CAR_Public/030402.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                   Wednesday, April 2, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 65

                                      Headlines                            

AK STEEL: Trial in Employee Pension Plan Suit to Commence in July 2003
AK STEEL: Asks OH Court to Dismiss in Part Racial Discrimination Suit
AMERICAN INDIANS: Guidelines Reinstated for Child Abuse Probe on Lands
BODY SOLUTIONS: Court Petitioned to Liquidate Weight-Loss Product Maker
CONCORD EFS: Shareholder Sues Directors, Officers to Stop Firm's Sale

CORVIS CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DUPONT: Exposure Risks to C8 Emissions Above Acceptable Limit, Says EPA
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Title, Escrow Practices
FIFTH THIRD: Accepts New Accounting Rules, Fraud Suit Filed in OH Court
GOODY'S FAMILY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Race Discrimination Lawsuit

HENRY SCHEIN: Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing of Class Certification Reversal
INDIAN FUNDS: New Report Disputes Indians' Royalties Suit Allegations
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Claim in Stockholders Suit
LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Plaintifffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERCATOR SOFTWARE: Court Grants Approval to Securities Suit Settlement

ON SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ONVIA.COM: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
ONVIA.COM: Named as Defendant in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA Court Hears Petition Appealing Arbitration Denial
PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Suit

PUERTO RICO: Opposes Class Certification tor Telephone Customers Suit
PUERTO RICO: Court Dismisses Subscriber Fraud Lawsuit With Prejudice
RADIAN INC.: GA Court Refuses Certification for Home Mortgagers' Suit
REVLON INC.: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in DE
REVLON INC.: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Lawsuit for Securities Violations

SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Dropped as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit in NY
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Denies Motion for Securities Suit Dismissal
SYKES ENTERPRISES: FL Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Remaining Derivative Suit Pending
TOBACCO LITIGATION: $10B Philip Morris Ruling Threatens States' Budget

                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals

* Online Teleconferences

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTROPOWER INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in DE Court
FIFTH THIRD: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. OH
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
VAXGEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA


                              *********


AK STEEL: Trial in Employee Pension Plan Suit to Commence in July 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the class action filed against the AK Steel Corporation
Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (AK BPAC) might
begin in July 2003, commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine
lump sum distributions does not comply with the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 and results in underpayment of benefits to
putative class members.  The AK RAPP is the cash balance plan component
of the AK Steel Noncontributory Pension Plan (AK NCPP).  The AK NCPP
provides that the company will indemnify members of AK BPAC from any
liability and expense incurred by reason of serving as a member of AK
BPAC.

On May 1, 2002, plaintiff moved for certification of a class consisting
of all employees covered by the AK RAPP who terminated employment with
AK Steel or its predecessors since January 1, 1995 and who received
some or all of their AK RAPP benefits in the form of a lump sum
payment.  On July 22, 2002, defendants opposed the motion for class
certification and also moved for entry of judgment that plaintiff's
claim is time barred.  Neither of these motions has been ruled upon.

Discovery was completed in December 2002, and motions for summary
judgment on the merits will be filed by both parties in the spring of
2003.  No trial date has been set, but the parties have been instructed
by the court to be prepared for trial beginning in or after July 2003.  
The defendants are contesting this matter vigorously.


AK STEEL: Asks OH Court to Dismiss in Part Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss some of the claims in the
racial discrimination class action pending against it.

In June 2002, seventeen individuals filed a purported class action,
alleging that the company discriminates against African-Americans in
its hiring practices and that the company discriminates against all of
its employees by preventing its employees from working in a racially
integrated environment free from racial discrimination.  The complaint
seeks various forms of declaratory, injunctive and unspecified monetary
relief (including back pay, front pay, lost benefits, lost seniority
and punitive damages) for the named plaintiffs and the other members of
their alleged class.

The company has answered the complaint and also moved for summary
judgment as to the remaining claims in the suit. The company continues
to contest this matter vigorously.


AMERICAN INDIANS: Guidelines Reinstated for Child Abuse Probe on Lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal, federal and state officials recently signed guidelines
governing how child physical and sexual abuse will be investigated on
American Indian lands, Associated Press Newswires reports.  As many as
47 different law enforcement and social service agencies signed the
protocol at a ceremony at Tulsa, Oklahoma's Gilcrease Museum.  The
guidelines are a revision of an agreement signed in 1994, which aimed
to improve how child abuse cases involving Indian victims and culprits
on Indian land are prosecuted.

The new agreement combines two separate protocols, one used in the
northern and eastern judicial districts and another in the western
judicial district, officials said.   Also, these guidelines advise
providing notification to the U.S. attorney's office within 12 hours
after the abuse is first reported.  The older agreement did not list
federal prosecutors among those to be immediately notified.  Before the
1994 agreement, child abuse was rarely prosecuted successfully on
Indian land.


BODY SOLUTIONS: Court Petitioned to Liquidate Weight-Loss Product Maker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
With class actions in the amount of $190 million filed against the
maker of Body Solutions, now in chapter 11 bankruptcy, as well as 182
other claims filed with the bankruptcy court totaling $224.8 million,
the Texas attorney general and a bankruptcy trustee recently asked the
court to liquidate manufacturer Mark Nutritionals, based in San
Antonio, The Fort Worth Star Telegram reports.

In its heyday, Body Solutions, a weight-loss product widely advertised
on radio, touting claims that people could eat whatever they wanted and
lose weight while they slept, was bringing in millions of dollars per
month before the craze began to unravel about a year ago.  Last year,
the Federal Trade Commission and the state ordered the company to
remove weight-loss claims from its packaging and advertising.  Revenues
dwindled to such an extent that the company filed for bankruptcy
protection in September 2002, listing $37 million in debts, and began
trying to rebuild.

