---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, April 7, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 68

                            Headlines                            

ANTIGENICS INC.: Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Suit
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Consumers File NJ Suit Over Spermicide Used in Condoms
CONCORD EFS: Faces Suit For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in TN State Court
CONCORD EFS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit Over Fees, Charges
CONCORD EFS: NJ Court Dismisses In Part Lawsuit Over EBT Withdrawals

COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Wyndcrest Merger
E.PIPHANY INC.: Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
E.PIPHANY INC.: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. FL
FATBRAIN.COM: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH
GEORGIA POWER: Judge Dismisses Employees' Racial Discrimination Claims
HOTELS.COM: Faces Securities Suits For Securities Violations in N.D. TX
INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Reaches MOU To Settle Consolidated Lawsuit in FL
INSWEB CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit

LEXENT INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
JEFFERSON-PILOT LIFE: Reaches Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit in NC
MCDATA CORPORATION: Court Partly Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
US AIRWAYS: Bankruptcy Court Orders Stay To Remain Until April 15, 2003

US AIRWAYS: Trial in Travel Agents' Antitrust Suit Set September 2003

*Once Tobacco's Foes, States Now Hooked on Litigation Settlement Cash

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CERNER CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
FIFTH THIRD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Ohio
HOTELS.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Texas
MICROTUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX

NAM TAI: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. New York
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court
PEC SOLUTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
SAWTEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in M.D. FL
SAWTEK INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in TN
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

WESTAR ENERGY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in KS Court

                           *********


ANTIGENICS INC.: Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Antigenics, Inc., its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Garo
Armen, and two investment banking firms that served as underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of
the Company's stock in the offering.  The suit also alleges that shares
of the Company's stock were allocated to certain of the investment
banking firms' customers based upon agreements by such customers to
purchase additional shares of Company stock in the secondary market.

The complaint alleges that the Company is liable under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Dr. Armen is liable under
Sections11 and 15 of the Securities Act because the Company's
registration statement did not disclose these alleged practices.

Similar complaints were filed against 300 other issuers, their
underwriters, and their directors and officers.  These cases have been
coordinated under the caption In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, by order dated August 9, 2001.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in this action filed an amended class
action complaint, which contains new allegations. Again, similar
amended complaints were filed in the other 300 initial public offering
cases.  In addition to the claims in the earlier complaint, the amended
complaint alleges that the Company and Dr. Armen violated Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
making false and misleading statements and/or omissions in order to
inflate the Company's stock price and conceal the investment banking
firms' alleged secret arrangements.

The claims against Dr. Armen, in his individual capacity, have been
dismissed without prejudice.  On July 15, 2002, the Company and Dr.
Armen joined the Issuer Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaints.  By order of the court, this motion set forth all
"common issues," i.e., all grounds for dismissal common to all or a
significant number of Issuer Defendants.  The hearing on the Issuer
Defendants' s Motion to Dismiss and the other Defendants' motions to
Dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its opinion and order on the
Issuer Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Rule 10(b)-5 and Section 20 claims, with leave to
amend and denied the Company's motion to dismiss the Section 11 and
Section 15 claims.  The Company expects that the plaintiffs will file
an amended complaint.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Consumers File NJ Suit Over Spermicide Used in Condoms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey over condoms lubricated with the spermicide
nonoxynol-9 (N-9).  The suit also names two other condom manufacturers
as defendants.

The suit alleges that condoms lubricated with N-9 are being marketed in
a misleading manner because the makers of such condoms claim they aid
in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases whereas, according
to the plaintiffs, public health organizations have found that N-9
usage can under some circumstances increase the risk of transmission of
disease.  The World Health Organization and other interested groups
have issued reports suggesting that N-9 should not be used rectally or
for multiple daily acts of vaginal intercourse, given the ingredient's
potential to cause irritation to human membranes.

Condoms with N-9 have been marketed for many years as a cleared medical
device under applicable FDA regulations, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.


CONCORD EFS: Faces Suit For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in TN State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Concord EFS, Inc. has until April 22, 2003 to respond to a class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial
District at Memphis, against it and certain of its officers and
directors.  The complaint generally alleges a breach of the defendants'
duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants' alleged
attempt to sell the Company without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' alleged individual
interests in obtaining indemnification agreements.

The complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief directing
the defendants' conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction
of Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs
and relief the court deems just and proper.

Although this matter is in the very preliminary stages, the Company
believes that the claims against its officers and directors are without
merit.


CONCORD EFS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit Over Fees, Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Concord EFS, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee to dismiss the class action filed against
it, its subsidiary EFS National Bank, and John Doe Corporations.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company changed fees and charges without
providing the requisite notice, charged merchants for transactions that
never occurred, and failed to route payments in accordance with the
plaintiffs' instructions.  The plaintiffs allege fraud, breach of
contract, conversion, and causes of action under the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO).  The class plaintiffs seek to certify consists of all
merchant customers of EFS National Bank, the Company, or John Doe
Corporations, who were subject to charges that were not fully disclosed
on their statements, charges for transactions which the merchant never
undertook, and/or charges in excess of the amount agreed upon in their
contracts.

The court has yet to rule on the dismissal motion.  Although this
matter is in the preliminary stages, the Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit.


CONCORD EFS: NJ Court Dismisses In Part Lawsuit Over EBT Withdrawals
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey State Court dismissed in part the class action filed
against Concord EFS, Inc., alleging that it wrongfully allowed and
facilitated surcharges on EBT withdrawals at ATMs within the Company's
network. The plaintiff's four original claims were for:

     (1) violation of N.J.S.A. 44:10-75(c) (which concerns New Jersey's
         EBT program),

     (2) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act,

     (3) negligence and

     (4) breach of contract (as an alleged third-party beneficiary)

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all New
Jersey public assistance recipients participating in the New Jersey EBT
program who, since March 24, 1997, withdrew their cash benefits from
ATMs serviced and processed by Concord and incurred a surcharge per EBT
withdrawal.  

