponsored or provided by defendants because the
Company was already suffering from the same adverse market conditions
competitors and other retailers were experiencing.

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


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 defendants 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 or
by E-mail: http://www.srk-law.com


VOICEFLASH NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased VoiceFlash Networks,
Inc. securities (OTC: VFNX) during the period from March 15, 2002
through January 24, 2003, both dates inclusive.  The suit names as
defendant the Company and:

     (1) Sherb & Co., LLP,

     (2) Robert J. Kaufman and

     (3) Thomas C. Teper

The complaint 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 during the class period, the
Company improperly accounted for reserves and improperly recognized
certain revenues and income at its wholly owned subsidiary, United
Capturdyne Technologies, Inc.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of VoiceFlash securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other
members of the Class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
212-682-1818 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.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  * * *