A hearing will be held so that the court can consider the conversion of
the bankruptcy from Chapter 11 reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation
of all assets, unless an agreement can be reached in advance.

"We are in very active negotiations with all the parties, and there may
be no need for a conversion," said the company's attorney William
Oliver.  The creditors are working on a reorganization plan that could
buy the company some time to raise more money from ongoing sales to pay
its debts.  Most of the major assets already have been sold.  It is
unclear whether money remains for unsecured creditors.


CONCORD EFS: Shareholder Sues Directors, Officers to Stop Firm's Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen of Concord EFS Inc.'s directors and officers have been sued in
Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee, by a shareholder identified as
Joseph Perritt of Tennesse, in a lawsuit aimed at stopping them from
selling the electronic transaction processing firm, according to a
report by The Commercial Appeal. The lawyer who filed the Circuit Court
suit is B.J. Wade of Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt of Memphis.  Also
listed as a law firm for Mr. Perritt was Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach of San Diego.

The lawsuit said the officials were violating their responsibilities
under Delaware law, where the company is incorporated, in failing to
act in the shareholders' interest.  Directors and officers are "in the
process of attempting to force (Mr. Perritt) and othe Concord public
shareholders out of their Concord shares" as part of a plan to sell the
company for about $5 billion, the lawsuit said.

Also, as part of the sale agreement, those same Concord officials would
get protection from liability from the one dozen shareholders' lawsuits
which had been filed against them and the company in September 2002,
the recent Memphis Circuit Court lawsuit said, by the officials  
receiving indemnification agreements from whomever might be the
company's purchaser.

The lawyers ask that the Memphis Circuit Court lawsuit be certified as
a class action; that the court order the officers and directors to
obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of shareholders;
and that the court stop the officials from getting indemnity agreements
in connection with any effort to sell Concord.

The approximately dozen lawsuits filed by shareholders in various state
and federal courts, in September, charge the company and its leaders
with making false and misleading statements about the company's
finances and businesses so that they could sell their own shares at
"artificially inflated levels," according to the Memphis Circuit Court
suit.  

Most of these lawsuits are pending, and threaten the officers and
directors with hundreds of millions of dollars in liability.  The
Circuit Court lawsuit said that the officers and directors "became
increasingly alarmed" because they realized the directors and officers
insurance coverage Concord provided them would not cover all of that
liability.

Therefore, the officers and directors focused on sale of the company
and the indemnification agreements in order to get themselves out from
under that burden, the recent lawsuit said.


CORVIS CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action pending
against Corvis Corporation, its directors and officers who
signed the registration statement in connection with the company's
initial public offering, and certain of the underwriters that
participated in its initial public offering.  The company's directors
and officers have since been dismissed from the case, without
prejudice.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
relating to the company's initial public offering contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions in that those documents did not
disclose:

     (1) that certain of the underwriters had solicited and received
         undisclosed fees and commissions and other economic benefits
         from some investors in connection with the distribution of the
         company's common stock in the initial public offering; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters had entered into arrangements
         with some investors that were designed to distort and/or
         inflate the market price for the company's common stock in the
         aftermarket following the initial public offering.

The complaints ask the court to award to members of the class the right
to rescind their purchases of the company's common stock (or to be
awarded rescissory damages if the class member has sold its Corvis
stock) and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' and experts witness' fees and other costs.

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an executive
committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate their claims and
function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in
almost all of the IPO allocation actions, including the Corvis action.
On October 17, 2001, a group of underwriter defendants moved for Judge
Scheindlin's recusal.  Judge Scheindlin denied that application.

On December 13, 2001, the moving underwriter defendants filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking the disqualification of Judge
Scheindlin in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On April 1, 2002, the Second Circuit denied the moving
underwriter defendants' application for a writ of mandamus seeking
Judge Scheindlin's recusal from this action.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the
IPO allocation actions, including the Corvis action.  On May 23, 2002,
a conference was held at which the court set a briefing schedule for
the filing of motions to dismiss the amended complaints.  On July 1,
2002, the underwriter defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaints.  On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

The briefing on the motions to dismiss has been completed, and the
judge heard oral arguments on the motions on November 1, 2002.  On
February 19, 2003, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
with regard to certain claims and denied with regard to certain other
claims. As to Corvis, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, alleging
that the company participated in a scheme to defraud investors by
artificially driving up the price of the securities, were dismissed
with prejudice, but the Section 11 claims, alleging that the
registration statement contained a material misstatement of, or
omitted, a material fact at the time it became effective, survived the
motion to dismiss.  Settlement discussions among all interested parties
are ongoing.


DUPONT: Exposure Risks to C8 Emissions Above Acceptable Limit, Says EPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have made a
risk assessment of the chemical perfluorooctanoate, also known as C8,
which has been used since 1951, at DuPont's Washington Works plant in
Wood County, West Virginia, to make polymers, which, in turn, are used
to produce Teflon, the Charleston Gazette reports.  This finding from
the EPA comes on top of the class action filed against DuPont in Wood
County Circuit Court by plant neighbors, who say that C8 has tainted
their water supplies.

The EPA reports in its risk assessment study that C8 is likely to be
adversely affecting women of childbearing age and young girls.  The
risks from C8 exposure to both groups are above what the agency
considers acceptable.

