CAR_Public/030326.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, March 26, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 60

                            Headlines                            

3COM CORPORATION: Former Employees Commence Suit Over Wages in Toronto
COMCAST CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Suits in CA, NY
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Twenty Antitrust Rubber Chemical Lawsuits
DQE INC.: Expert Discovery in Consolidated Suit To Start September 2003
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Six Lawsuits On Heels Of SEC Probe

NEW FOCUS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
NEW FOCUS: Faces Suit for Securities Fraud, State Law Violations in FL
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of MN Antitrust Lawsuit
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents Suit To Commence April 2003
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Ask TN Court To Certify Consumer Suits

PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Issues Landmark $10B 'Light Lie' Ruling
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion For Reconsideration
PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court To Hear Certification For Salespersons Lawsuit
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Suit
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle AL Insurance Commissions Lawsuit

TEMPLE INLAND: Trial in Linerboard Firms Suit Set For April 2004 in PA
TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Manager Testifies Firm Officials Knew About Illegal Hiring
VEHICLE RECALLS: NHTSA Announces Several Passenger Vehicle Recalls

ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Court Refuses To Dismiss Employees' Stock Fraud Suit
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuits

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
BAYER AG: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
BLACK BOX: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. PA
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MI
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in N.D. AL

MICROTUNE INC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
MICROTUNE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Lawsuit in MA

                           *********


3COM CORPORATION: Former Employees Commence Suit Over Wages in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3COM Corporation faces a class action filed in Toronto in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by a former employee.  The statement of claim
alleges breach of contract arising out of 3COM's alleged failure to
make payment of bonuses allegedly owing to its former employees.  The
plaintiff will be requesting court certification of a class that
includes all persons who were:

     (1) formerly employed by LANSource Technologies Inc. prior to
         December 17, 1999; and

     (2) former employees of 3COM and whose employment was terminated
         by 3COM at any time on or after December 17, 1999

The plaintiff is bringing this action under the Class Proceedings Act,
1992.  The claim, which has yet to be proven in court, states that the
defendant has not paid all of the promised amounts owing under the
written employment agreements with the employees.  The plaintiff
alleges that this constitutes a breach of his contract with the
defendant.

Kirk M. Baert of the Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky is representing the
class.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Suits in CA, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has asked for the dismissal of litigation filed
against it as a result of its alleged conduct with respect to its
investment in and distribution relationship with At Home Corporation.  
At Home was a provider of high-speed Internet access and content
services which filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2001.  
Pending actions are:

     (1) class actions against the Company, Brian L. Roberts (its
         President and Chief Executive Officer and a director), AT&T
         (the former controlling shareholder of At Home and also a
         former distributor of the At Home service) and other corporate
         and individual defendants in the Superior Court of San Mateo
         County, California, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty on the
         part of the Company and the other defendants in connection
         with transactions agreed to in March 2000 among At Home, the
         Company, AT&T and Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox is also an
         investor in At Home and a former distributor of the At Home
         service);  

     (2) class actions against Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,  
         AT&T and others in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York, alleging securities law
         violations and common law fraud in connection with disclosures
         made by At Home in 2001; and  

     (3) a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
         District of Delaware in the name of At Home by certain At Home
         bondholders against the Company, Brian L. Roberts, Cox and
         others, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the
         March 2000 transactions and seeking recovery of alleged short-
         swing profits of at least $600 million pursuant to Section
         16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 purported to have
         arisen in connection with certain transactions relating to At
         Home stock effected pursuant to the March 2000 agreements.  

The actions in San Mateo County, California have been stayed by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California,
the court in which At Home filed for bankruptcy, as violating the
automatic bankruptcy stay.  In the Southern District of New York
actions, the court ordered the actions consolidated into a single
action.  An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on
November 8, 2002.  All of the defendants served motions to dismiss on
February 11, 2003.

The Company denies any wrongdoing in connection with the claims made
directly against it, its subsidiaries and Brian L. Roberts.  In
management's opinion, the final disposition of these claims is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position, but could possibly be material to the Company's
consolidated results of operations of any one period.  Further, no
assurance can be given that any adverse outcome would not be material
to its consolidated financial position.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Twenty Antitrust Rubber Chemical Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries along with other
companies, have been named as defendants in twenty putative indirect
purchaser class actions filed during the period from October, 2002
through December, 2002 in state courts in seventeen states and in the
District of Columbia.  

The putative class in each of the actions comprises all persons within
each of the applicable states and the District of Columbia who
purchased tires other than for resale that were manufactured using
rubber processing chemicals sold by the defendants since 1994.  The
complaints principally allege that the defendants agreed to fix, raise,
stabilize and maintain the price of rubber processing chemicals used as
part of the tire manufacturing process in violation of state antitrust
and consumer protection laws and that this illegal conspiracy caused
injury to individuals who paid more to purchase tires as a result of
such anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, treble damages of an unspecified amount, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

The Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed or intend to file
motions to dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds
or answers with respect to each of these actions.  These actions are in
early procedural stages of litigation and, accordingly, the Company
cannot predict their outcome.  The Company and its defendant
subsidiaries believe that they have substantial defenses to these
actions and intend to defend vigorously all such actions.


