CAR_Public/030324.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Monday, March 24, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 58

                              Headlines                            

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial For FL Insurance Fraud Suit Not Yet Scheduled
BROWN TOM: Named As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit in WY State Court
CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Hollywood Fundraiser
CALLAWAY GOLF: KS Consumers Sue Over New Product Introduction Policy
CAPITOL ONE: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

CATHOLIC CHURCH: CA Attorney General To Review San Diego Abuse Lawsuits
COMARCO INC.: Recalls 125,000 Detachable Plugs For Electrocution Hazard
CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Orders Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated
CUTTER & BUCK: Officers, Directors Face Derivative Lawsuit in WA Court
GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Final Approval To Bromine Suit Settlement

HERTZ CORPORATION: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments For Dismissal of Suit
HERTZ CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Consumer Lawsuit
HERTZ CORPORATION: Denies Allegations in Station Managers Lawsuit in NY
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 401(K) Plan Members Commence ERISA Suit in OR Court

METHODE ELECTRONICS: Agrees To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit in DE Court
NEXPRISE INC.: Court To Rule On Suit Dismissal Without Oral Arguments
PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Electric Rate Charges
PORTLAND GENERAL: Court To Hear Appeal of Remand of Energy Traders Suit

PGE: WA Consumers Commence Lawsuit For Consumer Protection Violations
REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Faces Suit Over Second Mortgage Loans in NJ Court
S. ROTHSCHILD & CO.: Recalls 37,000 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard
SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
SUPERGEN INC.: FDA Warns About Misleading Facts in Mitozytrex Release

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VERSANT INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
WALT DISNEY: Voluntarily Recalls 40,000 Woody Dolls For Choking Hazard

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
CAMINUS CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CAMINUS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN

                           *********

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial For FL Insurance Fraud Suit Not Yet Scheduled
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the damages portion of a class action filed against two of
American Medical Security Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiaries has
not been rescheduled. A mistrial was declared by the Circuit Court for
Palm Beach County, Florida.  The suit was filed in February 2000
against American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS) and United Wisconsin Life
Insurance Company (UWLIC).

The suit alleges that the Company failed to follow Florida law when it
discontinued writing certain health insurance policies and offering new
policies in 1998.  Plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully
terminated coverage, improperly notified insureds of conversion rights
and charged improper premiums for new coverage.  Plaintiffs also allege
that UWLIC's renewal rating methodology violated Florida law.

In a final judgment entered April 24, 2002, the court found, among
other things, that the policy issued by the Company outside Florida was
not exempt from any Florida rating laws and ordered that the question
of damages be tried before a jury.  On September 9, 2002, the court
declared a mistrial in the damages portion of the lawsuit on the
grounds that the trial could not be completed within the time
constraints of the court.  On September 27, 2002, the Circuit Court
Judge recused himself from the case.  A new judge has been assigned to
the case but a trial date for the damages portion of the lawsuit has
not been rescheduled.


BROWN TOM: Named As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit in WY State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown Tom, Inc. is party to an action filed in Sweetwater County Court,
Wyoming by three overriding royalty interest owners seeking
certification as a class of all non-governmental entities which are
paid royalties or overriding royalties by the Company in Wyoming.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Wyoming Royalty
Payment Act by improperly deducting gas transportation costs in
calculating royalties and overriding royalties on Wyoming production
and by failing to properly itemize all deductions taken on its payee
reports.  The issue in the case is whether transportation of natural
gas off the lease to market is deductible transportation or non-
deductible gathering within the meaning of the Act.

In January 2003, the Wyoming Supreme Court agreed to answer two
certified questions in a separate lawsuit which are:

     (1) what is meant by the term "gathering" as that term is employed
         in the Act in defining nondeductible "costs of production,"
         and

     (2) when do the causes of action for recovery of the reporting
         penalty and for improper deductions under the Act accrue.

Because of the preliminary nature of the proceedings, it is not
possible to fully determine the ultimate loss exposure or probable
outcome of this litigation.


CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Hollywood Fundraiser
---------------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against
Hollywood fundraiser Aaron Tonken, alleging he has defrauded charities
and their donors, diverted donations to bank accounts he controlled and
refused to account for more than $1.5 million in contributions to six
charitable events he agreed to produce.

"This lawsuit details a sordid scheme to steal money from worthy
charities, use it for improper purposes, and refuse to account for the
donations," said Mr. Lockyer.  "In bringing this action, our first
priority is to shut down Tonken's operation to ensure he and other
defendants cannot continue to defraud charitable causes and their
generous donors.  Allowing egregious misconduct like this to go
unchecked can chill charitable donations and harm the organizations
they support."

The defrauded charitable organizations include the Kids Campaign, the
Joan English Fund for Women's Cancer Research, the Michael J. Fox
Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, City of Hope, Inner-City Games
Foundation, Westside Waldorf School, the Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson
Association, and the Robert H. Lorsch Foundation Trust.  The ripped off
charities include organizations supported by celebrities such as singer
Rod Stewart, the pop music group *Nsync and the cast of the TV show
Ally McBeal.

The complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeks a
permanent injunction barring Mr. Tonken and the other defendants from
engaging in charitable fundraising, or disbursing donations from the
events cited in the lawsuit, until they provide a full accounting of
the money.  The complaint also asks the court to award general damages
of at least $1.7 million, unspecified punitive damages and civil
penalties of at least $350,000.

Defendants in the case include:

     (1) Mr. Tonken,

     (2) Aaron Tonken & Associates, his commercial fundraising firm,

     (3) Cynthia Gershman, trustee of the Cynthia Gershman Foundation,

     (4) Los Angeles-area lawyer Kevin Clarke and

     (5) Los Angeles resident Robert Freedman.