The draft study was published recently by Inside EPA, a newsletter that
closely monitors the agency.  Copies of the draft study were
distributed by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-
based research and advocacy group.  EPA is expected to announce in
April whether it will take expedited action to regulate C8 and related
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

For years, DuPont's C8 emissions have been basically unregulated.  
However, last year, federal officials launched a priority review of the
chemical because of growing concerns about human health impacts.  In a
prepared statement, EPA officials said they were finishing the risk
assessment, that "there remains considerable uncertainty regarding
potential risks."

However, agency officials said they would "soon announce a series of
aggressive steps" to gather additional information "in order to more
accurately determine any potential risks . and to undertake any risk
mitigation efforts."

Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working
Group, said that his organization believes the EPA study is a good
start.  "They are on the right track, but it (C8) is even more toxic
than EPA is saying," said Mr. Wiles recently.  "EPA has confirmed that
DuPont is wrong."


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Title, Escrow Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agreed to settle three pending class
actions filed against it in California State Court, Los Angeles County,
alleging irregularities and violations of law in connection with title
and escrow practices.

The settlement was reached in October 2002, with the Attorney General
and the State of California in the defendant class lawsuit filed
against it and its principal competitors on behalf of the entire title
and escrow industry in California.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the company will pay $5.1 million to the California Attorney General
and a total of up to $26.0 million in the form of:

     (1) cash payments to former escrow customers that meet certain
         eligibility requirements and file timely claims; and

     (2) discounts on future escrow and title insurance services to
         eligible customers as agreed to in the settlement.

In reaching the settlement, the company denied any liability or
wrongdoing.  The settlement is contingent upon certain verification
procedures which are currently ongoing.


FIFTH THIRD: Accepts New Accounting Rules, Fraud Suit Filed in OH Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First came the filing of a class action by Fifth Third Bancorp's
investors, followed the next day by the bank's bending to an
investigation by both the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland and the
Ohio Department of Commerce, by agreeing to accept new accounting and
auditing rules in order to escape far stiffer penalties that could have
barred the bank from buying other banks or financial institutions,
The Grand Rapids Press reports.

The class action was filed in US District Court in Cincinnati, Ohio, on
another matter by the class action law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP in New York, alleging that Fifth Third issued false
statements that painted the acquisition of Old Kent Financial
Corporation, acquired by the bank in the spring of 2001, as a seamless
success.

The real situation inside the bank, the lawsuit alleges, was far
Different, saying "Fifth Third was experiencing serious internal
control issues because its systems had been overwhelmed by the
company's Old Kent and other acquisitions."  However, the bank
downplayed or ignored the problems arising from its integration of Old
Kent.  The lawsuit further alleges that Fifth Third and three of its
top executives misled the investors even earlier when they artificially
inflated the bank's stock price during the acquisition of Old Kent.

In terms of the regulatory issue, both the Federal Reserve Bank and
Ohio's Department of Commerce commenced their respective investigations
of Fifth Third after the bank took an $81.8 million charge against
earnings in September 2002.  The bank blamed the charge on problems
found in financial controls in its treasury and trust departments.  The
problem apparently arose during the integration of systems used for Old
Kent's treasury and trust departments with Fifth Third's systems,
according to one analyst's assessment.

No money in customer accounts or loans to customers were involved in
the losses, Fifth Third said.  However, the bank agreed to accept new
accounting and auditing rules to bring the investigation to an end, an
investigation which, as indicated above, could have resulted in more
serious penalties.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Reaches Agreement to Settle Race Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. inked a consent decree with plaintiffs in
the class action filed against it and Robert M. Goodfriend, its
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The suit, filed by 20 named plaintiffs, generally alleges that the
company discriminated against a class of African-American employees at
its retail stores through the use of discriminatory selection and
compensation procedures and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions
of employment.  The plaintiffs further alleged that the company
maintained a racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, the proposed consent decree was filed with the
court for its preliminary approval.  The consent decree sets forth the
proposed settlement of the race discrimination lawsuit.  Ultimately,
class action certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect
to alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and the
proposed consent decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class members
(including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as well as the
company's implementation of certain policies, practices and procedures
regarding, among other things, training of employees.  The company
expects that $3.1 million of such payment will be covered by its
insurance.  

The proposed consent decree explicitly provides that it is not an
admission of liability by the company and the company continues to deny
all of the allegations.  If the court grants preliminary approval of
the proposed consent decree, the court may determine to schedule a
hearing regarding the adequacy and fairness of the proposed settlement.
At such hearing, any objections to the proposed settlement would be
heard and the court would consider whether to grant final approval.
There can be no assurance that such preliminary or final approvals to
the consent decree will be granted or that the settlement will not
be overturned on appeal.


HENRY SCHEIN: Plaintiffs Seek Rehearing of Class Certification Reversal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Henry Schein, Inc. seek a
rehearing of the Texas Supreme Court's ruling reversing the class
certification granted to the suit.

The suit was filed in January 1998 in District Court in Travis County,
Texas against the Company, Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and Dentisoft,
Inc.  The suit alleges, among other things, negligence, breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial statutes
involving the sale of certain practice management software products
sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental(R) name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows(R) sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class action
pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that 5,000 Windows(R)
customers and 10,000 DOS customers were covered by the class action
that was certified by the trial court.

In November 1999, the company filed an interlocutory appeal of the
trial court's determination to the Texas Court of Appeals on the issue
of whether this case was properly certified as a class action.  In
September 2000, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's
certification order.  