The Company moved to dismiss all four claims.  At a hearing on March 7,
2003, the court found that the claim for violation of N.J.S.A. 44:10-
75(c) should be dismissed with prejudice and that the claims for
violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and breach of contract
should be dismissed without prejudice, but the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss as to the negligence claim.

Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, the Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit.


COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Cosine Communications, Inc. and seven of its officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company's September 26, 2000 IPO
prospectus failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering.  The complaint alleges claims against
the Company and its officers and directors under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint also alleges claims against the
officers and directors under Section 15 of the 1933 Act and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint generally alleges that various investment bank
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to
the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering.  The
complaint brings claims for the violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers.  

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 250 other companies.  The
lawsuit and all other "IPO allocation" securities class actions
currently pending in the Southern District of New York have been
assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.  The issuer defendants recently
filed a coordinated motion to dismiss on common pleading issues, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in an order dated
February 19, 2002.  The Court's order dismissed the Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company but did not dismiss the Section
11 claims against the Company.

The Company and its officers and directors believe the allegations
against them are without merit and intend to defend the action
vigorously.


COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Wyndcrest Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosine Communications, Inc. and each of its five directors face a
consolidated class action filed in San Mateo County Superior Court in
San Francisco, California, on behalf of the Company's stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duty to the corporation in rejecting a proposal offered by a
private holding company, Wyndcrest Holdings LLC, to effect a merger of
the Company into a wholly owned subsidiary of Wyndcrest.  Under the
proposal, Wyndcrest would retain a 75% ownership interest in the assets
of the Company after distributing $95.5 million in cash to the existing
Company shareholders, subject to adjustment.

The Company and its directors believe that the allegations are without
merit.


E.PIPHANY INC.: Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against E.piphany, Inc., two of its current officers, one of its former
officers and three underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges generally that the underwriters engaged in improper
and undisclosed activities concerning the allocation of shares in the
Company's IPO. Specifically, among other things, the plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of the Company's common
stock were sold in the Company's IPO contained certain false and
misleading statements regarding the practices of the Company's
underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock
in the Company's IPO to their customers and their receipt of
commissions from those customers related to such allocations, and that
such statements and omissions caused the Company's post-IPO stock price
to be artificially inflated.  The suit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

This is one of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial purposes as
In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.
Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding have brought claims under the
federal securities laws against numerous underwriters, companies, and
individuals.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated action.  
The underwriter and issuer defendants have filed motions to dismiss,
but these motions were denied. The individual defendants have been
dismissed from the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims against it.


E.PIPHANY INC.: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E.piphany, Inc. was named as a defendant in the securities class action
entitled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  
Among the 166 parties named as defendants are Credit Suisse First
Boston and its personnel, issuers that completed IPOs underwritten by
Credit Suisse First Boston, and certain directors and officers of these
issuers, including the Company and two of its current officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal and state
laws by, among other things, publishing false and misleading
information regarding the issuers' projected financial performance
and revenue potential and by incorrectly pricing issuers' IPOs.  The
complaint relates generally to the ongoing IPO-related litigation
currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Company anticipates that this action will be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
coordinated with existing IPO-related litigation.  The Company believes
it has meritorious defenses to the claims against it.


FATBRAIN.COM: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatbrain.com LLC asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed against it and its former officers and directors.  
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between November 19, 1998 and November 16, 2000, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the initial public offering registration
statements filed by the Company was false and misleading because it
failed to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving
excess compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its
customers and that some of those customers agreed to buy additional
shares of the Company's common stock in the after market at increasing
prices.  The suit also alleges that the foregoing constitute violations
of:

     (1) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by
         the Company, its directors and officers signing the related
         registration statements, and the related underwriters;

     (2) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934 by the same parties; and

     (3) the control person provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by
         certain directors and officers of the Company.

The suit is similar to other suits filed against over one thousand
individuals and 300 corporations in the same court.


FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 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 suit alleges violations of federal securities laws related to
disclosures made by the Company in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its integration of Old
Kent Financial Corporation and its effect on the Registrant's
infrastructure and prospects and related matters, and seeking
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.

Management believes there are substantial defenses to the lawsuit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  The impact of the final disposition
of this lawsuit cannot be assessed at this time.

GEORGIA POWER: Judge Dismisses Employees' Racial Discrimination Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Orinda Evans recently dismissed the claims of
seven Georgia Power employees that their employer had discriminated
against them, saying that she found no merit in their charges that
their employer Georgia Power had paid them less than white counterparts
or had passed them over for promotions in favor of white counterparts,
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.  

The case also was brought against Georgia Power's parent, Southern Co.  
The case, a high-profile discrimination lawsuit, was fueled by
allegations that Georgia Power did nothing about nooses hanging at its
facilities.

Georgia Power spokesman John Sell said the company remains willing to
talk to the seven employees in order to "try to end this action on a
positive note."  Mr. Sells also said that the lawsuit had motivated the
company to improve internal diversity, training, and career development
programs.

The employees will appeal, said their attorneys.

Judge Evans' ruling, totaling more than 200 pages, said the seven
employees failed to show that the alleged disparate treatment was
racially motivated.  That failure extended to the case's most
incendiary allegation, that the company had allowed at least 13 nooses
to hang at its facilities, Judge Evans wrote.