Under statutory and common law, commercial fundraisers for charities
owe a fiduciary duty both to donors and the charities for which they
solicit money.  Additionally, they must ensure contributions are used
for the charitable purposes for which they are raised.  State law also
requires such fundraisers to register with, and provide annual
financial reports to, the Attorney General's Office.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Tonken and his firm fraudulently solicited
charitable donations, diverted donations to non-charitable purposes,
improperly commingled funds, refused to account for the money and
failed to comply with registration and financial reporting mandates.   
The complaint further alleges Ms. Gershman, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Freedman
aided and abetted Mr. Tonken.  Ms. Gershman also breached her fiduciary
duty to the Gershman Foundation and engaged in self-dealing, the
lawsuit states, by allowing Mr. Tonken to spend Foundation money to
repay personal loans to Ms. Gershman, and to pay for Ms. Gershman's
public relations expenses.

Cases detailed in the complaint include:

     (i) Family Celebration 2001 - President Clinton and Hillary
         Clinton served as honorary chairpersons; TV producer David E.
         Kelley and actress Michelle Pfeiffer as chairpersons.  
         Beneficiaries included charities designated by the Ally
         McBeal cast and *Nsync.  Mr. Tonken produced the event, which
         was held April 1, 2001 and which raised at least $1.5
         million.  The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken diverted some of
         the donations to accounts he controlled.  To date, an unknown
         amount of the diverted contributions has not been turned over
         to the charities;

    (ii) Celebrating Diana - This Tonken-produced event was supposed
         to benefit the Joan English Fund for Women's Cancer Research,
         the Robert H. Lorsch Foundation Trust and charities
         designated by TV producer Loreen Arbus.  Tonken took in at
         least $550,000 in donations, loans and expense payments for
         the event and has failed to account for any of the money.  
         The event never was held.  The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken
         and Mr. Clarke diverted a substantial portion of the $550,000
         to improper uses, including directing $200,000 to Mr.
         Freedman.  Mr. Tonken falsely told the event's fiscal agent
         he needed the $200,000 to secure the appearance of former
         South Africa President Nelson Mandela;

   (iii) Hollywood Gala Salute to Milton Berle - This event, also
         produced by Tonken, was supposed to raise money for the  
         Westside Waldorf School, Women of Washington and charities
         designated by actress Whoopi Goldberg.  No money raised from
         the event, which took place July 22, 2001, has gone to the
         Westside Waldorf School or Women of Washington.  The
         complaint alleges Mr. Tonken diverted $100,000 of the
         contributions to Clarke's law firm, the Ronin Law Group.

    (iv) Unified in Great Cause for an Evening to Remember -
         Produced by Mr. Tonken, this event was supposed to benefit the
         City of Hope, Inner-City Games Foundation and Knowledge Is
         Power.  The event was held at Rod Stewart's home September 19,
         2002.  To date, no donations from the event have been made to
         the City of Hope or Inner-City Games.  It is unclear how much
         money, if any, went to Knowledge Is Power;

     (v) The Kids Campaign Event - This Tonken-produced event was
         supposed to benefit the Kids Campaign, the Mark Wahlberg Youth
         Foundation and the Children's Craniofacial Association.  Mr.
         Tonken solicited $100,000 in donations for the express purpose
         of underwriting the event.  The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken
         subsequently convinced the Kids Campaign to give $60,000 of
         that money to Mr. Freedman, under the false pretense the money
         would help cover the event's expenses.  The event has not
         taken place, and Mr. Tonken has refused to provide an
         accounting.


CALLAWAY GOLF: KS Consumers Sue Over New Product Introduction Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Callaway Golf Sales Company faces a class action pending in the
District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, on behalf of Kansas
consumers who purchased select Callaway Golf products covered by the
New Product Introduction Policy.  Callaway Golf Company is also named
in the Kansas case.  The plaintiff in the Kansas case seeks
damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law.

Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not
predictable with assurance.  Consequently, management is unable to
estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability, amounts
which may be covered by insurance, or the financial impact with respect
to the suit.  Management believes at this time that the final
resolution of the suit will not have a material adverse effect upon the
Company's consolidated annual results of operations or cash flows, or
financial position.


CAPITOL ONE: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol One Financial Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to dismiss the second
amended consolidated securities class action pending against them and
several of the Corporation's executive officers.

The first consolidated suit alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
amended complaint asserted a class period of January 16, 2001, through
July 16, 2002, inclusive.  The amended complaint alleged generally
that, during the asserted class period, the Company misrepresented the
adequacy of its capital levels and loan loss allowance relating to
higher risk assets.  In addition, the amended complaint alleged
generally that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing
serious infrastructure deficiencies and systemic computer problems as a
result of its growth.

On December 4, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend.  Pursuant to that
order, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 23,
2002, which asserted the same class period and alleged violations of
the same statutes and rule.  The second amended complaint also added a
new individual defendant and asserted violations of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to
this case.  The Company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint on January 8, 2003.  At the present time, management is not
in a position to determine whether the resolution of this case will
have a material adverse effect on either the consolidated financial
position of the Company or its results of operations in any future
reporting period.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: CA Attorney General To Review San Diego Abuse Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer will review, for possible
prosecution, several San Diego County cases alleging sexual abuse by
clerics in the Roman Catholic diocese.  The Attorney General agreed to
accept the cases at the request of San Diego County District Attorney
Bonnie Dumanis.

"Sexual assaults by priests are among the worst crimes because they are
not only violent, they also involve a violation of the victim's
trust," Mr. Lockyer said in a press release.  "My office will do a
thorough and fair review of the alleged sexual abuse incidents by a
number of priests in San Diego County and do everything possible to
provide justice."

The San Diego District Attorney's Office referred three separate
cases to the Attorney General for prosecutorial review.  Before
deciding whether to prosecute, the Attorney General's office will
review the cases over the next several weeks and consult with
prosecutors and investigators in the District Attorney's Office, as
well as local law enforcement agencies that investigated the cases.