In January, 2001, the company filed a Petition for Review in the Texas
Supreme Court asking the court to find that it had "conflicts
jurisdiction" to permit review of the trial court's certification
order.  The Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in February 2002.  
In October 2002, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case
holding that it had conflicts jurisdiction to review the decision of
the Court of Appeals and finding that the trial court's certification
of the case as a class action was improper.  The Supreme Court further
held that the judgment of the court of appeals, which affirmed that the
class certification order must be reversed in its entirety.  Upon
reversal of the class certification order, the Supreme Court remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.

On January 31, 2003, counsel for the class filed a motion for rehearing
with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a reversal for the Supreme Court's
earlier opinion reversing the class certification order.  The Motion
for Rehearing has not yet been ruled upon and remains pending before
the Texas Supreme Court.  Because the Texas Supreme Court has not yet
ruled upon the Motion for Rehearing and because this matter has not yet
come before the trial court for consideration consistent with the Texas
Supreme Court's opinion reversing the trial court's certification
order, it is not possible to determine what the trial court will do if
the plaintiffs file another motion for class certification.

Further, because of the de-certification of the class by the Texas
Supreme Court, the pending Motion for Rehearing before the Texas
Supreme Court and other factors, it is not possible to determine
whether the trial court will certify a different class upon motion, if
any, or the possible range of damages or other relief sought by the
plaintiffs in the trial court.


INDIAN FUNDS: New Report Disputes Indians' Royalties Suit Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A new study of many records from the government-managed American Indian
land trust program has found a single discrepancy of less than $61
between what was owed and what was paid to each of four land-owning
Indians as royalties for the use of their land for oil and gas mining,
timber harvesting, grazing and other uses during 1915 to
1999, the Houston Chronicle reports.

The four Indians selected for the study undertaken by the Interior
Department are lead plaintiffs in a class action against the Interior
Department for allegedly mismanaging the proceeds flowing from the use
by third parties of the Indians' land.  The attorneys for about 30,000
Indians claim the government squandered as much as $137 billion through
more than a century of sloppy mismanagement.

The Indians' lawsuit is nearing its seventh year; it stems, as
indicated above, from the Interior's management of a trust fund
established by Congress in 1887, that today handles royalty payments
from 11 million acres of land held by about 300,000 American Indians.  
For more than a century, untold amounts of money, meant for some of the
nation's poorest residents, was lost, stolen or never collected.

Interior Department spokesman Daniel Dubray said the report, sent to
Congress last week, does not support those claims:  "The detection of
this single error cost federal taxpayers $20 million; so, I think .
this summary report serves as an example of how the inflated public
claims of the lawyers do not match up with reality."

Mr. DuBray added, "This continues to only enrich the lawyers and
accountants and does little for individual Indian account holders."

Dennis Gingold, attorney for the plaintiffs thinks the report a waste
of money, because the auditor, Joseph Rosenbaum of Ernst & Young,
relied on Interior Department Records, which have been found to be
incomplete, erroneous and subject to tampering.  A disclaimer on the
report says no efforts were made to verify the accuracy of the
documents.  "Tell me that this makes any sense," Mr. Gingold said.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., said he was reluctant to read anything
more into the Interior Department's most recent report, an audit that
covers literally only a handful of account holders - four, in fact - no
matter how meticulously or diligently the audit was conducted, than
that it is difficult and time consuming to reach a just settlement of
this issue.

In 1999, Judge Royce Lamberth, who presides over the class action,
ordered the department to provide an accounting of the Indian assets (a
look into the past to determine squander, error, wrongdoing), and the
judge also ordered the department to develop another method for
management of the Indians' royalties (a way to avoid the mistakes of
the past and go forward efficiently and effectively into the present
and future).  However, reforms and reviews of the trust fund's
accounting history have not been forthcoming.

Last September, Judge Lamberth held Interior Secretary Gale Norton in
contempt of court for misrepresenting the reform efforts.  Ms. Norton
was the third Cabinet Secretary held in contempt in the case.  The
contempt ruling has been appealed.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Claim in Stockholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware to dismiss the unfair and deceptive trade
practices claim in the class action filed against it by the Trustees of
Boston University and other former stakeholders of Seragen, Inc., its
subsidiary.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing and unfair and deceptive trade
practices based on, among other things, allegations that the company
wrongfully withheld approximately $2.1 million in consideration due the
plaintiffs under the Seragen acquisition agreement.  The complaint
seeks payment of the withheld consideration and treble damages.

The company's motion is pending.  The company believes that suit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against each of such
lawsuits.  Due to the uncertainty of the ultimate outcome of these
matters, the impact on future financial results is not subject to
reasonable estimates.


LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Plaintifffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against Light
Management Group, Inc. filed a consolidated amended suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between June 9, 1999 through November 20, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the market price of the company's common stock.

The company intends to vigorously defend this suit.  The company is
unable, however, to predict the outcome of this matter, or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss given the current status of the
litigation.  The company has not ruled out other responses, including,
without limitation, moving to dismiss portions of the consolidated
suit.


MERCATOR SOFTWARE: Court Grants Approval to Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Mercator Software, Inc. and former officers
Constance Galley and Ira Gerard.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock from April 20, 2000 through and including August
21, 2000, alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, through alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions and seeks an unspecified
award of damages.  The suit was later amended, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 through alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions and sought an unspecified award of
damages.

On October 22, 2002, the company entered into a stipulation of
settlement to settle this litigation.  Pursuant to this stipulation,
the company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier paid
the entire settlement amount of $8.2 million to resolve all claims
related to this litigation without any admission of liability by the
Company.  On December 26, 2002, the court granted final approval to the
settlement, and on January 27, 2003, the period for appeal of the
settlement expired.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action pending
against On Semiconductor Corporation, certain of its current and former
officers, current directors and the underwriters for its initial public
offering.