The plaintiffs did not prove that those nooses were racially motivated,
Judge Evans wrote.  The assumption that they were racially motivated,
she wrote, was only an inference.  The employees also failed to prove
that Georgia Power employees shredded documents in order to hide
evidence that the nooses were racially motivated, Judge Evans added.

The lawsuit filed against Georgia Power on July 27, 2000, alleged that
the Atlanta-based company had "engaged in a pattern and practice" of
racial discrimination against African-American employees.  In their
complaint, the seven employees detailed missed promotions, disparate
pay scales and other issues that they contended marked a pattern of
discrimination at Georgia Power.

In October 2001, Judge Evans denied their attempt to have the lawsuit
granted class action status.  The employees continued their lawsuit as
individuals, consolidated in the one action.

Steven Rosenwasser and his co-counsel, Michael Terry, said Judge Evans
had usurped the role of jury by ruling on the facts of the case.  "The
judge weighed the evidence in her own mind and made her own personal
decision as to how that evidence should be interpreted, rather than
leaving that to a jury," said Mr. Rosenwasser.

Summary judgment decisions, in which a judge dismisses a case for
strictly legal reasons, require that a judge find there are no issues
of fact for a jury to decide.  Mr. Rosenwasser pointed to an instance
of Judge Evans making interpretations of fact, as when she wrote,
"undisputed evidence shows that the decision makers did not know the
applicant was black."


HOTELS.COM: Faces Securities Suits For Securities Violations in N.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotels.com, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
from October 23, 2002 to January 6, 2003.  The suit also names as
defendants three of its executives.

Specifically, the complaints allege that during the class period, the
defendants knowingly:

     (1) made certain materially false and misleading public
         statements, in a press release and two press interviews, with
         respect to the anticipated performance of our company during
         the fourth quarter of 2002; and

     (2) concealed from the investing public certain material events
         and developments that were likely to render that anticipated
         performance unattainable.

The complaints assert that the individual defendants profited from the
rise in the Company's share price caused by their public statements
through sales of the Company's stock during the class period.  The
complaints further allege that as a result of the Company's
announcement on January 6, 2003 of a downward revision of the Company's
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002, its share price declined
precipitously.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all non-defendant
purchasers of our stock during the class period and seek damages
in an unspecified amount suffered by the putative class.  The
plaintiffs and the defendants have agreed to consolidate these actions
into a single action bearing the title In re Hotels.com Securities
Litigation, No.3-03CV00069 and an order to that effect has been
submitted to the court for its approval.  

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit.


INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Reaches MOU To Settle Consolidated Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc. signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Company's Common
Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement for the
Company's February 1999 initial public offering.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) BIG Venture Capital Corporation, a selling shareholder in the
         IPO,

     (2) the five inside directors of the Company at the time of the
         IPO,

     (3) Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and

     (4) Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., the underwriters for the IPO

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making certain false and misleading statements in the roadshow
presentations, registration statement and prospectus relating to the
IPO.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that, in connection with
the IPO, the defendants made various material misrepresentations and/or
omissions relating to:

      (i) the Company's ability to integrate Geotrac's flood zone
          determination business with the Company's own flood zone
          determination business and with its insurance outsourcing
          services business;

     (ii) actual and anticipated synergies between the Company's flood
          zone determination and outsourcing services business lines;
          and

    (iii) the Company's use of the IPO proceeds

In March 2001, the Company, BIG and the five inside director defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for, among other
things, failure to allege material misstatements and/or omissions in
the roadshow presentations, registration statement and/or prospectus
relating to the IPO.  In July 2001, US District Judge Richard A.
Lazzara denied all of the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.

The case had been set for trial during the trial term commencing May 5,
2003.  On August 6, 2002, the plaintiff offered to accept, in full
settlement of the IPO Litigation as to all defendants, payment of $2.1
million to the putative plaintiff class.  On August 14, 2002, the
Company's Board of Directors voted to accept this offer, and the issuer
of the Company's applicable Directors and Officers and Company
Reimbursement insurance policy has agreed to pay $2.1 million to the
plaintiff class.  The settlement was also approved by BIG and by the
other defendants represented by Company counsel.  The parties to the
IPO Litigation have negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) of the principal material settlement terms, and the parties
presently are preparing a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and
related documents, for submission to Judge Lazzara.

The settlement is contingent upon approval by Judge Lazzara, following
notice to the members of the plaintiff class of, and a hearing on, the
proposed settlement terms.  The Company believes that the material
allegations of the complaint are without merit, but has elected to
settle the IPO Litigation to avoid the time, expense and risks
associated with continuing the IPO Litigation.  No assurances can be
given, if the settlement is not consummated, with respect to the
outcome of the IPO Litigation, and an adverse result could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition
and results of operations.


INSWEB 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 filed
against Insweb Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The complaint also
names as defendants certain current and former officers and directors,
and three underwriters for the Company's initial public offering in
July 1999.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus
incorporated in the registration statement for the offering
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         substantial blocks of the stock sold in the initial public
         offering; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares of the
         stock sold in the initial public offering to those customers
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares of Company stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices that were above the initial public offering
         price.

In February 2003, the court dismissed the claims alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs to
proceed with the remaining claims.  The Company believes that the
remaining allegations against the Company and its current and former
officers and directors are without merit and intends to contest them
vigorously.  

The litigation is in the preliminary stage, and the Company cannot
predict its outcome.  The litigation process is inherently uncertain.  
An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


LEXENT INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against Lexent, Inc., certain of its present and former senior
executives and its underwriters continues.