In addition to the three cases referred by District Attorney Dumanis,
numerous other Diocese-related sexual assault investigations are
currently being conducted by local law enforcement agencies throughout
San Diego County.  The Attorney General's office also will be
responsible for making prosecutorial decisions on any cases referred to
his office by local investigating agencies.


COMARCO INC.: Recalls 125,000 Detachable Plugs For Electrocution Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comarco, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to replace about
125,000 detachable plugs on power adapters.  The plug can break open
and expose live wires, posing an electrocution or electric shock hazard
to consumers.  The Company has received 12 reports of the plugs
breaking open, though no injuries have been reported.
        
The recalled AC plugs, which were sold with 70-watt AC power
adapters, have the word "ChargeSource" printed on top of the plug.   
The black adapters have a model name of "Targus" and model number of
PA-AC-70W-2, which can be found on a label on the back of the adapter.  
The name "Targus" also appears in white letters on the front of the
adapter.  The adapters were manufactured in the United States.
        
Major retail stores nationwide sold the adapters between July 2002
and March 2003 for between $90 and $120.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 859-7928 between
7 am and 7 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the company's Website:
http://www.regcen.com/comarco


CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Orders Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against the
Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period from June 23, 2000 to August 12, 2002.  The
suits also name as defendants:

     (1) Harvey N. Jones, and

     (2) Stephen S. Lowber

The suits uniformly alleges liability under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder on the grounds that the defendants caused the Company to
falsely report its results for fiscal years 2000-2002 through improper
revenue recognition, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter
story.

On November 12, 2002, the Tilson Growth Fund filed a motion asking the
court:

     (i) to consolidate the three shareholder class action suits into a
         single proceeding before the Honorable Robert Lasnik, United
         States District Court Judge for the Western District of
         Washington, for pretrial and trial proceedings;

    (ii) to enter an Order requiring the defendants to preserve
         documents;

   (iii) to appoint Tilson Growth Fund as the lead plaintiff under
         Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
         and

    (iv) to approve Tilson Growth Fund's selection of plaintiff's lead
         and liaison counsel.

On February 20, 2003, the court granted the motion to appoint the
Tilson Growth Fund as lead plaintiff, ordered the cases to be
consolidated, denied the Tilson Growth Fund's motion for the
appointment of liason counsel and directed the lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated complaint within 60 days.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of these other routine
matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position and results of operations.


CUTTER & BUCK: Officers, Directors Face Derivative Lawsuit in WA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutter & Buck, Inc.'s current and former officers and directors face a
shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State
of Washington, for King County.  The complaint names as defendants
certain of the Company's current and former directors and the Company's
former CFO:

     (1) Frances M. Conley,

     (2) Michael S. Brownfield,

     (3) Larry C. Mounger,

     (4) James C. Towne,

     (5) Harvey N. Jones,

     (6) Martin J. Marks,
     
     (7) Stephen S. Lowber and

     (8) Cutter & Buck, Inc.,

The suit, filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleges that the
individual defendants are liable to the Company for breach of their
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust
enrichment in connection with the events giving rise to the Company's
restatement of its financial statements.  It seeks unspecified damages,
costs and attorney fees as well as equitable relief.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of these other routine
matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position and results of operations.


ESSEF CORPORATION: Working To Settle All M/V Horizon Passenger Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essef Corporation is close to settling all lawsuits relating to alleged
exposure to Legionnaires bacteria by passengers aboard the cruise ship
M/V Horizon.  

Twenty-eight separate lawsuits involving 29 primary plaintiffs, a class
action, and claims for indemnity by Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc.
(Celebrity) were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries.  The M/V Horizon is a ship operated by Celebrity.  The
lawsuits included a class action brought on behalf of all passengers
aboard the ship during the relevant time period, individual "opt-out"
passenger suits, and a suit by Celebrity.  Celebrity alleges in its
suit that it has sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the
M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked.

The claims against the Company and its involved subsidiaries are based
upon the allegation that Essef designed, manufactured, and marketed two
sand swimming pool filters that were installed as a part of the spa
system on the Horizon, and allegations that the spa and filters
contained bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises from
December 1993 through July 1994.

A settlement was later reached in the class action.  With regard to the
individual "opt-out" passenger suits, the claims of one plaintiff were
tried under a stipulation among all remaining parties providing that
the liability findings would be applicable to all plaintiffs and
defendants.  The claims of this plaintiff were unusual because he
alleged that he developed complications that profoundly impaired his
mental functioning.  No other plaintiff asserted similar claims.

The trial resulted in a jury verdict finding liability on the part of
the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister company,
Fantasia (together 30%).  Compensatory damages in the total amount of
$2.7 million were awarded, each defendant being accountable for its
proportionate share of liability.  The Essef defendants' proportionate
share is covered by insurance.  Punitive damages were separately
awarded against the Essef defendants in the total amount of $7 million,
with 60% awarded to all remaining plaintiffs and 40% to Celebrity.  The
Essef defendant filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict which
were denied in February 2002 and has subsequently filed an appeal to
the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.

All of the remaining individual cases have been resolved through either
settlement or trial.  The only remaining unresolved case is that
brought by Celebrity for interruption of its business.  That case has
been placed on hold pending a resolution of post-trial motions.

At the current time, the Company is optimistic that remaining suits
will be resolved within available insurance coverage.  With regard to
Celebrity's claim against Essef, Westchester, one of Essef's insurance
carriers, has issued a notice of rights letter.  


GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Final Approval To Bromine Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Great Lakes
Chemical Corporation to settle a consolidated class action against it,
claiming treble damages arising out of an alleged conspiracy concerning
the pricing of bromine and brominated products.  The court later
certified a class of direct purchasers of certain brominated products.