The consolidated suit alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions
and to agree to buy additional shares of the company's common stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in its initial public
offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed practices of
the underwriters should have been disclosed in the company's initial
public offering prospectus and registration statement.  The amended
complaint alleges violations of both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
damages.

The company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class actions against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their public offering underwriters in New
York City, which along with the cases against the company have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
coordinated case management.

In July 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the company
filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated, amended
complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all
or most of the issuer defendants.  The underwriters also filed separate
motions to dismiss the claims against them.  In addition, the parties
have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the
company's individual current and former officers and directors who were
named as defendants in the litigation, and they are no longer parties
to the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In that ruling
the court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  


As to the claims brought against the company under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed all of these
claims with prejudice, and refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity
to re-plead these claims.  As to the claims brought under the
registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require
that intent to defraud be pleaded, the court denied the motion to
dismiss these claims as to the company and as to substantially all of
the other issuer defendants as well.  The court also denied the
underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

The company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
have defended, and intends to continue to defend, the litigation
vigorously.  The litigation process is inherently uncertain, however,
and the company cannot guarantee that the outcome of these claims will
be favorable for it.  While the company can make no promises or
guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings, it believes that the
final result of these actions will have no material effect on its
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


ONVIA.COM: 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 Onvia.com, Inc., former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and
Mark T. Calvert, and its lead underwriter Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB).

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who acquired the company's
securities between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000 charges
defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The suit alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Onvia shares in
         the initial public offering (IPO) in exchange for excessive
         and undisclosed commissions; and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under which
         the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those
         customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase
         Onvia shares in the after-market at predetermined prices.

The complaint seeks an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as
attorney fees.  On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal without
prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn S. Ballman and
Mark T. Calvert.

On February 19, 2003 the court denied most issuers' motion to dismiss,
along with the company's motion.  The parties are working towards two
different settlement alternatives, one from the plaintiffs' proposal
and the other from the underwriters' proposal.  The substantial
majority of the companies are in favor of the plaintiffs' proposal.  
The company intends to defend itself vigorously against these charges.


ONVIA.COM: Named as Defendant in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia.com, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Glenn S. Ballman,

     (2) Mark T. Calvert,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (4) Frank Quattrone,

     (5) other members of CSFB's Technology Group (CSFB Individuals),
         and

     (6) approximately fifty companies where CSFB was either the lead
         or the co-lead underwriter of an IPO

The complaint charges CSFB and CSFB Individuals for violations of
Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint charges the company for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, and charges Mr. Ballman and Mr. Calvert for
violations of Section 15 of the 1933 Act and Section 10(b) of the 1934
Act.  The complaint also alleges claims against CSFB and the company
under the common law theory of respondeat superior, and against all
defendants based on common law theories of fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and under Florida's Blue Sky laws.

In essence, the complaint alleges that the defendants disseminated
false and misleading information to the public, which misrepresented
the accuracy of the company's IPO price, its financial condition and
future revenue prospects.  The complaint further alleges that the
effect of the purported fraud was to manipulate the company's stock
price so that the defendants could profit from the manipulation.  The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The company may attempt to transfer this lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York where the other
IPO class action litigation is pending.  The company has submitted the
claims to its directors' and officers' insurance carrier and intends to
defend itself vigorously against these charges.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA Court Hears Petition Appealing Arbitration Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Pacificare Health
Systems, Inc.'s petition appealing the denial of their motion to compel
arbitration on February 4, 2003.

The suit was filed in November 1999 against the Company, its California
subsidiary, and FHP International Corporation, (FHP) in the San
Francisco Superior Court.  FHP was later removed as a defendant, when
the suit was amended.  

The amended complaint relates to the period from November 2, 1995 to
the present and purports to be filed on behalf of all enrollees in our
health care plans operating in California other than Medicare and
Medicaid enrollees.  The amended complaint alleges that the company
has:

     (1) engaged in  unfair business acts in violation of California
         law;

     (2) engaged in false, deceptive and misleading advertising in
         violation of California law; and

     (3) violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act

It also alleges that the company has received unjust payments as a
result of its conduct.  The amended complaint seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, an order requiring the defendants to inform and
warn all California consumers regarding the company's financial
compensation programs, unspecified monetary damages for restitution of
premiums and disgorgement of improper profits, attorneys' fees and
interest.

The company moved to compel arbitration and the Superior Court denied
its motion.  The company later filed an appeal from this denial, and
the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision.  
Thereafter, the company filed a petition asking the California Supreme
Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision, and the California
Supreme Court granted the petition.  

The company expects a ruling from the California Supreme Court in May
2003.  The company denies all material allegations in the amended
complaint and intends to defend the action vigorously.


PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action pending
against Proton Energy Systems, Inc., several of its officers and
directors and the underwriters who handled the September 28, 2000
initial public offering (IPO) of common stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common
stock from September 28, 2000 through and including December 6, 2000,
alleges that the company's IPO registration statement and final
prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions
related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly
received by the underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters
allegedly allocated shares of the IPO.

In July 2002, the company joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss the
lawsuits filed by all issuer defendants named in similar actions, which
challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including
those in the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the
motion and the Court heard oral argument on the motion in November
2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order, granting
in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to the Company.
Earlier, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice all of the
individual defendants from the consolidated complaint.  An order to
that effect was entered by the court in October 2002.

The company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims made in
the complaints and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.  
However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful, and an
adverse resolution of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operation in the period in
which the lawsuits are resolved.  The company is not presently able to
reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuits.


PUERTO RICO: Opposes Class Certification tor Telephone Customers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. opposed plaintiffs motion for class
certification of a suit filed on behalf of its residential telephone
service and business service subscribers in the Superior Court of
Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The plaintiffs claim that the company's charges for touchtone service
are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of the Act.  They
have requested that the court:

     (1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action;

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representatives of the class;

     (3) find that the charges are illegal;

     (4) establish a maximum charge based on cost; and

     (5) order the company to reimburse every subscriber for excess
         payments made since September 1996

On October 25, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting class
certification.  The plaintiffs filed on November 22, 2002, a voluntary
request for dismissal as to some plaintiffs.  On December 19, 2002, the
company filed its answer to the amended complaint.  At present, the
company is awaiting for a decision with respect to the voluntary
dismissals and its opposition to class certification.


PUERTO RICO: Court Dismisses Subscriber Fraud Lawsuit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Puerto Rico Superior Court dismissed without prejudice the class
action filed against Puerto Rico Telephone Company by one residential
telephone service subscriber and three business service subscribers,
alleging claims under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The plaintiffs claim that the company's unit charges for local measured
service are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of the
Act.  They have requested that the court:

     (1) issue an Order certifying the case as a class action;

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representatives of the class;

     (3) find that the unit charges are illegal;

     (4) establish a maximum unit charge based on cost; and

     (5) order the company to reimburse every subscriber for excess
         payments made since September 1996.

On November 22, 2002 plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissal
without prejudice.  On February 26, 2003, the court issued an order
with respect to the motion requesting voluntary dismissal.  
Specifically, the court ordered the plaintiffs to present within a
period of twenty (20) days, that is until March 18, 2003, their
position towards the class action if the dismissal is granted.  
However, on March 5, 2003, the court issued an order dismissing the
case without prejudice.


RADIAN INC.: GA Court Refuses Certification for Home Mortgagers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Georgia refused to grant class
certification to the two class actions filed against Radian Group, Inc.
and other primary mortgage insurance providers on behalf of a
nationwide class of home mortgage borrowers.

In In December 2000, a complaint seeking class action status on behalf
of a nationwide class of home mortgage borrowers was filed against
Radian Group Inc. and certain of its mortgage insurance subsidiaries in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina (Greensboro Division).  In February 2001 a complaint seeking
class action status on behalf of similar plaintiffs represented by
Texas counsel was filed against Radian Group Inc. and certain of its
mortgage insurance subsidiaries in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.  The Radian defendant entities in both
cases are collectively referred to here as "Radian."  

The complaints allege that Radian violated Section 8 of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), which generally prohibits the giving
of any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding that real estate settlement services will be referred.  
The complaints assert that the pricing of pool insurance, captive
reinsurance, contract underwriting, performance notes and other,
unidentified "structured transactions" should be interpreted as imputed
kickbacks made in exchange for the referral of primary mortgage
insurance business, which, according to the complaints, is a settlement
service under RESPA.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages
of three times the amount of any mortgage insurance premiums paid by
persons who were referred to Radian pursuant to the alleged agreement
or understanding.

In September 2002, Radian's motion to dismiss the Texas lawsuit was
granted; the plaintiffs are appealing that decision.  The plaintiffs in
the North Carolina lawsuit are represented by the same group of
plaintiffs' lawyers who filed six similar lawsuits in federal court in
Georgia against other providers of primary mortgage insurance.  Four of
the Georgia lawsuits were settled; two are currently in discovery.

In November 2002, contrary to Radian's success in Texas, the
Georgia court ruled against one of the defendants on certain
preliminary motions substantially similar to those on which Radian
prevailed in Texas.  However, in February 2003, the Georgia court
refused to certify a class in both of the lawsuits before it.

Radian's North Carolina case is in the motions and early discovery
phase, and Radian has filed a motion to dismiss.  Because this case is
still developing, it is not possible to evaluate the outcome, to
determine the effect, if any, that the Texas or Georgia court rulings
could have on this case, or to estimate the amount or range of
potential loss.


REVLON INC.: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in Delaware Court, against it, certain of its
present and former officers and directors and its parent REV Holdings
Inc. (a Delaware corporation and the predecessor of REV Holdings LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company).

The suit alleges among other things, violations of Rule 10b-5 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The suit was filed on
behalf of a class of security purchasers during the period from October
29, 1997 through October 1, 1998.

In December 2002, the defendants, including the company, entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.  The final written
agreement reflecting this agreement in principle, which was executed in
January 2003 and which remains subject to approval by the court,
provides that the defendants will obtain complete releases from the
participating members of the alleged class.  


REVLON INC.: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Lawsuit for Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. asks the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the securities class action filed
against it, certain of its present and former officers and directors,
and its parent, REV Holdings, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Revlon,
Inc. and REV Holdings between October 2, 1998 and September 30, 1999,
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated, among other
things, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and, if its motion to dismiss is not granted, intends to
vigorously defend against them.  


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Dropped as Defendant in Securities Lawsuit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. has been dropped as a defendant in the
amended securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court in New York.  

Several suits were initially commenced against the company, CompuCom
Systems, Inc., a company affiliate, and a former officer of Safeguard
who served as a director of Opus360 Corporation.  The plaintiffs
alleged material misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with
the initial public offering of Opus360 Corporation stock on April 7,
2000.