The complaint 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 that:

     (1) certain 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
         stock in the initial public offering; and

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

The suit against the Company is part of a number of initial public
offering securities claims against multiple issuers and underwriters
presently pending before the Judge.  No discovery has occurred in
the suit involving the Company.  The court later dismissed without
prejudice all individual present and former senior executive
defendants.

On February 19, 2003, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin issued
an opinion denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against
the Company but granting said motion, without prejudice, with respect
to the Section 10(b)(5) claims.  As indicated in previous filings, the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously.  Management currently
believes that the resolution of this litigation will not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or the
results of operations, although the ultimate outcome of this matter
cannot be determined at this time.


JEFFERSON-PILOT LIFE: Reaches Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company reached an agreement to settle a
class action filed in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North
Carolina, alleging deceptive practices, fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentation and breach of contract in the sale of certain life
insurance policies using policy performance illustrations which used
then current interest or dividend rates and insurance charges and
illustrated that some or all of the future premiums might be paid from
policy values rather than directly by the insured.

The claimant's actual policy values exceeded those illustrated on a
guaranteed basis, but were less than those illustrated on a then
current basis due primarily to the interest crediting rates having
declined along with the overall decline in interest rates in recent
years.

On March 10, 2003, the court authorized the Company to send a notice to
participating class policyholders that an agreement had been reached to
settle this suit.  The settlement will resolve claims by 165,000
holders and beneficiaries of certain policies, mostly sold in the 1980s
and early 1990s, and is subject to final court approval later this
year.

In the settlement, the Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing.  
The Company believes that its sales, servicing and administrative
practices are - and always have been - designed to match customers'
needs with appropriate products and to fully inform customers about
the operation and features of those products.  The settlement will
provide benefits to class policyholders, and will benefit the Company
by resolving and eliminating the need for corporate resources to be
spent on a suit that has been pending for seven years.


MCDATA CORPORATION: Court Partly Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against McDATA Corporation and one of its current officers and two
former officers.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the registration
statements and prospectus filed with the SEC by the Company were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (1) that certain underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
         for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of shares in connection with the Company's
         initial public offerings; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         initial public offering shares in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional company shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The complaints relating to us allege claims against the Company, one of
its current officers, two of its former officers and Credit Suisse
First Boston (CSFB) the lead underwriter for the Company's August 9,
2000 initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act.

The suit is substantially identical to over 300 other complaints filed
against other companies that went public over the last several years.  
In September 2002, plaintiffs' counsel in the above-mentioned lawsuits
offered to individual defendants of many of the public companies being
sued the opportunity to enter into a Reservation of Rights and Tolling
Agreement that would dismiss without prejudice and without costs all
claims against such persons if the company itself had entity coverage
insurance.  This agreement was signed by Mr. John F. McDonnell, the
Company's Chairman, Mrs.Dee J. Perry, its former chief financial
officer, Mr.Thomas O. McGimpsey, its former Vice President and General
Counsel, and the plaintiffs' executive committee.  Under the
Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement the plaintiffs are required
to dismiss the claims against such individuals.

On February 19, 2003, the court entered a ruling on the pending motions
to dismiss that dismissed some, but not all, of the plaintiff's claims
against us.

Although the Company believes that all of the lawsuits are without
legal merit and intends to defend them vigorously, it cannot give any
assurance that it will prevail.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: 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 filed
against SupportSoft, Inc., two of its officers, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and
initial public offering of 4,250,000 shares of its common stock
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions, related to
alleged inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the
offering.  The defendants named in the lawsuit are the Company and:

     (1) Radha Basu,

     (2) Brian Beattie,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and

      (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individual officers and directors of
those companies.  All of the complaints against the underwriters,
issuers and individuals have been consolidated for pre-trail purposes
before US District Court Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of
New York.  Pretrial motions and discovery were stayed pending a ruling
on a motion to dismiss the claims by defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion granting defendants'
motion in part, and denying the motions in part.  In summary, the court
ruled that the case may proceed against the underwriters on the
theories alleging violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the case
may proceed against the Company, Radha Basu and Brian Beattie with
respect to a claim for violation of section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, and, subject to a pending motion for reconsideration against Mr.
Beattie with respect to a claim for violation of section 10(b).

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation, it believes that the claims against it and its officers are
without merit.


US AIRWAYS: Bankruptcy Court Orders Stay To Remain Until April 15, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court ordered the stay on two class
actions filed against US Airways Group, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to remain until
April 15, 2003.  Delta Air Lines is also named as a defendant in both
actions, while Northwest Airlines and the Airlines Reporting
Corporation are named as defendants in one additional action.

The complaints were filed on behalf of airline passengers who
originated or terminated their trips at the defendant carriers'
respective hubs.  These passengers allege that they paid excessive
fares due to the respective airlines' enforcement of ticketing rules
that prohibit the use of a connecting segment coupon that is part of a
through-fare ticket where the passenger does not fly or intend to fly
the entire ticketed itinerary.  Plaintiffs allege monopolization and
restraint of trade in violation of federal antitrust laws.  They
seek recovery of trebled damages from all named defendants in the
amount of $390 million and an injunction prohibiting future enforcement
of the rules at issue.

In May 2002, the court denied the defendant airlines' motion for
summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in each of the cases.  The Company also filed a petition
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a
discretionary review of the certification order.

On November 21, 2002, the petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision was denied.  On December 4, 2002, Delta and
Northwest filed a rehearing petition seeking en banc review of the
initial Sixth Circuit denial.  On February 24, 2003, Northwest and
Delta's petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

Notwithstanding the district court's denial of summary judgment and the
petition, the Company believes the claims are without merit and intend
to pursue a vigorous defense once the stay is lifted.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the automatic stay under section 362(a) to allow
the litigation to proceed against the Company.  The Company filed a
response in opposition to the motion, and the motion was heard by the
Bankruptcy Court on December 12, 2002.  The Bankruptcy Court ordered
that the automatic stay remain in place until April 15, 2003.