DQE INC.: Expert Discovery in Consolidated Suit To Start September 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery in the consolidated securities class action pending
against DQE Inc. is set to conclude on September 23,2003 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Expert
discovery will commence thereafter.

The suit names as defendants the Company, and its former chairman,
chief executive officer and president David Marshall.  The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges controlling person
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange act and Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000,
and April 30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false
and misleading statements concerning investments made by the Company's
subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, and the impact that these investments
would have on our current and future financial results.

More particularly, the complaint alleges that the Company and Marshall
stated their expectation that certain companies in which DQE
Enterprises had invested would undertake initial public offerings of
their shares, with the result that the Company's earnings would be
positively impacted by the public market valuation of DQE Enterprises'
interests in these companies, but failed to disclose allegedly adverse
facts that made the possibility of successful public offerings of the
securities of these companies unlikely.  

On December 12, 2002, the lead plaintiffs asked the court to certify
the class action.  The motion is scheduled for argument before the
court on April 7, 2003.  Since December 2002, the Company and the
plaintiffs have been in pre-trial discovery.  The court has directed
that this phase be concluded by September 30, 2003, followed by an
expert discovery period through December 31, 2003.

No trial date has yet been scheduled, and the Company would not
anticipate one to be set before the first quarter of 2004.  Although
the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this case or
estimate the range of any potential loss that may be incurred in the
litigation, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit,
strenuously denies all of the plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing and
believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Six Lawsuits On Heels Of SEC Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investors have filed six class actions against drug maker King
Pharmaceuticals, following quickly upon an investigation by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  This kind of sequence is not unusual, since the
SEC's gathering of evidence usually provides investors with a basis for
their lawsuits.

The lawsuits, filed recently in Greeneville, Tennessee, allege that
King and some senior officers issued "materially false and misleading
statements," concerning the company's operations and earnings that
artificially inflated its stock.  Each of the lawsuits was filed after
the announcement that the SEC was investigating King's sales of some
products to two firms, Vita Rx and Prison Health services, as well as
the pricing of some of the products sold in 1999 and 2000.

According to one lawsuit, King allegedly stated that the prices paid by
Medicaid agencies were the best price; that is, the cheapest price,
resulting in government overpayment for the drugs.  The same complaint
also claims King "misstated and/or omitted facts about revenue subject
to "pharmaceutical rebate" payments provided by the company.

SEC investigators are seeking the following:  King's "best price"
lists, all documents related to its pricing to any governmental
Medicaid agency during 1999 and accrual and payment of rebates on the
high-blood pressure drug Altace from 2000 to the present.

Another lawsuit alleged that "while the stock was inflated, King
Pharmaceuticals completed two secondary stock offerings, raising more
than $900 million in proceeds."

Former Chairman and CEO John M. Gregory, current President and CEO
Jefferson Gregory and Chief Financial Officer James Lattanzi were named
as individual defendants.


NEW FOCUS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending
against New Focus, Inc., and several of its officers and directors.  
The suit also names as defendants the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and

     (4) CIBC World Markets Corporation

The amended complaint alleges:

     (i) violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
         all defendants related to the Initial Public Offering and the
         Secondary Offering,

    (ii) violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
         Section 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 against the
         individual defendants,

   (iii) violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against the company
         and

    (iv) violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933
         and Section10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, of
         the Securities Act of 1934 against the underwriter defendants.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class the Company's common stock purchasers between May 18,
2000 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions in the same court
asserting virtually identical allegations concerning the offerings of
more than 300 other issuers.  These cases have all been assigned to the
Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin for coordination and decisions on pretrial
motions, discovery, and related matters other than trial.

In July 2002, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss in the
coordinated proceedings on common pleadings issues.  In October 2002,
the court entered as an order a stipulation dismissing the individual
defendants from the litigation without prejudice.  On February 19,
2003, the omnibus motion to dismiss was denied by the court as to the
claims against the Company.


NEW FOCUS: Faces Suit for Securities Fraud, State Law Violations in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New Focus, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, approximately 50 issuers, including
the Company, and various individuals of the issuer defendants,
including William L. Potts, Jr., its Chief Financial Officer.

As against New Focus, the complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
as well as claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
and violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law arising out of the initial
public offering of the Company's common stock.

As against Mr. Potts, the complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as
well as claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
and violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law, also arising out of the
initial public offering of our common stock.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of MN Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the antitrust class action against Northwest Airlines
appealed the United States District Court for Minnesota's ruling
dismissing the suit.  

Midwestern Machinery Co. and several individuals filed the suit in June
1997, alleging that the Company's acquisition of Republic Airlines in
1986 resulted in a substantial reduction in competition in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

In February 2001, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  On February 5, 2003, the court entered an order
granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
case.  The plaintiffs have appealed the order.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents Suit To Commence April 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action against Northwest Airlines is set to commence
in April 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of
North Carolina.

A North Carolina travel agent filed the suit in October 1999, initially
in State Court in North Carolina, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated North Carolina travel agents, challenging actions by most
major airlines, including the Company, to reduce travel agent base
commissions from 8 percent to 5 percent and alleging several state law
theories of liability, including conspiracy.

In June 2000, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal and then filed
a new case in federal court.  The new case was deemed a class action,
now on behalf of a nation-wide class of travel agents, and alleges an
unlawful agreement among airlines to reduce commissions in violation of
the Sherman Act, and is based on the same factual allegations.

In November 2001, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint to include allegations that other commission reductions in
1997 and 1998 were the result of unlawful agreements among the airline
defendants in violation of the Sherman Act.  The complaint was
subsequently amended again to allege that commission reductions in
March 2002 were also the result of an unlawful agreement among the
airline defendants.  The court later entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is pending.

The Company believes the case to be without merit.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Ask TN Court To Certify Consumer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines faces two class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, alleging alleging
violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The suits allege that the Company has monopolized or attempted to
monopolize air transportation on certain routes into and out of its
three domestic hubs through a variety of exclusionary practices.  The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of all similarly situated
passengers who purchased tickets on Northwest for travel on certain
routes into or out of its three hubs since at least as early as April
1995.

The Company believes these cases to be without merit.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Court Issues Landmark $10B 'Light Lie' Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday's landmark $10 billion Illinois Circuit Court verdict against
Philip Morris in the nation's first class action consumer fraud lawsuit
on light cigarettes has medical and legal implications that will follow
Philip Morris to courthouses all over the country, plaintiffs'
attorneys said.  For the first time, a court issued a finding of fact
that light cigarettes are actually more dangerous than regular
cigarettes.  In finding for the plaintiffs in Miles v. Philip Morris,
Judge Nicholas Byron issued findings of fact that attest to the fraud
and set a ground-breaking legal precedent, according to attorneys in
the case.

"The significance of this ruling goes far beyond Illinois. In all
future cases nationwide, Philip Morris will have to overcome the
judgment that its use of the word 'light' was fraudulent," said Stephen
Tillery, lead plaintiffs' attorney in the case.  "Consumers of light
cigarettes have been lied to for years, and they've been paying with
their lives.  The compensatory damages pale beside the price paid in
human lives."

"The evidence at trial demonstrates not only that Marlboro Lights and
Cambridge Lights are just as harmful as their regular counterparts, but
that these products are actually more harmful and more hazardous than
their regular counterparts," Judge Byron concluded in his order.

"Philip Morris' own internal research regarding compensatory smoking
behavior demonstrates that Philip Morris knew since before the launch
of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights that smokers will adjust their
behavior to receive the same level of tar and nicotine from these Light
cigarettes as they would receive from their regular cigarette
counterparts," the judge said.  "The Court finds that Philip Morris was
aware of the increased harm from these Light cigarettes based upon
their own scientific testing."

"It is therefore quite significant that their test results have
consistently demonstrated for the past 25 years that increased
ventilation (the primary design distinction between Light cigarettes
and their regular counterparts) increases the specific mutagenicity of
cigarette smoke ... The fact that Philip Morris intentionally prevented
its scientists in the United States from performing additional testing
does not undermine the credibility and reliability of the testing that
Philip Morris did perform.  In fact, this intentional failure to
conduct additional testing further demonstrates Philip Morris' belief
that light cigarettes were and are more harmful than their regular
counterparts," the order stated.

"Philip Morris' contention that the public health community should
somehow be blamed for the fraud associated with Light cigarettes is
both morally abhorrent and factually incorrect.  At all times since the
inception of their Lights products, Philip Morris was aware of their
deception and was aware that the public health community was among
those deceived by the fact that their products did not deliver the
promised lower tar and nicotine and were not "light" as represented.
Yet it was not until the fall of 2002 that they disseminated this
knowledge.  As such, they cannot assert that the Class should have
known information which they chose not to publicly reveal until
November 2002," Judge Byron said.

Public health experts and a leading consumer protection group praised
the decision.  "The ruling sends a strong message that Big Tobacco's
conduct is incompatible with responsible, ethical business practice.  
The industry must accept responsibility for causing decades of illness,
premature mortality, and high medical care costs," said Tom Houston,
M.D., Director Science and Community Health Advocacy, American Medical
Association.

"Many smokers switched to these brands in a false belief they were
reducing their health risk. This ruling holds Philip Morris accountable
for their irresponsible, harmful conduct," said Matthew L. Myers,
president, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The Judge said that testimony by Philip Morris experts that just
because there is no "real" light cigarette does not reduce the harm
done to consumers.  "Philip Morris never offered a "real" Marlboro
Light or Cambridge Light cigarette to the Class.  Philip Morris cannot
escape liability in this case from its fraud because of the fact that
it never created the product that it promised in Marlboro Lights and
Cambridge Lights," he concluded.

At a minimum, light cigarette consumers get the same amount of tar and
nicotine as they would smoking regular cigarettes and further, the tar
of light cigarettes contains more toxins.  According to evidence
presented in the case:

   (1) Philip Morris designed their Marlboro Lights and Cambridge
       Lights cigarettes with more ventilation holes that would reduce
       the machine-measured tar and nicotine delivery (in order to
       "pass" a lower tar/nicotine test designed by the FTC), all the
       while knowing that actual smokers would extract even greater
       levels of tar and nicotine for two reasons: First, unlike a
       machine, a human hand may block a cigarette's ventilation which
       changes the chemical reaction of the smoke to make it burn more
       hotly and with more deadly chemical composition; and second,
       smokers engage in a process of compensation due to their
       nicotine addiction, causing them to inhale more deeply,
       hold smoke longer and puff more frequently to satisfy that
       addiction.

   (2) According to the Massachusetts Benchmark study by Philip Morris
       published in 2000, studies of 25 identified toxic carcinogens in
       the tar of both Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Reds revealed that
       the Marlboro Lights contained higher amounts of 22 of these
       mutagens.

"In terms of dangerous chemicals, light cigarettes deliver two bangs
for the butt.  Not only do smokers of light cigarettes inhale just as
much tar, the tar in these so-called light cigarettes contains even
more mutagens.  Put simply, light cigarettes deliver just as much tar,
more toxins, and are even more deadly.  What is incredible and even
more appalling, Philip Morris' own testing revealed this truth as early
the mid-1970s, yet the company deceived the public for decades, " said
Peter Shields, M.D., chief of the Cancer Genetics and Epidemiology
Department at Georgetown's Lombardi Cancer Center.

"Plaintiffs introduced credible scientific and epidemiological evidence
that connected the dramatic increase in adenocarcinomas (lung cancer of
the peripheral lung cells) to the increased prevalence of light
cigarettes like Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights.  The unrebutted
expert testimony of Dr. Peter Shields and Dr. Michael Thun established
that Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights have contributed to the
dramatic rise in adenocarcinoma cancer rates, thereby demonstrating
another line of evidence that establishes increased harm from the
'Light' cigarette products," the Judge said in his order.

"I chose Marlboro Lights because I thought they would be less harmful.
At least people will know the truth now and will be able to make
informed decisions, and Philip Morris won't be able to get away with
deceiving people anymore," said Lisa Kezios, a plaintiff in the suit.

Both Canada and the European Union have recently banned cigarettes
marketed as "light" cigarettes.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Motion For Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against Pre-paid Legal
Services, Inc. appealed the denial of their motion for reconsideration
of the dismissal of the suit.  The suit was originally filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
against the Company and certain of its executive officers.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the
Company issued false and misleading financial information, primarily
related to the method the Company used to account for commission   
advance receivables from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting
reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  The plaintiffs
have appealed the judgment and the order denying their motion to
reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  As of
February 28, 2003, the case was in the briefing stage.  

The Company is unable to predict when a decision will be made on this
appeal.  In August 2002, the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from
the case, leaving two individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on
behalf of the putative class.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court To Hear Certification For Salespersons Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma will hear on July 22,
2003 motions for class certification of a lawsuit filed against Pre-
Paid Legal Services, Inc. on behalf of all Company sales associates.
The amended petition seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and other
damages as the court deems appropriate, for alleged violations of the
Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Code in connection with the Company's
commission advances, and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief
regarding the enforcement of certain contract provisions with sales
associates.

The impact of the claims alleged under the Consumer Credit Code and the
assertion of entitlement to injunctive relief could exceed $315 million
if plaintiffs are successful both in their request for class  
certification and on the merits.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against Quicklogic Corporation, some of its officers and directors and
some investment banks that underwrote the Company's initial public
offering.

The complaint alleges excessive and undisclosed commissions in
connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in the
Company's initial public offering and artificially high prices through
"tie-in" arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the
federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant
to the registration statements between October 14, 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.  All actions have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  In October 2002, the Company's officers and
directors were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  Oral argument
on the omnibus motion to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.

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 that the
allegations against it are without merit.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle AL Insurance Commissions Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial settled a class action filed against one of its
Alabama banking subsidiaries involving the receipt of commissions by
that subsidiary in connection with the sale of credit life insurance to
its consumer credit customers, including an interest surcharge and a
processing fee in connection with the consumer loans made by that
subsidiary.

An earlier Class Action Reporter story states that the suit involves:

     (1) payment of service fees or interest rebates to automobile
         dealers in connection with the assignment of automobile credit
         sales contracts to that subsidiary;

     (2) the forced placement of insurance to protect that subsidiary's
         interest in collateral for which consumer credit customers
         have failed to obtain or maintain insurance; and

     (3) the receipt of commissions by that subsidiary in connection
         with the sale of credit life insurance to its consumer credit
         customers and the charging of an interest surcharge and a   
         processing fee in connection with consumer loans made by that
         subsidiary.

The Company agreed to settle the suit through a $3,500 payment to the
named plaintiff.  The lawsuit was dismissed, with prejudice to the
named plaintiff, and without prejudice to the class claims, on February
27, 2003.


TEMPLE INLAND: Trial in Linerboard Firms Suit Set For April 2004 in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Temple Inland Inc.
and Gaylord Chemical Corporation is set to commence in April 2004 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
against the two companies and eight other linerboard manufacturers.  
The complaint alleges that the defendants, during the period from
October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the
supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the alleged
conspiracy was artificially to increase prices of corrugated
containers.  The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all persons in
the United States who purchased corrugated containers directly from any
defendant during the above period, and seek treble damages and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported class.

The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion on September 4, 2001, but
modified the proposed class to exclude those purchasers whose prices
were "not tied to the price of linerboard."  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit accepted review of the decision to
certify the class and upheld the trial court's ruling.  Defendants have
appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations have no merit.  
The Company believes the likelihood of a material loss from this
litigation is remote and does not believe that the outcome of this
litigation should have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations, or cash flow.


TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tumbleweed Communications Corporation faces a securities class action
filed on behalf of persons who acquired Tumbleweed common stock (other
than purchasers of Tumbleweed's initial public offering) during the
time period from August 6, 1999 to October 18, 2000, inclusive, in the
United States District Court in the Southern District of New York.

According to the press release, the lead plaintiff in this purported
lawsuit is a person whose deceased husband purchased approximately
2,700 shares of securities of Commerce One, Inc.  In addition, the
press release states that this purported lawsuit names the Company as a
defendant, along with Jeffrey C. Smith and Joseph C. Consul (who served
as the Company's CEO and CFO, respectively, during that time period).

The Company has not been served with a summons or a complaint with
respect to this purported securities class action.  Although the
Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, no assurance can be
given about their outcome, and an adverse outcome could significantly
harm our business and operating results.  Moreover, the costs in
defending the lawsuits could harm future operating results.


TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tumbleweed Communications has asked the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss the second amended
consolidated securities class action filed against Interface Systems,
Inc. (a company Tumbleweed acquired in 2000) and various additional
defendants, including Interface's prior president and chief executive
officer, Robert A. Nero, and Fiserv Correspondent Services, Inc.

The suits, originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, contained substantially similar
allegations of false and misleading representations by various
defendants allegedly designed to inflate Interface's stock price.  The
complaints sought relief under the federal securities laws on behalf of
purported classes of persons who purchased, held, or sold shares of
Interface stock, and under various other causes of action.

On July 27, 2001, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer
the lawsuits to the Eastern District of Michigan.  The court later
dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' class allegations and federal
securities law claims that purportedly arose under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs then filed a second
amended consolidated suit that consolidated the separate actions into
one action, added certain new plaintiffs, withdrew Congressional
Securities, Inc. as a plaintiff, and added claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation, which are the sole
remaining claims in the case.

The Company's motion for dismissal remains pending before the court
while the case has continued to proceed through the discovery phase.  
The Company believes this consolidated action is without merit
dismissal.


TYSON FOODS: Manager Testifies Firm Officials Knew About Illegal Hiring
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutors in the immigrant-smuggling suit against poultry firm Tyson
Foods wrapped up their case by presenting as witness a second manager
who admitted knowingly hiring illegal workers for a Tyson poultry
plant, the Associated Press reports.  The poultry company faces
allegations of hiring illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central
America to reduce operating costs and boost production and profits.

Tyson Shelbyville plant manager Spencer Mabe testified that although he
was aware of illegal hires and dealt with an immigrant smuggler, he
never personally inspected hiring records.  Mr. Mabe, who was fired in
2001, pleaded guilty in a deal with prosecutors.  He earlier testified
that he went along with hiring illegal workers because he was dedicated
to the company.  "Any time they came through a recruiter, I pretty much
knew they were illegal," Mr. Mabe said in court.

The judge also heard motions by defense attorneys, who said the
government had failed to prove that any defendant caused illegal
immigrants to be brought into the United States, caused their transport
or caused them to possess false Social Security numbers, the Associated
Press states.  He did not immediately rule.

Prosecutors also presented tapes of secretly recorded conversations
between undercover agents posing as immigrant smugglers and Tyson
managers were a big part of the government's evidence.  Some of those
conversations indicated that the hiring of illegal immigrants,
particularly through temporary agencies, was routine.  Assistant US
Attorney John MacCoon rested the government's case in the five-week-old
trial Thursday.

Defense attorneys expect their case to take two weeks, AP reports.  The
Company said the government's investigation involved only a few plant
managers who independently violated Tyson's "zero tolerance" policy on
illegal hiring.  However, Mr. Mabe said that executives at the Company
knew about plants hiring illegal workers.


VEHICLE RECALLS: NHTSA Announces Several Passenger Vehicle Recalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) announced several vehicle recalls, according to Reuters.  The
most prominent is a recall of 84,000 X5 luxury sport utility vehicles
by German auto-maker BMW AG, to fix a possible brake fluid leak.  The
NHTSA said the front brake line on X5s built between August 1999 and
April 2002 could come loose, eventually causing a brake hose to rub
against the tire and leak.

According to Reuters, other actions announced by NHTSA included:

     (1) General Motors Corporation will recall 5,734 Chevrolet
         Avalanche pickups, as well as Chevy Suburban and GMC Yukon XL
         SUVs, to install a fuel tank shield.  GM said in some frontal
         crashes, a piece of the frame could fracture, creating a sharp
         edge that could puncture a fuel tank;

     (2) Mitsubishi Motor Co. will recall some 65,000 of its new
         Outlander SUVs to reprogram an engine computer that could
         allow ice to build up inside the throttle, causing the
         throttle to stick open;

     (3) Honda Motor Co. Ltd. will recall 3,617 2003 Honda Odyssey
         minivans to inspect fuel tanks for signs of faults that could
         cause them to leak;

     (4) Hyundai Motor Co. will recall 25,643 Santa Fe SUVs to replace
         flawed engine electronics;

     (5) Ford Motor Co.'s Jaguar division will recall 49,174 X-Type
         sedans from model years 2002 and 2003 to fix a turn signal
         indicator that could fail;

     (6) Kia Motors Co. will recall 9,787 2002 Sedona minivans to
         replace seat belt anchor bolts that do not meet federal
         standards; and

     (7) GM's Saab unit will recall 70,726 Saab 9-5 cars from model
         years 1999 to 2003 to fix a corrosion problem on vehicles that
         switch between steel wheels in winter and alloy wheels in
         summer.


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Court Refuses To Dismiss Employees' Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
refused to dismiss the class actions filed by two groups of Ziff-Davis,
Inc.'s former employees.  The lawsuits name as defendants the Company,
Softbank Corporation and Softbank Holdings.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act, violations of state laws against fraud and
negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the exchange of the plaintiffs' options to purchase Softbank
shares for options to purchase shares of Ziff-Davis in 1999, prior to
CNET's acquisition of ZDNet.  The complaints do not specify an amount
of damages.  

Discovery is now underway.  The Company cannot, at the moment, predict
the outcome of the legislation.


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the securities class actions pending against Ziff-
Davis, Inc., Eric Hippeau, Timothy O'Brien, and investment banks that
were the underwriters of the public offering of ZDNet series of Ziff-
Davis stock (the ZDNet Offering).   One of the complaints also names
CNET Corporation as a defendant, as successor in liability to Ziff-
Davis.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, and one of the complaints also alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints allege the receipt of
excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection
with the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in
the ZDNet Offering and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the ZDNet offering was false
and misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose the arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  The action is being coordinated with over 300
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  No date has
been set for any responses to the complaints.  

On February 19, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim with leave to replead, and denied the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim.  The issuers and their insurers have been
engaged in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs.  


                    Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

April 3, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE: THE NEW BATTLEGROUND
Glasser Legalworks
New York Helmsley Hotel, New York City
Contact: 800-308-1700; 973-890-0058

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers and entities who purchased the common stock of Andrx
Corporation (NasdaqNM: ADRX), between October 31, 2002 and March 4,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Andrx Corporation and certain of its officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing false and misleading statements
during the class period.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented the
Company's ability to obtain FDA approval of Andrx's generic version of
Wellbutrin SR, an antidepressant drug.  Andrx failed to disclose that
its version of the drug had a limited expiration date, and that if it
were not marketed by year end 2002, or soon thereafter, the Company
would be forced to write off the value of that inventory.

On March 5, 2003, Andrx stunned the market by announcing that it would
record a $26.3 million charge in its fourth quarter 2002 results,
related primarily to the Company's inventories of generic Wellbutrin.  
The Company's stock price dropped 31% from $11.51 on March 4 to $7.89
at the close on March 5, 2003 on heavy trading volumes.

For more details contact Robin Freeman or James Conway by Mail: 1690
Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 by Phone:
1-877-266-2133 by E-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.jpclasslaw.com


BAYER AG: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Bayer AG between March 2, 1998 and February 21, 2003, inclusive.  The
action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) David Ebsworth,

     (2) Manfred Schneider and

     (3) Werner Wenning

The complaint charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between March 2, 1998 and February 21, 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about the successful
introduction and strong sales of the Company's new cholesterol fighting
product, Baycol, and represented that the Company enjoyed and would
continue to enjoy strong revenue, earnings and earnings per share
growth as a result of the addition of Baycol to the Company's product
line.  The complaint further alleges that defendants also
misrepresented that Baycol was safe for use by patients attempting to
treat high cholesterol and did not present a significant risk of
adverse side effects.

In fact, Baycol was not safe but rather, dangerous to the public
requiring the drug to be withdrawn. Baycol caused fatal Rhabdomyolysis
in patients who used Baycol in combination with gemfibrozil, another
lipid lowering drug, the complaint alleges.

The complaint further alleges that senior executives at Bayer were
aware that Baycol had serious problems and presented health risks to
patients long before the Company pulled the drug from the market in
August 2001, and that defendants overstated Bayer's assets and
understated its liabilities (totaling in excess of $257 million)
associated with the Company overcharging Medicaid, the United States
government's health plan for the poor.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY. 10119-0165 by Phone: (800)320-5081 by
Email: bayer@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com


BLACK BOX: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of Black Box Corporation (Nasdaq:
BBOX) publicly traded securities during the period between October 15,
2002 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 between October 15, 2002 and March 11, 2003, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Black Box securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's European operations were not performing
         well and would have to be scaled down significantly and
         staffing levels reduced accordingly;

     (2) that the Company was improperly delaying the write down of a
         material amount of uncollectible receivables, thereby
         overstating its financial results; and

     (3) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its
         products and services and was not performing according to its
         internal plans.

The class period ends on March 11, 2003.  On that date, Black Box
shocked the market when it announced that it expects earnings for the
fourth quarter, the period ending March 31, 2003, to be between 53
cents and 54 cents, prior to one-time charges -- as compared to
analysts earnings estimates of 74 cents per share.  The Company further
reported that it would be recording a $9 to $10 million one-time pre-
tax charge, or 29 cents to 32 cents per share.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Black Box common stock dropped from $39.14
per share to $26.78 per share, a decline of 31%, on extremely heavy
volume.

During the class period, Black Box insiders sold their personally-held
shares of Black Box common stock generating proceeds of more than $5
million.

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


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on March 24, 2003, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC) between August 7, 2001 and August 2,
2002, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company,
Heartland Industrial Partners L.P. and ten senior officers and/or
directors of CKC.

The complaint charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between August 7, 2001 and August 2, 2002.  
The complaint alleges that Heartland was at all relevant times a
private equity firm that presented itself as being expert in leveraged
buyouts of industrial manufacturers and that, in February 2001,
Heartland acquired a controlling interest in CKC.  CKC was at all
relevant times a manufacturer of automotive interior components.

The complaint further alleges that Heartland and CKC acquired Textron
Automotive Company's TAC-Trim division and that, throughout the class
period, Heartland and CKC repeatedly stated that the TAC-Trim
acquisition would be accretive to earnings and that, in addition to
doubling CKC's annual revenue, the TAC-Trim acquisition would increase
operating income by reducing costs through synergies and economies of
scale.

The truth was revealed on August 5, 2002, when the Company reported a
net loss of $20.3 million, or $0.29 per diluted share, compared with
net income of $9.2 million, or $0.11 per diluted share a year earlier,
and announced that it expected 2002 earnings to be $0.20 to $0.26 per
share, well below the consensus estimate of $0.74 per share. On this
news, the investing public dumped its CKC stock, pushing the price down
49% to close at $2.81 on relatively high trading volume.

For more information, visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com/cases/collins/  


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in N.D. AL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of HealthSouth Corporation
(NYSE:HRC) publicly traded securities during the period between
February 25, 1998 and March 19, 2003, inclusive.

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

   (1) that since at least fiscal 1997, in violation of Generally  
       Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the Company had
       materially overstated the Company's revenues and profits in
       order to meet or exceed Wall Street analysts' expectations and
       to artificially inflate the price of HRC's stock;

   (2) that since at least fiscal 1999 in violation of GAAP the Company
       had materially overstated the Company's revenues, earnings,
       assets and equity by at least $1.4 billion in furtherance of its
       scheme to report revenues that met or exceeded Wall Street
       analysts' expectations and to artificially inflate the price of
       HRC's stock analysts; and

   (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's periodic net
       income, assets and shareholders' equity were materially
       misstated at all relevant times.

The class period ends on March 19, 2003, the day following the SEC's
filing of a civil fraud action against HRC and Mr. Scrushy alleging
that "... shortly after 1986, and at Mr. Scrushy's instruction, the
company began to artificially inflate earnings to match Wall Street
expectations and maintain the market price for HRC's stock."  On March
19, 2003, prior to the market's opening, HRC issued a press release
announcing that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation served
a search warrant at the company's corporate headquarters.

Also on March 19, 2003, the SEC issued notice that trading in HRC's
common stock had been suspended, the stock's last reported closing was
at $3.91 per share on March 18, 2003, compared to a class period high
of $30.5625 reached on May 1, 1998.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.  


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

The complaint charges Microtune, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports
with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and
financial performance.

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

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

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

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

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

On February 20, 2003, the last day of the class period, after the close
of regular trading, Microtune shocked the market by announcing that its
loss for the fourth quarter of 2002, the period ending December 31,
2002, was $80.2 million, or almost double the loss of $47 million which
it had reported in the same period of the prior year.

Despite having shipped $16.1 million of product during the fourth
quarter of 2002, the Company announced that it would only be reporting
revenues of $2.2 million "as a result of charges relating to five
customers, including (a) credits granted and/or (b) lack of timely
payments." As a result of this development, the Company announced that
its Board of Directors has directed its audit committee to conduct an
inquiry of the events that led to these "material negative charges."

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of
Microtune fell more than 35%, to approximately $1.20 per share, a far
cry below their class period high of $13.81 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

For queries, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite
202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


MICROTUNE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Microtune, Inc. (Nasdaq: TUNE) between April 22, 2002
and February 20, 2003, inclusive.

During the class period, defendants made misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact, including the following:

     (1) Microtune had materially overstated its revenue by immediately
         recognizing as revenue certain sales which should have been
         categorized as deferred revenue since payment had not been
         assured and had not been made for considerable amounts of
         time;

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

     (3) Microtune lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore
         unable to determine its true financial condition at a given
         time.

After the truth of the foregoing became known on February 20, 2003,
when Microtune announced that its loss for the Fourth Quarter 2002, the
period ending December 31, 2002, was $80.2 million, or almost twice the
loss of $47 million which it had reported in the same period of the
previous year, the Company's share price dropped to as low as $1.09 per
share, down from a class period high of $15.20 per share.

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


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the district of
Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Parametric Technology Corporation
(NASDAQ:PMTC) between October 19, 1999 and December, 31, 2002,
inclusive.  The named defendants are the Company and:

     (1) Steven C. Walske,

     (2) Noel G. Posternak,

     (3) C. Richard Harrison and

     (4) Edwin J. Gillis

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Parametric is a company
that purports to develop, market and support collaborative product
development (CPD) software solutions that help manufacturers improve
the competitiveness of their products and product development
processes.

The complaint alleges that between October 19, 1999 and December 31,
2002, Parametric issued a number of press releases, and filed a number
of quarterly and yearly reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that misled members of the class as to the true value of
the Company.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, in the press releases and
quarterly and yearly reports, defendants stated, among other things,
that service revenue had increased "as a result of growth in our
installed customer base and increased training and consulting services
performed for these customers," that such increases were "positive
signs for continued revenue and operational improvement in upcoming
quarters," and that service revenue margins improved "as a result of a
higher mix of maintenance revenue."

However, the complaint alleges that defendants statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented that:

     (i) during the class period, Parametric had overstated its
         previously recognized maintenance revenue from its service
         contracts by approximately $33.4 million in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and its own
         revenue recognition policies;

    (ii) Parametric lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company, and

   (iii) as a result, the value of the Company's income and financial
         results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

The complaint further alleges that on December 31, 2002, after the
close of trading, Parametric shocked the market by announcing that it
had identified "$20 to $25 million of previously recognized maintenance
revenue which should have been deferred and recognized in fiscal 2003
and later periods." Parametric also announced that it would file with
the SEC for an automatic 15-day extension of time to file its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, in
order to permit the company to complete its analysis of the maintenance
revenues from its service contracts.

On January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric closed at $2.19 per share,
compared with a class period high of $32.88 per share reached on
December 16, 1999.  On January 17, 2003, Parametric announced that it
had received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter indicating, among
other things, that the company's common stock was subject to possible
delisting from the Nasdaq National market because of the company's
failure to comply with filing requirements.

On January 29, 2003, the company announced that it had filed with the
SEC its 2002 10-K, a document that included restated financial results
for the fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001.  The company's analysis
identified a total of $33.4 million in maintenance revenue that should
have been deferred at September 30, 2002 and recognized in fiscal 2003
and later periods.

For more information, contact Lynda J. Grant, Esq. by Mail: 100 Park
Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
212/907-0700 by E-mail: lgrant@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.glrslaw.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  * * *