In October 2002, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by
Safeguard and CompuCom with respect to the claims under Section 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The court also granted the motion to
dismiss filed by all defendants due to the absence of any material
misstatement or omission in the prospectus and registration statement
(without prejudice to rep-leading within 30 days).

The plaintiffs served their second amended consolidated suit, which did
not name Safeguard or CompuCom as defendants.  Thus, there are no
pending actions against Safeguard or CompuCom.  It remains unclear
whether plaintiffs will seek to appeal the dismissal of their claims
against Safeguard and CompuCom at the conclusion of the still-pending
action against the remaining defendants.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Denies Motion for Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Philadelphia refused to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against Safeguard
Scientifics, Inc. and Warren V. Musser, the company's former chairman.

The first suit was filed in June 2001, alleging that defendants failed
to disclose that Mr. Musser had pledged some or all of his company
stock as collateral to secure margin trading in his personal brokerage
accounts.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to disclose the
pledge, along with their failure to disclose several margin calls, a
loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of certain margin debt and the
consequences thereof on the company's stock price, violated the federal
securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In August 2001, a second lawsuit was filed against the company and Mr.
Musser asserting claims similar to those brought in the first
proceeding.  In addition, plaintiffs in the second case allege that the
defendants failed to disclose possible or actual manipulative
aftermarket trading in the securities of Safeguard's companies, the
impact of competition on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's
companies and the company's lack of a superior business plan.

These two cases have been consolidated for further proceedings under
the name "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation" and the
court has approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and the
retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The plaintiffs then filed a
consolidated and amended complaint.

In May 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
and amended complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief
may be granted.  The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss,
holding that, based on the allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and
amended complaint, dismissal would be inappropriate at this juncture.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain, the company believes
that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: FL Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against Sykes
Enterprises, Inc. after the parties reached a settlement in the matter.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of Sykes' common
stock during the period from July 27, 1998 through September 18, 2000,
claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Among other
things, the consolidated action alleged that during 2000, 1999 and
1998, the company and certain of its officers made materially false
statements concerning Sykes' financial condition and its future
prospects.  

The consolidated complaint also claimed that certain of Sykes'
quarterly financial statements during 1999 and 1998 were not prepared
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.  The consolidated action sought compensatory
and other damages, and costs and expenses associated with the
litigation.  

Although the company denied the plaintiff's allegations and defended
the action vigorously, due to the extremely high costs and risks of
litigation, as well as the drain on its time and attention, the company
agreed to a settlement of the suit with the plaintiffs.  

The settlement resulted in a cash payment of $30.0 million.  Insurance
amounts, after payment of litigation expenses, covered $16.6 million
of the settlement and the company paid the remaining amount of $13.4
million. The court approved the settlement and dismissed the suit on
March 7, 2003.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Motion to Dismiss Remaining Derivative Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in one of the shareholder derivative lawsuits pending
against Sykes Enterprises, Inc. voluntarily dismissed the suit, while
the company asked the Hillsborough County, Florida, Circuit Court to
dismiss the remaining suit.

The suits were filed against certain current and former members of the
company's Board of Directors and officers.  These suits were captioned
"Clarence S. Gurerra v. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al.," and
"James Bunde v. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, et. al."  While the
company was a nominal defendant in these suits, both were purportedly
instituted by shareholders of Sykes on the company's behalf, and no
damages or other relief were sought from Sykes.  Both suits alleged
breach of fiduciary duties and mismanagement by the defendant directors
and officers.  The Bunde lawsuit also named Ernst & Young LLP, the
company's former accountants, as a defendant and alleges breach of
contract and negligence by Ernst & Young LLP.

The suits sought, on behalf of Sykes, disgorgement of profits allegedly
made by certain officers and directors through the sale of Sykes' stock
while in possession of inside information and other unspecified damages
and relief.  The Board of Directors established a Special Committee to
investigate the allegations made in the derivative suits.

During the investigation, a motion was pending in the Gurerra case to
continue a stay of the proceedings pending the completion of the
investigation of the claims made in the complaints by the Special
Committee.  The Special Committee completed its investigation related
to the Gurerra case in October 2002, and determined that the Gurerra
case should be dismissed.

As a result of that finding, the company filed a motion with the court
seeking to have the Gurerra case terminated, which motion is pending.  
There can be no assurance this motion will be granted.  The plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Bunde case in February 2003.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: $10B Philip Morris Ruling Threatens States' Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The $10 billion judgment against Philip Morris in an Illinois class
action, which had alleged the cigarette maker misled one million
Illinois smokers into believing "light" cigarettes were less harmful
than regular cigarettes, could disrupt the plans of many states to
resolve their budget crises, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.

This possible interruption of states' plans, results because Philip
Morris, in order to appeal the Illinois judgment, must post a $12
billion appeal bond.  Consequently, Philip Morris has warned the 46
states who are parties with all the other major tobacco companies to
the Master Tobacco Settlement that it cannot post a $12 billion appeal
bond and also pay its annual share ($2.6 billion) of the Settlement to
the respective states next month.

The 46-state settlement with the tobacco industry resolved state claims
against cigarette manufacturers for smokers' deaths and health costs to
the states.  It did not preclude lawsuits on behalf of individual
smokers, such as the Illinois case.

State lawmakers, among the 46 states, have been looking forward to the
annual tobacco settlement payment to make up for declining tax revenue.   
Colorado, for example, is wrestling with a projected $870 million
shortfall in next year's budget, and perceived the annual tobacco
settlement payment of $260 million it would receive in April as a
critical infusion to resolution of its budget difficulties.

"We would probably have to regroup and try to figure out what to do
next," said Rep. Bradley Young, R-Lamar.

New York and California are at this moment trying to sell bonds backed
by revenue from the tobacco settlement and are counting on those bond
sales in their state budgets.  Washington state already has sold the
rights to about 20 percent of its tobacco settlement money in order to
meet its obligations.

Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire, who negotiated
the settlement between states and the tobacco companies, said recently
that if the issue is not resolved soon, she and other state attorneys
general will file motions to intervene in the Illinois case and get the
appeal bond released.  If Philip Morris does not pay the roughly $60
million it owes Washington state by April 15, Ms. Gregoire said, the
state will sue the company for the money the next day.

Company spokesman Brendan McCormick said Philip Morris is pursuing a
smaller appeal bond in the Illinois Legislature and the courts.  "We
would like our arguments to be heard on appeal with the company being
financially crippled by an unfair and unreasonable bonding
requirement," he said.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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
American Conference Institute
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 3, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Coast Anaheim Hotel, Anaheim
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.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 10, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

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

May 17, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sacramento, CA
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

May 31, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Crowne Plaza Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

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-TREATED 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 16-17, 2003
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

June 19-20, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Chicago
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 24-25, 2003  
SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Times Square, New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.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

July 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31-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.

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 15-16, 2003  
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

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

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

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
------------------------

April 06-30, 2003
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS
ACTION LITIGATION IN TEXAS
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 09-10, 2003
LITIGATION MEMBER BENEFIT
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

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

May 08-10, 2003
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

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

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

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 ASBESTOS 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.7


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


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

The complaint 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 material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price
of AstroPower securities.  It is specifically alleged that throughout
the class period the company claimed that it was well positioned to
take advantage of the increasing demand for solar power products.  
Further, the company reported strong revenue and earnings growth and
that, as a result of these statements and reports, the company's per
share stock price reached a class period high of $27 on March 28, 2002.

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

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

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


FIFTH THIRD: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Fifth Third Bancorp FITB between
September 21, 2001 to January 31, 2003 inclusive, who have been damaged
thereby.  This action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, against the company
and:

     (1) George A. Schaefer, Jr. (CEO and President),

     (2) Neal E. Arnold (CFO) and

     (3) David J. DeBrunner (Controller)

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 September 21, 2001 and January 31,
2003.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Fifth Third
issued press releases and filed financial reports with the SEC, which
represented that the company had successfully and seamlessly integrated
a large corporate acquisition (Old Kent) into its operations and
further represented that its business was stronger than ever and that
the company would continue to grow and provide investment safety.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the Old Kent (and
other) merger(s) seriously strained the company's infrastructure,
causing deficiencies in its internal controls and other business
critical systems.

On September 10, 2002, the company announced that it would be taking a
$54 million after-tax ($81.8 million pre-tax) charge for impaired
funds, resulting from a botched accounting reconciliation.  According
to the complaint, the company played down the incident as a one time
immaterial event, which was false and misleading because it was
symptomatic of material, company-wide infrastructure deficiencies.

On November 14, 2002 the company revealed that the write-off had
triggered investigations by banking regulators and the SEC.  On January
31, 2003, the company reported that banking regulators would likely
take formal action against the Company, which would likely require
Fifth Third to improve its internal controls, by among other things,
adding personnel and processes.

On February 3, 2003 the first trading day following the announcement,
the price of Fifth Third common stock closed at $52.21 per share, a
decline of 15% from the November 14, 2002 close of $62.53, the day
Fifth Third first revealed that it was being investigated by banking
regulators and the SEC.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas Risen or Kimberly
A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on
behalf of purchasers of King Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE: KG) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 26, 1999 and March
10, 2003.

The complaint charges King Pharmaceuticals and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
King Pharmaceuticals is a vertically integrated pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, markets and sells primarily branded
prescription pharmaceutical products.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused
King Pharmaceuticals' shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  
While the stock was inflated, King Pharmaceuticals completed two
secondary stock offerings, raising more than $900 million in proceeds.  
The Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued pursuant to these
offerings contained the company's false financial statements.

Ultimately, on March 11, 2003, the company disclosed an SEC
investigation into the company's rebates to distributors in prior
years.  On this news the company's stock price declined to as low as
$11.60 before closing at $12.17, on volume of $19.5 million shares, a
decline of 73% from the class period high of $46.05.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415 by Phone: 800-404-7770 by
Fax: 860-537-4432 or by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


VAXGEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of VaxGen,
Inc. (Nasdaq: VXGN) from August 6, 2002 through February 26, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that VaxGen, a company engaged in the development
and commercialization of AIDSVAX, a vaccine designed to prevent
infections or disease caused by HIV, and certain of its officers issued
materially false and misleading statements.  Throughout the class
period, defendants made positive statements concerning the status of
the trial required to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval and described VaxGen's plans to manufacture and market
AIDSVAX.  

On February 23, 2003, VaxGen disclosed that the study did not show a
statistically significant reduction of HIV infection on the whole.  
However, when defendants released the results of the trial on February
24, 2003, they claimed the trial had demonstrated 30% to 84% efficacy
rates in U.S. blacks and Asians and that the analysis had less than a
1% chance of being due to random chance, making it highly statistically
significant.

On February 26, 2003, defendants were forced to admit that the
reliability of their earlier reports of higher efficacy rates for non-
caucasians was impaired because they had not taken the requisite
"penalties" to account for the fact that a much smaller subset of data
was evaluated for non-caucasians.

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


                                     **********

        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  * * *