US AIRWAYS: Trial in Travel Agents' Antitrust Suit Set September 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in North Carolina set for September
2,2003 the trial for a class action filed against US Airways Group,
Inc. and most of the major domestic airlines, several national carriers
and a number of international carriers.

The suit, filed on behalf of all United States-based travel agents,
alleges violation of the federal antitrust laws with respect to
commission rate reductions and/or commission cap reductions implemented
by various airlines in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages for lost commissions as well as injunctive
relief.  

The case against the Company is subject to the automatic stay
provisions of section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Discovery has now
closed and the other defendants have filed motions for summary
judgment.  


*Once Tobacco's Foes, States Now Hooked on Litigation Settlement Cash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
46 states, parties to the Master Tobacco Settlement of 1997, 1998, have
become "addicted" to tobacco money, a problem now brought to light as
Philip Morris struggles with its dilemma of paying an appeal bond in
order to appeal a recent judgment, the result of which may be the
company's bankruptcy.  The scenario threatens budgetary chaos for the
46 states.  The problems facing Ohio, for example, illustrate what is
happening in each state as Philip Morris deals with its loss of the
"light" cigarette case in Illinois.

Philip Morris is scheduled to pay Ohio $130.5 million on April 15.  
This is the cigarette maker's share of the annual payment made by the
tobacco companies to 46 states as a result of the Master Tobacco
Settlement of 1998, which in turn resulted from the class action
brought by the attorneys general of the 46 states for the health costs
paid by the states to care for their respective residents who fell ill
from smoking.

However, Philip Morris, found guilty by an Illinois court last week and
liable for having misled one million Illinois smokers into believing
its "light" cigarettes were less harmful than regular ones, warned Ohio
and the 45 other states that it might not be able to make the April
settlement payment if the appeal bond cost of $12 billion is not
lowered.  The total tobacco settlement was to be paid by the tobacco
companies in annual payments for 25 years starting in 1998.

"Roughly half of the projected revenue to the master settlement
agreement comes from Philip Morris.  Failure on its part to make the
April 15 payment would have dramatic fiscal consequences for our
current budget," Ohio Budget Director Thomas Johnson said in a
memorandum, warning Governor Robert Taft of the potential problem.

The state already has had to raise $3.4 billion through budget cuts and
tax increases to add to the expected tobacco money, in order to balance
the budget.  Governor Taft said he has not decided what options he
would consider if the payment is late or not made at all.

Taking a longer view of the vulnerability of the tobacco settlement
money, states are preparing for legal action should court rulings begin
to decimate the tobacco industry's ability to meet its obligations
under the master agreement, according to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew
Edmonson, president of the National Association of Attorneys General.

"There is not any cigarette company out there that is not subject to
this kind of lawsuit said Attorney General Edmonson.  This conclusion
is echoed by Ohio's Senate President Douglas White, also a tobacco
farmer.  Mr. White said that the financial problems facing Philip
Morris are an early indication of problems the entire tobacco industry
in the United States face.

Mr. White, a Manchester Republican, grows tobacco and raises cattle on
his family's 800-acre farm in Adams County near the Ohio River.  He
predicted that the cigarette industry would be crippled by lawsuits.  
Speaking of his earlier predictions, Mr. White said, "I laid out very
clear what potentially could happen in a few years, and I am not
surprised by this," said Ohio's Senate President.  "It will have very
serious consequences.  It will just shut down tobacco that much faster
in America and move it offshore."

Kentucky, also warned by Philip Morris that it may not be able to make
its $45 million installment payment on April 15, faces the possible
collapse of some of its programs.  The possibility of not getting the
money "puts a lot of things in jeopardy," including programs to help
farmers diversify and programs to give young children a better start in
life, said Mary Lassiter, Kentucky's acting state budget director.  "It
is very serious."  

Other programs also could be affected, Ms. Lassiter said, because some
of the tobacco money is supposed to be used to balance the state budget
in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Christine Gregoire, the Washington State Attorney General who helped
negotiate the $206 billion settlement in 1998, said she would file a
motion urging a lower appeal bond if the matter is not resolved soon,
in order to assure that the payments to the states are not jeopardized.
She expects to be joined in this intervention by other attorneys
general.

Philip Morris is seeking a lower appeal bond through the Illinois
legislature and the courts.

Moody's Investors Service, which recently downgraded the bonds of
Philip Morris and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., to three
notches above "junk," said the downgrading also reflects "the risk of
future verdicts against the company where the bonding requirement is
similarly crippling.

A recent Associated Press report enumerated, as a portent of things to
come for the tobacco industry, some of the verdicts around the country,
both in individual and class action cases, that reflect the trend to
which Douglas White of Ohio was referring.  Noted below is some of the
legal activity that has taken place just in Oregon:

     (1) last year a Multnomah County, Oregon, jury ordered Philip ]
         Morris to pay $150 million in punitive damages for the death
         of Michelle Schwarz, a Salem woman who smoked low-tar Merit
         cigarettes.  A judge reduced the award to $100.  The Schwarz
         lawsuit, now on appeal, claims that Philip Morris deceptively
         marketed low-tar cigarettes as a healthier alternative to
         regular smokes;

     (2) A Multnomah County jury also ordered Philip Morris to pay
         $79.5 million in punitive damages for the death of Jesse
         Williams, a former Portland Public Schools janitor who smoked
         Marlboros.  The Oregon Supreme Court refused to review the
         damage award, and Philip Morris has appealed to the US Supreme
         Court.