On September 10, 2002, the Company agreed to settle the federal suit.  
The settlement agreement affects direct purchasers from the Company of
brominated diphenyl oxides (decabromodiphenyl oxide, octabromodiphenyl
oxide and pentabromodiphenyl oxide) and their blends,
(tetrabromobisphenol-A and its derivatives and all methyl bromide
products and their derivatives) in the United States between January 1,
1995 and April 30, 1998.  The Company agreed to a $4.1 million cash
payment and $2.6 million in vouchers for the future purchase of
decabromodiphenyl oxide and/or tetrabromobisphenol-A, to be distributed
to class members.  

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company remitted the cash
portion to an escrow account on November 8, 2002, subject to final
approval of the settlement agreement by the federal court.  After
notice to class members, the federal court gave final approval to the
settlement in January 2003.  The plaintiffs have submitted a plan of
distribution for court approval.  The plan included a form of voucher
agreed to by the Company.

Additionally, five similar cases are pending against the Company in the
Superior Court for San Francisco County claim alleged violations of
California competition laws.  These cases were stayed pending
resolution of the federal cases, and are not impacted by the federal
settlement.  The Company has denied that the cases were legitimately
filed as class actions and denies all liability.


HERTZ CORPORATION: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments For Dismissal of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama heard oral arguments for the
dismissal of a class action filed against The Hertz Corporation,
Enterprise Rent A Car and other rental companies, on behalf of all
persons in the United States who rented from the defendant car rental
companies and, as part of that rental, purchased optional insurance
products.

The suit, originally filed in state court, was removed to the United
States District Court for the Middle District Court of Alabama,
Northern Division.  The Company and the other defendants then filed a
series of motions which sought dismissal of the various causes of
action based upon the judge's initial ruling that a private right of
action does not exist under Alabama law for the alleged unlicensed sale
of insurance.

A final order of dismissal was entered in January 2000, and the
plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia.  In January 2002, the
Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and directed the
district court to remand the case to the court from which it had been
removed (Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama).

Following the remand, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss.  Oral arguments were heard on that motion on August
20, 2002, but the court has not yet rendered its decision.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York to certify as a class action the suit pending against the
Hertz Corporation on behalf of persons who rented private passenger
vehicles from the Company in New York under rental agreements
containing provisions which allegedly violate the express provisions of
Section 396-z of the General Business Law of New York and New York's
consumer fraud statute (i.e., Section 349 of the General Business Law).

More specifically, it is alleged that rental agreements used by the
Company in New York included provisions that impose liability upon
renters beyond the statutorily permitted amounts and that the rental
agreements failed to disclose to renters their rights and
responsibilities concerning vehicle damage.

The parties have agreed to bifurcate class discovery and damages
discovery and have engaged in a limited amount of class discovery.  The
Company has filed a motion for summary judgment.  Reply briefs are to
be filed shortly.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Denies Allegations in Station Managers Lawsuit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation faces a nationwide opt-in collective action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, on behalf of all Senior Station Managers, Station Managers and
"B" Station Managers employed by the Company throughout the United
States, contesting their exempt classification and seeking payment of
overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
complaint also contains a subclass for all such managers employed in
New York for alleged violations of state labor laws.

The Company served its answer to the complaint and denied the
substantive allegations.  Discovery has now commenced.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses in the suit.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of
its present and former directors and officers.

The suit was filed by a purported class of Interpublic stock purchasers
shortly after the Company's August 13, 2002 announcement regarding the
restatement of its previously reported earnings for the periods January
1, 1997 through March 31, 2002.  The purported classes consist of
Company shareholders who purchased Company stock in the period from
October 1997 to October 2002.

Specifically, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and officers
allegedly made misleading statements to its shareholders between
October 1997 and October 2002, including the alleged failure to
disclose the existence of additional charges that would need to be
expensed and the lack of adequate internal financial controls, which
allegedly resulted in an overstatement of the Company's financial
results during those periods.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that such false and
misleading statements constitute violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
consolidated amended complaint also alleges violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's
acquisition of True North Communications, Inc. No amount of damages is
specified in the consolidated amended complaint.

On February 6, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On February 28, 2003,
plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion.  The motion is
currently pending.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 401(K) Plan Members Commence ERISA Suit in OR Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and certain of its directors and
officers, face a putative class action filed in United States District
Court for the District of Oregon, on behalf of persons who are
participants and beneficiaries of the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan.

Plaintiffs generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and violations
of disclosure requirements and obligations under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in relation to investments in
the Company's common stock acquired or held through the Plan.  
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief
and a declaration that the defendants violated duties, obligations and
responsibilities imposed upon them as fiduciaries and co-fiduciaries
and the disclosure requirements under ERISA.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended their suit and dismissed the
directors but named the LP employees who served on the Pension
Administration Committee.  Further, the plaintiffs seek to represent
all participants and beneficiaries of the Hourly 401(k) and Profit
Sharing Plan as well as the Salary 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan.
The allegations made, and damages sought, are generally the same as in
the original suit.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit.  Based
upon the information currently available, the Company believes that the
resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on
its financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: Agrees To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics, Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to
settle the class action filed against it and certain of the Company's
directors on behalf of all holders of the Company's Class A common
stock and derivatively on behalf of the Company in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The suit alleged that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties of disclosure, care and loyalty by approving an
agreement between the Company and certain shareholders of the Company
that control a majority of the Class B shares (the "McGinley Family
Shareholders"), pursuant to which the Company agreed, among other
things, to make a tender offer for the repurchase of all of its Class B
common stock at a price of $20 per share.  The agreement was approved
by a special committee of Class A directors of the Methode board of
directors and entered into on August 19, 2002.

Plaintiff further alleged in the suit that the Company's board approved
the tender offer, caused the Company to enter into certain employment
agreements with the Company's chairman of the board and certain of its
officers, and failed to disclose and misrepresented certain information
in connection with the Company's 2002 Proxy Statement, as part of a
scheme to entrench the incumbent board and management.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged in the suit that the directors of
the Company, by approving the repurchase of the Class B common stock,
diverted a corporate opportunity away from the Company and the Class A
stockholders.  Plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the
repurchase of the Class B common stock, as well as other equitable
relief.

On December 26, 2002, the Special Committee approved an amendment to
the agreement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to call a special
meeting of the Class A shareholders for the purpose of seeking the
approval of the tender offer by the affirmative vote of a majority of
the Class A shares present or represented by proxy at the meeting
(excluding the shares held by the McGinley Family Shareholders).

The Company filed a preliminary proxy statement for the special
meeting on February 21, 2003, with the Securities & Exchange
Commission.  Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel stated their intention to
file an amended complaint challenging the amended agreement and the
disclosures made in the preliminary proxy statement.

On March 17, 2003, the parties in the suit entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the suit on the terms set
forth therein.  Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, defendants agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) they would only proceed with the Tender Offer if it receives
         approval by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Class A
         shares present or represented by proxy at a special meeting
         (excluding the shares held by the McGinley family);

     (2) to make certain revisions to the disclosures in the proxy
         statement to be delivered to stockholders in connection with
         the special meeting requested by Plaintiff; and

     (3) for the Company to declare a special dividend of $0.04 per
         Class A share to the Class A shareholders within 60 days
         following consummation of the Tender Offer.

The memorandum of understanding also provides for the dismissal of the
suit with prejudice and release of claims against defendants.  The
settlement as provided for in the memorandum of understanding is
contingent upon, among other things, approval by the court.


NEXPRISE INC.: Court To Rule On Suit Dismissal Without Oral Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will issue a ruling on the dismissal motions filed by
Nexprise, Inc. for a consolidated securities class action pending
against it and certain of its officers and directors without oral
argument from both parties.

Beginning in March 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Company's securities during time
periods from December 13, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  One of the
lawsuits also names as a defendant the lead underwriter for the
Company's offering of convertible notes.  The lawsuits generally allege
that the Company and certain individuals violated federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements during 2000, including
in the Company's registration statement for its convertible notes
offering.  The suits were later consolidated.

No discovery has taken place, and the court has not set a trial
date.  The Company believes that the claims are without merit.

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative suit was filed in
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County against certain of the
Company's present and former officers and directors, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty and insider trading.  The Company is named solely as
a nominal defendant against which no recovery is sought.  After a
demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, the parties stipulated to a
stay of proceedings pending resolution of the federal consolidated
action.


PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PerkinElmer, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action pending against it, Gregory L. Summe, Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and President, and Robert F. Friel, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of himself and purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002, claims
violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements made during the
putative class period by the Company and its management were misleading
with respect to the Company's prospects and future operating results.

On February 24, 2003, defendants served a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  Plaintiffs will serve an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on or before April 7, 2003.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit.  The
Company is currently unable, however, to determine whether resolution
of this matter will have a material adverse impact on its financial
position or results of operations, or reasonably estimate the amount of
the loss, if any, that may result from resolution of this matter.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Electric Rate Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company faces two class actions on behalf of
two classes of electric service customers.  One suit seeks to represent
current PGE customers that were customers during the period from April
1, 1995 to October 1, 2001 and the other seeks to represent PGE
customers that were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to
October 1, 2001, but who are no longer customers.

The suits seek damages of $190 million for the current class and $70
million for the former class, from the inclusion of a return on
investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates the Company charges
its customers.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these cases.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Court To Hear Appeal of Remand of Energy Traders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the
appeal on the remand of the consolidated master complaint filed against
Portland General Electric Company and various individuals, utilities,
generators, traders of electricity to California State Court.

The suit alleges activities related to the purchase and sale of
electricity in California in 2000 and 2001 violated California
antitrust and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, restitution of all funds acquired by means that violate
the law and payment of treble damages, interest, and penalties.   The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC,

     (2) Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC,

     (3) Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC,

     (4) Duke Energy South Bay, LLC,

     (5) Duke Energy Oakland, LLC,

     (6) Reliant Energy Services, Inc.,

     (7) Reliant Ormond Beach, Inc.,

     (8) Reliant Energy Etiwanda, Inc.,

     (9) Reliant Energy Ellwood, Inc.,

    (10) Reliant Energy Mandalay, Inc., and

    (11) Reliant Energy Coolwater, Inc.

In April 2002, the Duke Parties filed a cross complaint against the
Company and other utilities, generators, traders and other entities not
named in the Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases (Cross-defendants),
alleging that they participated in the purchase and sale of electricity
in California during 2000-2001 and seeking complete indemnification
and/or partial equitable indemnity on a comparative fault basis for any
liability that the court may impose on the Duke Parties under the
Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases.  Legal and equitable relief is
sought, with no specific monetary amount claimed. The Reliant Parties
have filed a similar cross complaint against PGE and the other Cross-
defendants.  The cases were removed to California federal court.

The Duke Parties, Reliant Parties, and Cross-defendants have stipulated
to place the cross complaints in abeyance until 30 days after a ruling
on their motions to dismiss the Master Complaint by either the
California state courts or the federal courts.

On December 13, 2002, the United States District Court in California
signed an order granting the plaintiff's motions to remand the cases to
the California state court but the order was not immediately
implemented.  The Duke and Reliant Parties filed an appeal to the
United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and applied to the
District Court for a stay of the remand to the California state court.

On January 24, 2003, the District Court denied the application for a
stay and deferred certain motions for reconsideration.  On February 20,
2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued
an Order deciding it had jurisdiction to hear the appeals from the
District Court's December 13, 2002 remand order.  The Ninth Circuit
also issued a stay of the remand order pending the outcome of the
appeals and set a briefing schedule that will not be completed until
mid-September 2003.

As stated above, the cross complaint against PGE will be continued in
abeyance until 30 days after a ruling is entered on the motions to
dismiss the Master Complaint.


PGE: WA Consumers Commence Lawsuit For Consumer Protection Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company faces a class action filed on behalf
of consumers in the State of Washington. It was filed against
participants in the Pacific Northwest electric power markets, including
PGE, in Washington State Court.  

The suit alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
fraud by concealment, and negligence.  The relief sought includes
treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief to prohibit the
unlawful practices alleged.  No monetary amount is specified. The
plaintiff has agreed to extend the time for PGE to respond until after
April 2, 2003.


REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Faces Suit Over Second Mortgage Loans in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Bancshares, Inc. was named as one of 35 investor defendants in
a class action filed on behalf of several Missouri residential real
estate owners or borrowers, in the United States District Court in New
Jersey-Trenton Vicinage.

The plaintiffs obtained second mortgage, High LTV Loans from Century
Financial, Inc., during the 1997-1998 timeframe.  During this period,
the Bank purchased 112 loans from Century totaling approximately $5.4
million.  The plaintiffs allege that Century charged illegal loan
origination fees and closing costs in violation of the Missouri Second
Mortgage Loans Act.  Under the purchase agreement with Century, all
fees and costs Century collected, it retained.  The plaintiffs are
seeking both actual and punitive damages.

The plaintiff in this case purchased certain mortgage-backed notes with
a face amount of $7.5 million that were collateralized by High LTV
Loans and issued by Keystone Owner Trust 1998-P2.  The Bank is the
servicer of record for the mortgages underlying the trust.  The
plaintiff later sold its investment for an amount higher than its
purchase price.  The plaintiff is alleging that a correction made to
the amounts remitted by the mortgage holders diminished the value of
its investment and is seeking $500,000 in damages.  The lawsuit
includes claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraud.  

Discovery is continuing in this matter.  The Bank believes the lawsuit
to be without merit, and has yet to reach any conclusion regarding its
validity.


S. ROTHSCHILD & CO.: Recalls 37,000 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Rothschild & Co., Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling for repair about
37,000 girls' iridescent, hooded winter jackets.  The rubber petal and
metal snap can break off of the jacket, posing a choking hazard to
young children.
        
The Company has received two reports of the rubber petal coming off the
jacket, including one child who reportedly put the petal in her mouth.  
The snaps have come off in subsequent testing.
       
The recalled jackets are blue, lilac, pink, raspberry and magenta
and include sizes XS/2T - L4T, 2/4 - M/5-6 - L/6X, 3/6 - 6/9 - 12M -
18M 24M, and S/2T - M/3T - L/4T - XL/5T.  The style numbers, which can
be found on a tag attached to the left sleeve, are 52913, 52813J,
12913K, B2913, 32813, 12816C, 3281J, 82819D, 82816D, and 32816C.  The
jacket labels include the words, "Little Impressions," "Rothschild,"
"Izzi's Kids," or "Clockwise."  The recalled jackets were made in
India.
        
Major retail stores nationwide sold the jackets from May 2002
through December 2002 for about $25 to $45.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 301-3411 between
8 am and 3:30 pm ET Monday through Friday to arrange for the jacket to
be repaired and returned free of charge.   


SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SilverStream Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, several of its former
officers and directors, and the underwriters who handled its two public
offerings.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of certain former Company
stockholders who purchased shares of Company common stock between
August 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  In particular, the suit alleges, among other things,
that there was undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of
the Company's public offering.  

The suit is closely related to several hundred other complaints that
the same plaintiffs have brought against other issuers and
underwriters.  All issuers, including the Company, later filed a motion
to dismiss the suit.

The Company believes that it and its former officers and directors have
meritorious defenses to the claims made in the complaints and intends
to contest the claims against them vigorously.  While there can be no
assurance as to the ultimate disposition of the litigation, the Company
does not believe that its resolution will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


SUPERGEN INC.: FDA Warns About Misleading Facts in Mitozytrex Release
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers and health
care practitioners about misrepresentations in a SuperGen, Inc. press
release dated November 15, 2002, in connection with a recently approved
cancer drug, Mitozytrex (mitomycin for injection).

The press release, entitled "FDA approves SuperGen's New Drug
Application to Market Mitozytrex (MitoExtra)" and disseminated by
SuperGen, Inc., exaggerates the efficacy of Mitozytrex and fails to
include the significant risks associated with the use of the drug.  
Indeed, the press release does not even mention acute adverse reactions
that can result from administration of Mitozytrex, which include fever,
anorexia, nausea, and vomiting.  The press release also fails to
disclose that Mitozytrex is associated with more serious adverse
events, such as myelosuppression and hemolytic uremic syndrome.

A boxed warning included in the Mitozytrex package insert reads:  "Bone
marrow suppression, notably thrombocytopenia and leukopenia, which may
contribute to overwhelming infections in an already compromised
patient, is the most common and severe of the toxic effects of
mitomycin."

"Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a serious complication of
chemotherapy, consisting primarily of microangiopathic hemolytic
anemia, thrombocytopenia, and irreversible renal failure has been
reported in mitomycin.  The syndrome may occur at any time during
systemic therapy with mitomycin as a single agent or in combination
with other cytotoxic drugs, however, most cases occur at cumulative
doses greater than or equal to 60 mg of mitomycin.  Blood product
transfusion may exacerbate the symptoms associated with this syndrome."

The press release issued by SuperGen also makes unsupported claims that
Mitozytrex is a "supergeneric" from the company's Extra technology
platform and that the Extra technology is "designed to enhance generic
drugs," that is, create "improved generics, or supergenerics."

Mitozytrex is bioequivalent to the innovator mitomycin.  It differs
from the innovator formulation only in that Mitozytrex contains the
excipient hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPCD).  No data submitted by
the company provided evidence that Mitozytrex is superior to existing
marketed formulations of mitomycin, and there is no evidence that the
addition of HPCD yields any clinical advantage over existing
formulations of mitomycin.

Despite the absence of any evidence of such a benefit, SuperGen's
release states that "SuperGen's Extra technology is designed to
'shield' the drug from the injection site, thus providing the patient
protection from tissue ulceration."  This statement is unsupported.  
The adverse events associated with Mitozytrex in the bioequivalence
study conducted before approval were consistent with those mentioned in
the product labeling for the innovator mitomycin.  

In addition, the repeat dose study provided no evidence that the safety
profile of Mitozytrex is different from the innovator mitomycin.  In
fact, one patient in this study did experience tissue necrosis at the
injection site.

SuperGen, Inc., claims in its press release that the company's Extra
technology could offer other important advantages over existing
generics, such as "increased solubility, stability and shelf life."  
The instructions for reconstitution of Mitozytrex and the innovator
mitomycin, however, are identical in terms of steps required and time
necessary for dissolution.  The only difference is that Mitozytrex
calls for a slightly smaller amount of sterile water - an
inconsequential difference.  With regard to stability and shelf life,
storage conditions for unreconstituted Mitozytrex and the innovator
mitomycin are identical.

Finally, even though the FDA rejected the name, "MitoExtra," as the
proprietary name for SuperGen's brand of mitomycin for injection, the
company presents the name "MitoExtra" as the drug's trade name in the
press release.  FDA rejected this name because it suggests clinical
benefits that have not been substantiated by data.  Notwithstanding
this rejection, the name "MitoExtra" is used "to market Mitozytrex
(MitoExtra)." SuperGen also uses the name "MitoExtra" interchangeably
with "Mitozytrex" as the proprietary name.  The FDA-approved name for
the drug, as it appears in the approved product labeling, is
"Mitozytrex (mitomycin for injection)."

The FDA believes the characterizations of Mitozytrex (mitomycin for
injection) warrant clarification of the record.  The company's press
release concerned an oncology drug, and the FDA has a practice of
focusing enforcement resources on misleading information about products
intended for life-threatening conditions.  Moreover, the company's
press release is particularly egregious in that it includes not only
misleading statements about the benefits of the company's drug compared
to other similar versions, but also statements that are demonstrably
false.

Under the circumstances, the FDA determined it was imperative to
correct the record, and to do so in a manner that would reached as many
of the same recipients of the original false and misleading messages.  
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, gives FDA authority to
disseminate information to the public regarding drugs and other
products within FDA's jurisdiction to address imminent health dangers
or gross deception.  To protect the public health, FDA is notifying the
public that a particular product has not been found by the agency to
have benefits that its manufacturer claims.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action
filed against Turnstone Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System filed the first suit
in March 2001, alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The case also names as defendants the
underwriters of the Company's September 21, 2000 secondary offering of
common stock.  The complaint alleged that the defendants issued false
and misleading statements in the Company's prospectus issued in
connection with its secondary offering.  

Four other suits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the same court.  These
latter complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements during the class period of June 5, 2000 through January
2, 2001, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   

All five cases were consolidated before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong in
the Northern District of California in October 2001.  By order dated
December 3, 2001, Judge Armstrong designated Radiant Advisors, LLC as
lead plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP as co-lead counsel
for the consolidated actions.  The lead plaintiff filed two separate
consolidated amended complaints on March 19, 2002.

On June 20, 2002, Judge Armstrong issued an order for plaintiff to show
cause as to why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for
plaintiff's failure to file one consolidated amended complaint.  The
lead plaintiff filed a certificate of counsel in response to the order
on June 27, 2002.  The Company filed a response on July 3, 2002.

On August 30, 2002, Judge Armstrong struck the two separate amended
complaints previously filed by the lead plaintiff and ordered that a
single amended complaint be filed.  The lead plaintiff filed a single
amended complaint on September 13, 2002.  The Company then filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 8, 2002.

On February 4, 2003, Judge Armstrong issued an order denying in part
and granting in part, with leave to amend, the Company's motion to
dismiss.

The Company disputes the allegations in the suit, but cannot give any
assurance that it will be successful in its defense of the suit.  If it
is unsuccessful, these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on
its business, financial condition and results of operations, it
revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  
Even if it is successful in defending against these claims, the
litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management's
attention and resources, which could adversely affect its results of
operations.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering of stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased the
Company's common stock during its initial public offering between
January 31 and December 6, 2000, alleges generally that the prospectus
under which the securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by the
underwriters and asserts claims against the defendants under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300
cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently pending in
the Southern District of New York.  Michael Szymanowski was later
appointed lead plaintiff in the action.

In July 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss.  The Company, collectively with the other issuer defendants,
also filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.  On February 19, 2003, the
court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss with respect to
substantially all of the plaintiffs' claims, including those against
the Company.

Each of the Company's current and former officers who were named in the
New York securities class action has entered into a tolling agreement,
effective as of July 20, 2002, with the plaintiff.  Pursuant to the
tolling agreement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the Company's
current and former officers from the lawsuit in exchange for a tolling
of the statute of limitations with respect to any claims that may be
asserted against them through the earlier of thirty days after the
termination of the tolling agreement or September 30, 2003.  On October
9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the Company's current
and former officers from the lawsuit.

The Company disputes the allegations in the suit, but cannot give any
assurance that it will be successful in its defense of lawsuit.  If the
Company is unsuccessful, the suit could have a material adverse effect
on its business, financial condition and results of operations.


VERSANT INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of the consolidated securities class action pending against Versant,
Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and directors.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, in
connection with public statements about Versant and its financial
performance.

In December 2001, the court dismissed the third amended complaint with
prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to state a claim in their
securities fraud action.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 2, 2002, the plaintiffs, now as appellants, filed an opening
brief alleging the dismissal was in error and should be reversed.  The
Company filed its answering brief on July 12, 2002, and the appellant
filed their reply brief on August 9, 2002.  Oral arguments were heard
on January 14, 2003 and on January 23, 2003 the appeals court affirmed
the dismissal.


WALT DISNEY: Voluntarily Recalls 40,000 Woody Dolls For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 40,000
Woody dolls sold at the WALT DISNEY WORLD(r) Resort in Lake Buena
Vista, Florida, DISNEY'S VERO BEACH Resort, Magic of Disney and Flight
Fantastic shops located at the Orlando International Airport and
Disney's Worldport shop located at Pointe Orlando.  The Woody doll's
clothing has buttons that can detach, posing a choking hazard for young
children.
        
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has received one report of a child
removing a button from the Woody doll.  No injuries have been reported.
        
The recalled doll is a cowboy named Woody, a character in the
animated films Toy Story and Toy Story II.  The Woody doll is a soft-
bodied doll with soft plastic head, hands, boots and hat; wearing blue
jeans a red/yellow-checked shirt, a black/white-spotted vest with a
sheriff's badge; a red-patterned bandana and is 13 inches tall.  A
label sewn into the left side seam of the doll reads, "WALT DISNEY
WORLD (r)" on one side and "(c)DISNEY, ALL NEW MATERIALS, POLYESTER
FIBERS," several State license numbers, and "WALT DISNEY ATTRACTIONS,
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL, PRODUCT OF CHINA" on the other side.  Only the
Woody dolls described above are included in the recall.
        
These recalled soft dolls were sold from January 2000 through
January 2003 for about $12.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 228-3664 between
9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit their Website:
http://www.waltdisneyworld.com.

  

                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Acclaim Entertainment,
Inc. (Nasdaq:AKLM), from January 11, 2002 through 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

     (6) 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CAMINUS CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Caminus Corporation
(Nasdaq:CAMZ) securities between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002,
inclusive, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old York Road,
Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone: 215-886-1900 or
by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


CAMINUS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Caminus Corporation
(Nasdaq:CAMZ), from February 12, 2002 through July 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Caminus' securities.

Specifically, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous
statements regarding the Company's future prospects and describing how
demand for the Company's products continued to be strong.  As alleged
in the suit, these statements were each materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented, among other
things, the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's business was coming under increasing
         pressure as many of Caminus' clients were deferring product
         purchases and/or determining not to proceed at all with
         planned purchases;

     (2) that the Company's strategic consulting business was not
         performing to the Company's expectations and would not be able
         to contribute the revenues and earnings that were anticipated;
         and

     (3) that the market for Caminus' products was quickly
         deteriorating as many energy companies were being heavily
         scrutinized by regulatory authorities, experiencing declining
         financial condition and grappling to fix the deficiencies in
         their respective businesses.

Moreover, energy trading -- an area where Caminus provided software
systems -- was in steep decline as many of the major players exited the
field amid scandal.

On July 8, 2002, the last day of the class period, Caminus shocked the
market when it announced that revenues for the second quarter would be
$7 million less than previously promised and that the Company now would
experience a loss, as compared to the $0.03 per share profit previously
represented.  The Company attributed the earnings shortfall to "delays
in timing of several sizeable software deals."  The market's reaction
to this announcement was immediate and punitive, with shares of Caminus
common stock falling from $5.95 per share to $2.99 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, against Georgeson Shareholder,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries, Georgeson Shareholder
Communications, Inc. and Georgeson Shareholder Securities Corporation
and AT&T Corporation, on behalf of all security holders who, during the
period from December 2000 through the present, exchanged MediaOne Corp.
shares for shares of AT&T pursuant to the June 2000 merger between AT&T
and MediaOne, using Georgeson as the exchange agent.

The complaint alleges that defendant AT&T authorized defendant
Georgeson to engage in a "post-merger clean-up," pursuant to which
Georgeson disseminated notices urging shareholders who had not already
done so, to promptly exchange their MediaOne shares for AT&T shares.  

Plaintiff further alleges that Georgeson's notices misled shareholders
into believing that they were required to exchange their shares through
Georgeson, or else to forfeit all value of the shares, and further
allege that Georgeson charged an exorbitant "processing fee" for this
service, amounting to twelve percent (12%) of the value of each
shareholder's stock.  In fact, however, shareholders could have
exchanged their shares directly through the transfer agent or other
brokers at little or no cost.

For more details, contact 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.  


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased securities of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG) between
April 26, 1999 and March 11, 2003, 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 King securities.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Jefferson Gregory,

     (2) Joseph Gregory and

     (3) James Lattanzi

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants misrepresented that the prices paid by governmental Medicaid
agencies were the "best price" (the cheapest price offered to
distributors and other purchasers) for a particular drug, resulting in
government overpayment for the drugs.  The complaint also alleges that
King misstated and/or omitted facts regarding revenue subject to
"pharmaceutical rebate" payments provided by the Company.

On March 11, 2003, King disclosed that it was under investigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and certain materials have been
subpoenaed, including: the Company's "best price" lists, documents
related to the pricing of the Company's pharmaceutical products to any
governmental Medicaid agency, and documents regarding the accrual and
payment of rebates on Altace, the Company's blood-pressure drug.  On
this news, the price of King Pharmaceutical's stock dropped 23% in a
single day to close at $12.32.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or
by E-mail: NKaboolian@abbeygardy.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 2003.  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  * * *