Two large tobacco class actions also are pending in Multnomah County.  
A complaint filed in 2001, seeks to force Philip Morris and other
tobacco companies to pay for medical screening for anyone who has
smoked as well as for programs to help smokers who want to quit.

A class action, filed in 2002, in Multnomah County, asks the court to
order that Philip Morris reimburse all smokers for fraudulently
marketing light cigarettes as a healthier alternative to regular
cigarettes.

The Wall Street Journal has commented cogently on the irony inherent in
the recent situation in which the 46 states find themselves, as Philip
Morris warns of its possible inability to meet its April 15 installment
payments to the states, an obligation grounded in the Master Tobacco
Settlement of 1997, 1998, "Altria's (Philip Morris's parent company)
current plight, rife with irony and contradiction demonstrates how
private and public interests can become entangled in surprising ways.  
The very states that won huge tobacco settlements in 1997 and 1998,
became hooked on the money, which for many states is staving off
budgetary catastrophe.  The Illinois court order threatens the tobacco
cash flow and has sent the states scurrying to switch sides."

All of this has angered public-health activists and some of the
attorneys general who were part of the settlements.  "Certainly many of
us never anticipated that the states would become addicted to the
tobacco money as a way to finance their operations," said Scott
Harshbarger, who was attorney general of Massachusetts at the time of
the settlements.  "It is a perversion of the intention of the
litigation, and it is very unfortunate, both as a matter of public
policy and a matter of health policy."

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CERNER CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of Cerner Corporation (CERN) publicly
traded securities during the period between January 23, 2003 and April
2, 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 January 23, 2003 and April 2, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Cerner common stock.  The suit alleges that
these statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing an increased level of
         competition as competitors slashed prices in order to take
         business from the Company.  As a result, the Company was
         losing a material amount of sales to competitors;

     (2) that certain of the Company's clients were delaying or
         deferring the purchase of products from the Company or
         determining not to proceed with those purchases at all;

     (3) that the Company had reorganized its sales force and that the
         reorganization was negatively impacting the ability of the
         Company to close certain sales; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' earnings projections
         were lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and were
         materially false and misleading.

On April 3, 2003, Cerner shocked the market by announcing that "it
expects its first quarter 2003 revenue and earnings to be below
expectations because of a lower level of new business bookings in the
quarter."  The press release further revealed that the Company expected
bookings for the first quarter of 2003 to be between $145 and $150
million and that earnings would be between $0.13 to $0.15 per share as
compared to analysts earnings estimates of $0.38 per share.

In response to this announcement, the price of Cerner common stock
declined precipitously falling from $32.09 per share to as low as
$18.35 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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 Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. (NasdaqNM: ESIO) from September 17, 2002 through March
30, 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 September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Electro Scientific securities.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had reported artificially inflated financial
         results for the quarters ended August 31, 2002 and November
         30, 2002;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for sales, thereby
         overstating its sales figures and, in addition thereto, was
         understating the cost of sales, in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and its own revenue
         recognition policies;

     (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, it was not true that the
         Company's financial statements published during the Class
         Period contained ``all adjustments ... necessary for a fair
         presentation'' of the Company's financial position.

On March 20, 2003, after the close of the market, Electro Scientific
issued a press release announcing that it would be restating its
financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters.  In
response to this announcement, the price of Electro Scientific common
stock dropped precipitously falling from $15.17 per share to $12.51 per
share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


FIFTH THIRD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Fifth
Third Bancorp (Nasdaq: FITB) between September 21, 2001 to January 31,
2003 inclusive, who have been damaged thereby.  The action, is pending
against the Company, George A. Schaefer, Jr. (CEO and President), Neal
E. Arnold (CFO) and 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 to 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.  The alleged motive in this action was the Company's
plan to acquire a Tennessee-based bank using FifthThird stock as
currency.

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, according to
the complaint, 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. According
to the Complaint, the Company continued to insist, falsely, that its
controls were adequate. 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 closing price on November 14, 2002 close of
$62.53, the day that Fifth Third first revealed that it was being
investigated by banking regulators and the SEC.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


HOTELS.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Hotels.com (NASDAQ: ROOM) publicly traded
securities during the period between October 23, 2002 and January 6,
2003.

The complaint charges Hotels.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Hotels.com is an online consolidator of hotel accommodations,
contracting with hotels in advance for volume purchases and guaranteed
availability of hotel rooms at wholesale prices, which are then sold to
customers.

On October 10, 2002, USA Interactive announced that it was ending its
ongoing process to acquire all of the shares of Hotels.com that it did
not own.  Hotels.com then claimed that its prospects were "excellent"
and days later, on October 23, 2002, the Company projected phenomenal
growth for its Q4, including Q4 02 revenue of $283-$289 million and
cash earnings per share of $0.46 to $0.47.  These projections, on top
of the Company's October 10, 2002 announcement, sent the Company's
shares soaring to above $60 per share, eventually hitting a Class
Period high of $75 on December 2, 2002.

Then on January 6, 2003, with more than $42 million of insider trading
proceeds, the defendants announced that the Company would fall
materially short of hitting its forecasted projections.  On this news,
the Company's shares dropped to $44 from $59, a market cap loss of more
than $855 million.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


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 more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


NAM TAI: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Nam Tai Electronics, Inc.
(NYSE: NTE) between July 29, 2002 and February 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding its financial performance, and failing to issue
timely reports concerning adverse developments in certain material
litigation.

Nam Tai released adverse news regarding itself after the close of
trading on February 14, 2003.  In reaction to this unexpected bad news,
Nam Tai shares fell significantly, closing at $27.65 per share on
February 18, 2003, down $5.76, a decline of more than 15%.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Parametric
Technology Corporation (Nasdaq: PMTC) from October 19, 1999 through
December 31, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the 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 19, 1999 and December
31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Parametric common
stock.  Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues
and financial performance.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that since fiscal 1999, in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP) and its own revenue recognition
         policies, the Company had cumulatively overstated its
         previously recognized maintenance revenue from its service
         contracts by approximately $33.4 million;

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

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

On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular 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."
Accordingly, the Company announced, it "expects to report a
corresponding reduction in maintenance revenue in prior periods,
primarily in fiscal year 2002."

The next day of trading, on January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric
closed at $2.19 per share, after hitting an intraday low of $1.95, as
compared with a class period high of $32.88 per share, reached on
December 16, 1999.  Subsequent disclosures revealed that the Company
would be restating its financial results from fiscal year 1999 through
fiscal year 2002 because a cumulative total of $33.4 million in
maintenance revenue had improperly been reported as revenue during that
time.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


PEC SOLUTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandra Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of PEC Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: PECS)
between October 23, 2002 and March 14, 2003, inclusive, against the
Company and certain officers of the Company.

During the class period, defendants issued statements, press releases,
and filed reports with the SEC describing the Company's business
operations and financial condition.  The complaint alleges that these
representations were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that:

     (1) throughout the class period, the Company was experiencing
         declining demand for its products and services as the failure
         of Congress to approve a budget for 2003 was causing
         governmental agencies to delay projects;

     (2) the Company was experiencing material problems with certain of
         its biometric identification contracts and would not be
         generating the revenue that it had projected from those
         contracts; and

     (3) as a result, PEC Solutions was materially overstating the
         strength of its pipeline of projects and its prospects.

Additionally, during the class period, the Company failed to disclose
that it lacked adequate internal controls and was unable to ascertain
the true financial condition of the Company and was therefore
overstating the Company's financial results even as the Individual
Defendants and other Company insiders were selling their personally-
held shares of PEC Solutions common stock to the unsuspecting public
reaping proceeds of nearly $13.5 million.

On March 14, 2003, after the market closed, PEC Solutions issued a
press release announcing that it was revising guidance downwards due to
"anticipated delays in new government awards stemming from the
unusually late passing of the 2003 Federal civilian agency budgets,"
and that, "the first quarter will also be impacted by a discontinuity
in certain engagements related to application of biometric
identification technologies.  This discontinuity has extended longer
than previously expected."  This announcement shocked the market,
causing the stock to lose over 40% of its market value by dropping more
than $6 per share on 17-times its average daily volume.

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


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, notice is hereby given that on March 26, 2003, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on
behalf of all open market purchasers of the common stock of Provident
Financial Group, Inc. PFGI during the period March 30, 1998 through
March 4, 2003 inclusive.  The named defendants are the Company, Robert
L. Hoverson and Christopher J. Carey.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  Provident is
a commercial banking and financial services company operating primarily
in Ohio, Kentucky and Florida.  The complaint alleges that during the
period March 30, 1998 through March 4, 2003 the defendants filed false
and misleading financial statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and issued false and misleading press releases to the
investing public.

The complaint alleges that due to irregular accounting practices
employed by the defendants, the financial statements in question
overstated the Company's net income and earnings per share (EPS)
figures thereby artificially inflating the value of the Company and its
common stock.

On March 5, 2003, Provident shocked its investors when it announced it
would have to restate its operating results for the years 1997 through
2002.  The amount of income restated was significant to the Company's
overall finances during the class period and was attributed to the
Company's improper accounting of auto-lease transactions.  Defendants
also announced that because auto-lease transactions would have to be
accounted for differently in the future, the Company would be
significantly lowering its previously announced EPS outlook for 2003.

Following news of the restatement, the price of Provident's common
stock fell from $28.07 per share to $22.46 per share (19.9%) on very
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 12th
Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone: (212) 907-0700 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com   


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against
Robertson Stephens, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of Sycamore Networks,
Inc. (SCMR) securities between January 10, 2000 through September 7,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul
Johnson issued materially false and misleading public statements,
research reports and "Buy" recommendations on Sycamore and praised the
acquisition of Sirocco Networks, Inc. by Sycamore while failing to
disclose that Mr. Johnson owned Sirocco stock and that the acquisition
would result in a multimillion windfall for Mr. Johnson.

The complaint alleges that, based on defendants' recommendations and
failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, Sycamore
securities sold at artificially inflated prices during the class
period.  As a result, plaintiff and the rest of the class purchased
their Sycamore shares at prices that were artificially inflated and
were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by
E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. d/b/a
Royal Ahold, Inc. (NYSE: AHO) between June 7, 2001 and February 24,
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 June 7, 2001 and February 24, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Ahold American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).

The complaint alleges that in 2001 and 2002 Ahold issued quarterly
press releases reporting the Company's results of operations and
financial condition.  These press releases and it public filings with
the SEC represented that the Company was growing at a breakneck pace.

The complaint further alleges that on February 24, 2002 Ahold shocked
the market; it issued a press release announcing that Ahold's operating
earnings for fiscal year 2001 and expected operating earnings for
fiscal year 2002 "have been overstated by an amount that the company
believes may exceed U.S. $500 mln," and that the overstatements would
require the restatement of Ahold's financial statements for fiscal year
2001 and the first three quarters of 2002.  The release further stated
that the Company was investigating the legality of certain transactions
at its Argentine Disco unit, and that the investigation had uncovered
certain transactions that were "questionable."  The Company further
announced that, "in view of the above" the Company's officers were
resigning, the Company was deferring the announcement of its full year
financial results scheduled for March 5, 2003 and that Ahold's auditors
had suspended the fiscal year 2002 audit pending completion of these
investigations.

On this news, the price of Ahold securities plummeted. As illustrative,
the ADRs closed at $10.69 on Friday, February 21, 2003.  The Company's
announcement was released at about 2:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on
Monday, February 24, 2002.  The ADRs opened on the next trading day at
$4.36, fell to $3.60 and closed the day at $4.16, down 61% from the
previous day's closing price.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


SAWTEK INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Sawtek, Inc.
currently a subsidiary of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq: TQNT)
between January 27, 2000 and May 24, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sawtek and certain of its executive officers with
violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff
claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Sawtek's business
operations and financial performance caused Sawtek's stock price to
become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.  Sawtek
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of electronic
signal processing components, based on "surface acoustic wave" or SAW
technology, primarily for use in the wireless communications industry.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
misrepresented Sawtek's financial performance by improper "channel
stuffing" -- inflating revenue by shipping more products than
distributors could sell -- and by disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's revenue and business prospects
despite a widespread downturn in the wireless and telecommunications
markets.  Sawtek's actual financial performance was revealed on May 23,
2001, when defendants' acknowledged that the Company's projected
results for the quarter ending June 30, 2001, would fall well below the
Company's previously issued revenue guidance.

By the close of trading on the next day, May 24, 2001, Sawtek's stock
price had plunged more than seventeen percent (17%) from the previous
day's close as a result of this news.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


SAWTEK INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Sawtek, Inc. (formerly
Nasdaq: SAWS), currently a subsidiary of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc.
(TQNT) from January 27, 2000 through May 24, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Sawtek, a company that designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a broad range of electronic signal processing
components, based on "surface acoustic wave" or SAW technology,
primarily for use in the wireless communications industry, and certain
of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning Sawtek's financial condition.  Specifically,
defendants engaged in improper "channel stuffing", the practice of
inflating revenue by shipping more products than distributors can sell.

Additionally, it is alleged that Sawtek disseminated false and
misleading statements concerning its revenue and business prospects
despite a widespread downturn in the wireless and telecommunications
markets.  On May 23, 2001, defendants acknowledged that Sawtek's
projected results for the quarter ending June 30, 2001, would fall well
below the Company's previously issued revenue guidance.

As a result, on the next trading day, Sawtek fell more than 17% from
the previous day's close.  During the class period Sawtek traded as
high as $88.12 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of UnumProvident Corporation (NYSE:
UNM) publicly traded securities during the period between May 7, 2001
and February 4, 2003.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company provides group disability and special risk insurance, as well
as group life insurance, long-term care insurance, and payroll-deducted
voluntary benefits offered to employees at their worksites.  
UnumProvident operates around the world.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused
UnumProvident's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through
the issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  The Company
failed to properly record the impairment to its investments and
operated "long-term denial factories," causing the Company's financial
results to be inflated.  As a result, the Company's shares traded at
inflated prices enabling UnumProvident to raise proceeds of $250
million on June 13, 2002 in its bond offering.

UnumProvident and its top officers inflated the prices of the Company's
securities in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program.
Defendants knew that by concealing UnumProvident's true financial
results they could foster the perception in the business community that
UnumProvident was a "growth company," i.e., it was the only way
UnumProvident could post the revenue and earnings per share growth
claimed by defendants.  On February 5, 2003, UnumProvident announced
that it had recorded investment losses of $93 million and also reported
that it was responding to Securities and Exchange Commission requests
for information relating to its investment disclosures

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of VERITAS Software Corporation
(NASDAQ: VRTS) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 24, 2001 and January 16, 2003.

The complaint charges VERITAS and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  VERITAS is a
software storage company that provides data protection, storage
management and disaster recovery software.  The complaint alleges that
on January 17, 2003, the Company announced the restatement of its 2000
and 2001 financial statements as a result of its improper accounting
for transactions with AOL Time Warner in 2000.  The release stated in
part: "(t)he transactions involved in a $50 million software purchase
by AOL and a $20 million advertising services purchase from AOL."

While VERITAS' financial statements were admittedly false and its stock
price artificially inflated, the Company's top officers and directors
took advantage of this and sold nearly $15 million worth of their
VERITAS shares to the unsuspecting public.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


WESTAR ENERGY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in KS Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Westar Energy Inc.
(NYSE: WR) and on behalf of all purchasers of Western Resources Capital
I Cumulative Quarterly Income Preferred Securities Series A (NYSE:
WR_pa) from March 31, 2001 through December 26, 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between March 31, 2001 and December 26, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in certain trades that may have
         violated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) affiliate
         transaction rules, specifically that these transactions
         involved power sales from one Cleco Corporation (NYSE: CNL)
         affiliate to Westar and then back to another or the same Cleco
         affiliate, these transactions totaled approximately $3.4
         million in 2000, $12.6 million in 2001 and $3.8 million in
         2002; and

     (2) further as a result of a improper accounting practices
         regarding Westar's approximately 88% ownership of Protection
         One (NYSE: POI) a provider of property monitoring services,
         including electronic monitoring and maintenance of alarm
         systems, first and second quarter 2002 financial earning
         results had to be re-audited and restated.

On December 26, 2002, the last day of the class period, Westar
announced in a press release that it had received a subpoena from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on December 16, 2002, and that in
addition to seeking details on trades with Cleco and its affiliates,
FERC also requested documents concerning power transactions between
Westar's system and marketing operations, and information on power
trades in which Westar or other trading companies acted as
intermediaries.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave.,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735
by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


                                *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *