CAR_Public/030411.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Friday, April 11, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 72

                            Headlines                            

ACCREDO HEALTH: Stockholders File Several Securities Suits in W.D. TN
AIRLINE COMPANIES: Travel Agents File Antitrust Suit Over Commissions
ALASKA: Memos Say Importer Pressed Bristol Bay Fishermen For Low Prices
CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Investors To Sue For Stock Fraud, Hold Shares
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Order's Former Leader Targeted In Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Probe Commenced of AL Parish Priest Over Sexual Abuse
DEL GLOBAL: Steel Partners Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY Court
FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Former Robertson Brokers Sue Over Sudden Closure
FLORIDA: 59 Maryland Students Hurt As Buses Crash in Florida
INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: Agrees To Settle Bias Lawsuit With Blacks Not Hired

LYCOS INC.: Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Securities Settlement
MBNA CORPORATION: Implements Settlement of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in DE
MONARCH CASINO: Named As Defendant in NV Gaming Operators Fraud Lawsuit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Tay-Sachs Testing
RENT-WAY INC.: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA

RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: CO Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
SIRIUS SATELLITE: Asks Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Violations
STARBASE CORPORATION: Asks Court To Dismiss Stockholder Derivative Suit
STATE COMPENSATION: CA Court Rejects Claims in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Says Philip Morris Could Reach Bond Consensus

ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Faces Several Lawsuits For Securities Fraud in CO
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Begins In Discrimination Suit For Deaf Employees
VIRGINIA TECH: Restores Affirmative Action Policy in Hiring, Admissions
VIROPHARMA INC.: PA Court Allows Securities Suit Over Drug To Proceed

                            Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Feared at Australia's Education Dept HQ
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Tagged As Cause Of Vickers Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB's Deal Still on Track Even if Motion Not Heard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alliance Applauds Rep. Cannon's Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA Lawmakers to Address Asbestos Suit Reform Bills

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Updates Asbestos-Related Stats
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Cuts GE Excess Cover for Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford's Earnings Could Be Affected by Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Gets $2.6M Compensation in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS ALERT: Grainger W.W. Inc. Faces Several Asbestos Related Suits

ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-Railroad Workers Commence Suit for Asbestos Exposure

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in NY
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Paskowitz & Associated Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in NY
ACCREDO HEALTH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN
AFC ENTERPRISES: Landskroner-Grieco Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA

ALLOY INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CERNER CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. MO
CORE LABORATORIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FIFTH THIRD: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX

MOTOROLA INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Launches Securities Suit in S.D. CA
ROYAL AHOLD: Finkelstein & Krinsk Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CO
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in CO

ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Lawsuit in CO

                           *********

ACCREDO HEALTH: Stockholders File Several Securities Suits in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health, Incorporated faces several putative securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.  The suit also names Chief Executive Officer,
David D. Stevens, and Chief Financial Officer, Joel Kimbrough, as
defendants.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of the Company's
shareholders who purchased Accredo's publicly traded securities between
June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003.

The Company stated that it is possible that similar lawsuits could be
filed in the future.  If additional lawsuits are filed, the Company
will seek to consolidate them.  The Company and its executive officers
believe that the claims contained in the complaint are without merit.  
The Company has retained Alston & Bird LLP as defense counsel.


AIRLINE COMPANIES: Travel Agents File Antitrust Suit Over Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Several travel agents filed an antitrust suit against 21 major air
carriers, alleging they violated antitrust laws by conspiring to
eliminate commissions on ticket sales, in the United States District
Court in San Francisco, California, the Associated Press reports.  The
suit further alleges that the defendants conspired to ban commissions
to travel agents who sell tickets for the carriers.

The plaintiffs in the suit opted out of a similar class action filed in
the United States District Court in Wilmington, North Carolina, against
Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines and other carriers.  The Companies have
denied the accusations.

Plaintiffs attorney Joseph Alioto said the industry, since 1997,
reduced 10 percent commissions to 8 percent.  In 2001, the commissions
dropped to 5 percent of the ticket price and in March 2002 many
airlines eliminated commissions.  "They cannot agree to constrain trade
together," Mr. Alioto told AP.

The Air Transport Association, an industry trade group, told AP it has
not seen the California suit and declined comment, spokeswoman Diana
Cronan said.


ALASKA: Memos Say Importer Pressed Bristol Bay Fishermen For Low Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents presented Tuesday in a price-fixing lawsuit show efforts by
Japanese importer Nichiro Corporation to lower the prices paid the
Bristol Bay commercial fishermen in 1991, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

A memorandum from Nichiro, presented in evidence, summarized 1991
preseason discussions with Peter Pan Seafoods Inc., a processing
subsidiary, purchased by Nichiro in 1979.  The memo said that raw fish
prices planned by the processor were too high.

Nichiro and Peter Pan Seafoods are two defendants in the multi-million
dollar class action in progress in Superior Court in Anchorage, Alaska,
since February 3.  Attorneys for 4,500 Bristol Bay sockeye salmon
permit holders allege that the Seattle-based processors and the
Japanese importers conspired to keep prices for sockeye low from 1989
to 1995.  Alternately, the defense claims prices were lowered by the
impact of an oversupply of fish and a slowdown in the world economy.

Evidence introduced earlier in the trial showed that another Japanese
importer, Okaya & Co., Ltd., pressed Wards Cove Packing Co., one of the
processors, to lower its prices to fishermen in the same season.  The
Nichiro documents reveal that Hiroch Suzuki of Nichiro, who was in
charge of the salmon section of Peter Pan at the time, pressed for
lower prices at a meeting in Seattle, in April 1991.  With an
anticipated run of 25 million sockeye into Bristol Bay, the importers
were finding fish prices too high, because, said Mr. Suzuki, the
importers' losses in 1990 may have exceeded $285 million.  The Japanese
market also indicated lower prices than those Peter Pan officials had
budgeted, the memo said.

The documents were presented during cross-examination of Donald
Rawlinson, a retired Bristol Bay manager for Peter Pan.  Mr. Rawlinson
denied that Nichiro ever controlled the prices Peter Pan paid to
fishermen.  He said, however, that price confirmation calls between
processors were common.

"One processor would call another and say, 'May I confirm that you are
paying X?'  The response would be either yes or no, and that was the
end of the conversation," Mr. Rawlinson said.

The defense also called Donald Nielsen, of South Naknek, who has fished
Bristol Bay for 25 years.  Mr. Nielsen was a top executive with the
Bristol Bay Native Corp. from 1975 to 1979, when the regional Native
firm owned Peter Pan.

Mr. Nielsen said he came to testify "on behalf of myself and my
village."  He said that while he felt an obligation to deliver his fish
to Peter Pan after using company services, he did not feel pressured to
do so.  "We are not employees.  We are business people," he said.

Mr. Nielsen also said people in South Naknek considered fish processing
companies in their village part of the community.  He said that in
1991, when most fishermen went on strike for higher prices, "there was
not much money in the community."  Some families were helped
financially by the processors who kept employees on longer than usual
after the strike ended, Mr. Nielsen said.  "I commend them for that."


CALIFORNIA: Court Allows Investors To Sue For Stock Fraud, Hold Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court upheld a state law allowing investors to
sue for stock fraud, even if they have not sold their securities,
Associated Press Newswires reports.  Ruling 5 to 2, the California
Supreme Court held that investors could sue companies for fraud in
California's courts if they can make a "bona fide" showing that company
misrepresentations caused them to hold their shares, Justice Joyce L.
Kennard wrote for the majority.

The ruling arose out of a case involving a 1996 class action against
San Francisco freight company Fritz Companies Inc., a subsidiary of
United Parcel Service, whose shares fell 55 percent when the company
revised its earnings.  The lawsuit claims investors held onto their
shares based on allegedly false earnings reports, stating they would
have sold their shares if Fritz had been more open about its finances
before restatement.  Such openness, had it existed, would have resulted
in characterizing the subsequent restatement of earnings as a product
of simple error, instead of a possible fraud.

California's Supreme Court justices stopped short of saying the Fritz
lawsuit could go to trial.  The majority ordered the shareholders first
to prove they relied on the company's earnings reports when deciding
not to sell their shares.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Order's Former Leader Targeted In Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A sexual abuse lawsuit has been expanded to cover the former leader of
the religious order that runs the Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua,
New Hampshire, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Papers have been filed in Superior Court in Nashua, which accuse
Brother Roland Ouellette of conspiring to keep information about sexual
abuse of students at Guertin from law enforcement officials and from
possible victims and their parents in the mid-1990s.  Brother
Ouellette, 61, was regional head of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart
from 1991 to 1996, and taught at Guertin in the mid-1970s and again in
the mid-1980s.

Manchester lawyer Peter Hutchins filed a class action against the
Brothers of the Sacred Heart, which runs Guertin and Guertin itself, in
February.  He filed papers Friday of last week naming Brother Ouellette
as a defendant in the suit.  The court papers include a memorandum and
a letter written by Ouellette in the fall of 1995, about a former
student's sexual abuse allegations against Brother Guy Beauliey, a
former Guertin teacher.  

According to the memo, Brother Beaulieu admitted to Brother Ouellette
that he had molested the boy.  Brother Ouellette wrote that Brother
Beaulieu "needs protection and we need to safeguard his basic right to
be innocent until proven guilty."

The second document in Friday's filing was a letter written on November
21, 1995, from Brother Ouellette to Brother Beaulieu's therapist.  
Brother Ouellete said he was trying to prepare Brother Beaulieu for the
possibility that the case would become public.

"I am trying very hard to protect him and the school with which he was
very involved at one time," wrote Brother Ouellete.  "He has to live
with that big problem that it is possible that he might be arrested and
put it in jail someday."

Five Bishop Guertin teachers, including Brother Beaulieu, have been
accused of molesting minors during the past year.  Brother Beaulieau,
who taught at Bishop Guertin during the class period of 1971 to 1991,
has since admitted molesting about 20 students.  He has not been
charged with any crime.

The lawsuit accuses the school and the order of failing to protect
students from abusive teachers and of covering up the allegations of
abuse they received.  So far, 14 men have joined the lawsuit.  Neither
the school nor the order has filed a substantive response to the class
action.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Probe Commenced of AL Parish Priest Over Sexual Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The priest sex abuse scandal has reached Mobile, Alabama as Archbishop
Oscar Lipscomb revealed that he left a priest in the ministry, who
admitted to sexually abusing young men, the Associated Press reports.

Bishop Lipscomb, 71, issued several apologies to distraught
parishioners last week, who were stunned with the realization.  Bishop
Lipscomb turned over church files to District Attorney John Tyson.  No
charges have been filed, but Mr. Tyson told the Associated Press the
probe is "open-ended."

On March 16,2003, Bishop Lipscomb revealed that former St. Pius X
Parish pastor Rev. J. Alexander Sherlock admitted he sexually abused a
teenage boy in the 1970s.  Bishop Lipscomb allowed him to remain in
church, despite two other similar complaints.  Later, another person
complained of abuse, and Bishop Lipscomb allowed Rev. Sherlock to
resign.

Bishop Lipscomb said Sherlock, a priest for 37 years, underwent lengthy
psychological evaluation and treatment in therapy and was allowed to
stay on in recent years while under the care of a psychiatrist because
his mental profile gave no sign of "sexual deviation or other abnormal
behavior," AP states.

Bishop Lipscomb was soundly criticized by the local press.  The Mobile
Register has urged Lipscomb to step down next year, ahead of his
planned retirement; the Montgomery Advertiser said church officials
should remove Bishop Lipscomb if he doesn't resign.  Last week, the
probe was extended to include new allegations about four other priests
and a church employee at a school.

"It's really tragic what has happened," Lucy Walters told AP as she
went into midday Mass at St. Pius X Church.  "I honestly don't think
the bishop is at fault.  Under the circumstances, he's handling it the
best way it could be handled."


DEL GLOBAL: Steel Partners Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners II, LP, member of a group of Del Global Technologies
Corporation (Pink Sheets: DGTC.PK) shareholders seeking representation
on the Del Global Board, has filed suit against the Company in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The litigation is intended to force Del Global to comply with Section
624 of the State Business Corporation Law and asks the Court to order
the Company to produce the records, documents and information related
to the Company's shareholders that the group is entitled to in
connection with its nomination of three candidates for election to the
Del Global Board at the Company's Annual Meeting scheduled for May 14,
2003.

Warren Lichtenstein, Managing Partner of Steel Partners II, said in a
press statement, "We regret being forced to go to court to obtain
information that, as shareholders in this Company, is ours by both law
and right.  We are simply seeking records that will enable us to
communicate effectively with our fellow shareholders.  Not
surprisingly, the Del Global Board and management have refused our
request.  This is just the latest in a line of management misconduct
and flawed corporate governance which has included, among other things:
the failure to hold an annual meeting in over three years; an
enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission related to
accounting irregularities which led to a restatement of company
financial statements; suspension of trading on the NASDAQ national
market and subsequent de-listing because of failure to make timely
filings; a lack of internal oversight committees; various related-party
transactions and compensation arrangements with directors and officers;
consistent, sustained, and increased financial losses over the past
three years; and, in light of the foregoing, the diminished return on
investment for its shareholders."

In addition to Steel Partners II, L.P., the group includes private
investment partnerships managed by investor David W. Wright.  In
addition to Mr. Wright, the group will solicit proxies for the election
of venture capitalist and nationally recognized corporate governance
consultant Gerald M. Czarnecki, and nationally recognized corporate
governance expert Suzanne M. Hopgood, President of The Hopgood Group,
LLC and former President, CEO and a director of Houlihan's Restaurant
Group, Inc.  Ms. Hopgood has extensive experience in corporate
workouts, turnarounds and restructurings.

Regarding the court filing, Mr. Wright commented, "It is unfortunate
that the current Board has seen fit to expend shareholders' money on
easily avoidable litigation.  We look forward to the coming election
with confidence, and expect that Del Global shareholders will finally
have the opportunity to express their views with their most effective
voice - a vote for our nominees."


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Former Robertson Brokers Sue Over Sudden Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FleetBoston Financial Corporation faces a class action filed by five
former brokers at its now closed investment bank Robertson Stephens,
alleging the Company suddenly shut down the firm without leaving them
with severance pay, BusinessToday.com reports.  The suit was filed in
the United States District Court in San Francisco, California on behalf
of possible 45 to 95 employees, if it is certified as a class action.

About a thousand people lost their jobs when the Company decided to
close shop.  The suit alleges Fleet failed to give adequate notice
required by federal law before the closure.  Instead, employees were
told on July 12, 2002, that the San Francisco-based unit would be
effectively closed immediately.

"They basically closed the shop without regard to the practical effect
on the people who work there," Kevin McGee, the brokers' lawyer told
Business Today.  

The Company allegedly withheld severance pay from the brokers to
prevent them from resigning and taking their customers' accounts to
another firm.  The suit further asserts the Company tried to pressure
the brokers to stay long enough to switch the accounts into Fleet's
Quick & Reilly retail brokerage.

Fleet is still involved in another dispute over Robertson Stephens, as
a group of former executives filed a claim in December charging Fleet
with secretly planning to close the unit while publicly considering the
management buyout.  Fleet reached a tentative deal for a management
buyout of the firm, but that fell apart just before the closure
announcement.

Fleet disagrees with "the facts as presented in the complaint," Fleet
spokesman Jim Mahoney told Business Today.  "Robertson Stephens'
business essentially dried up with the end of the Internet boom . We
then wound down the operations of the company in an orderly manner with
the best interest of customers and employees in mind."


FLORIDA: 59 Maryland Students Hurt As Buses Crash in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
59 Maryland high school band students were injured as the three tour
buses they were riding crashed into each other last week.  Nine were
seriously injured, police said, according to an Associated Press
reports.

94 students and 21 adults from Edgewood High School were on their way
to attend a band festival in Orlando.  Florida Highway Patrol
spokeswoman Kim Miller revealed that one of the buses stopped for
traffic on the Interstate 4, when the second bus rear-ended it.  The
third bus then hit the first two.

Two students were in critical condition and taken to Orlando Regional
Medical Center, Ms. Miller told AP.  Seven were in serious condition.  
The students who were not injured were being taken to Sanford High
School until they could be brought back to their hotel near Walt Disney
World, she said.  Miller did not know which charter bus company owns
the buses. An investigation was continuing, she said.


INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: Agrees To Settle Bias Lawsuit With Blacks Not Hired
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Industrial Company Inc. of Steamboat Springs, a Colorado
construction company, will pay $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought
by blacks who tried unsuccessfully to get hired by the company,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The company has agreed to pay up to $2.3 million - $20,000 each - to
each individual, and at least $200,000 to a fund to prepare blacks to
work in heavy construction.  Any of the $2.3 million not used to pay
individuals will go into the job training fund, said Colin Reed, a
company attorney.  "We are hoping a substantial amount of this money
eventually will go to minority training and recruiting and so forth,"
Mr. Reed said.

The agreement settles a class action brought in June 2001, by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The settlement applies to
all qualified blacks who unsuccessfully applied for jobs with The
Industrial Company between January 1, 1994, and November 30, 2002.

Mr. Reed said he did not know how many people will qualify for the
settlement.  The EEOC will contact blacks who applied for jobs during
the class period to determine whether they qualify to share in the
settlement.  The lawsuit arose from five or six complaints at two
Louisiana job sites, according to Mr. Reed.

"It is probably a reasonable estimate that at any time we are doing
business in one-half of the states, maybe a little less," he said.  
"Our workforce also depends on how many projects we've got.  Right now
we have approximately 4,000 employees nationwide."


LYCOS INC.: Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Boston, Massachusetts granted
preliminary approval to a US$5.7 million settlement of the securities
class action filed against Lycos, Inc., over its failed merger with USA
Networks, the Boston Globe reports.

The suit charged that the Company's stock was artificially inflated by
misleading statements made by then-chief executive Robert Davis,
stating that Lycos would remain an independent Internet content and
service provider, as recently as a month before a February 9, 1999,
announcement that Lycos would merge with elements of USA Networks Inc.  
Lycos shares closed at $127.25 on February 8, and dropped $33 the next
day, to close at $94.25, the Boston Globe stated.

Judge Edward F. Harrington approved the settlement.  Qualified
shareholders include those who purchased the Company's stock between
January 4, 1999 and February 9, 1999 receiving about 10 cents per
share.  The Company admitted no wrongdoing in the suit.

The deal never occurred as criticism to it mounted, and David
Wetherell, then chief executive of CMGI Inc., which owned 20 percent of
Lycos reversed his early support for the deal, which was declared dead
in May 1999, the Boston Globe reports.  Terra Lycos officials had no
immediate comment.  The final settlement date is scheduled for July 15.


MBNA CORPORATION: Implements Settlement of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation implemented the settlement for a class action filed
against it in February 2003, by issuing checks or credits to class
members.  The suit also named as defendants:

     (1) MBNA America Bank, N.A.

     (2) certain of its officers and

     (3) subsidiary MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc.

The suit, filed in May 1996 by Andrew B. Spark in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, alleges that the Bank's
advertising of its cash promotional annual percentage rate program was
fraudulent and deceptive.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
including actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for
an alleged:

     (i) breach of contract,

    (ii) violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and

   (iii) violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act

In February 1998, the court certified a class.  In August 2001, the
court entered an order approving a settlement payout of approximately
$5.1 million, including attorneys' fees.  Various members of the class
who had filed objections to the proposed settlement appealed the order
approving the settlement to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
September 2002, the appeals court affirmed the district court order
approving the settlement.


MONARCH CASINO: Named As Defendant in NV Gaming Operators Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Monarch Casino & Resorts, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada, Southern Division against manufacturers, distributors and
casino operators of video poker and electronic slot machines.  The
plaintiffs in the suit are presently appealing the court order denying
certification to the suit in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in a course of
conduct intended to induce persons to play such games based on a false
belief concerning how the gaming machines operate, as well as the
extent to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play.  The
suit asserts claims under:

     (1) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

     (2) common law fraud,

     (3) unjust enrichment and

     (4) negligent misrepresentation

The suit seek damages in excess of $1 billion without any
substantiation of that amount.  The plaintiffs moved to certify two
classes of plaintiffs, essentially encompassing all persons in the US
who have played one or more of the defendants' video poker or
electronic slot machines in the prior ten years.

That motion was opposed by the defendants and subsequently, the court
ruled in favor of the defendants and denied the class certification
motion.  The plaintiffs have appealed from that ruling.  The appeal has
been fully briefed and is presently pending before the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

Management believes that denial of class certification will be upheld
upon appeal, and further that the substantive allegations in the
complaint are without merit.  


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Tay-Sachs Testing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a national class action
involving genetic testing for Tay-Sachs Disease performed by Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated and predecessor companies MetPath, MetWest and
Corning Clinical Laboratories.  The settlement affects individuals who,
between November 1992 and December 1998, underwent testing conducted by
Quest Diagnostics to determine if they were genetic carriers of Tay-
Sachs Disease.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, individuals who
participated in Quest Diagnostics' recent Tay-Sachs re-testing program
may be entitled to receive a payment of $100.  Individuals for whom
Quest Diagnostics sought to provide free Tay-Sachs re-testing, but who
did not participate in Quest Diagnostics' re-testing program, may be
entitled to receive a payment of $10, or may be eligible to receive a
payment of up to $35 if they incurred certain out-of-pocket costs in
connection with their Tay-Sachs testing, and they may also be eligible
for free Tay-Sachs re-testing.  Individuals who underwent Tay-Sachs
testing conducted by Quest Diagnostics between November 1992 and
December 1998 but are not in either of the two preceding categories may
be entitled to a payment of $10.

The complaint in the lawsuit, filed in Kings County Supreme Court in
Brooklyn, New York, asserted that Quest Diagnostics had committed
negligence and breach of contract in rendering test results for Tay-
Sachs testing during the November 1992-December 1998 time period.  

In reaching the settlement, Quest Diagnostics denied any wrongdoing,
and the court has not ruled on the merits of the claims or Quest
Diagnostics' defenses.  Quest Diagnostics states that it entered into
the settlement in order to put the allegations behind it and avoid
diverting resources toward protracted and costly litigation.

The court has preliminarily approved the settlement, and it has
scheduled a fairness hearing on July 8, 2003 to consider whether the
settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable and should be given final
approval by the court.

For more information, contact the Claims Administrator, Stevens v.
Quest Diagnostics by Mail: P.O. Box 6515, Portland, Oregon 97228-6515,
or by visit the settlement Website: http://www.testingsettlement.com.


RENT-WAY INC.: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-Way, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the securities class
action filed against it, its firm of independent accountants, and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, zwire.com
reports.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, as a result of
accounting irregularities, the Company's fiscal 1998, 1999, and 2000
financial statements were materially false and misleading thus
constituting violations of federal securities laws by the Company, by
its firm of independent accountants and by certain officers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story states.  

The action alleges that the defendant violated Sections 10(b) and/or
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The action seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods, all of which fall
between December 10, 1998, and October 27, 2000.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay $25 million to the class,
consisting of $21 million in cash, $11 million of which is expected to
be funded from available insurance proceeds, and $4 million in two year
6% subordinated, unsecured notes.  The settlement is subject to
negotiation of a final written settlement agreement and Court approval,
and is conditioned on a refinancing or restructuring of the company's
outstanding bank debt on or before July 31.


RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: CO Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado approved
the settlement proposed by Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock on November 16 and 17, 1999.  
The suit alleges that the Company violated certain federal securities
laws based upon its having made an allegedly misleading announcement on
November 15, 1999, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

In November 2002, the Company announced that an agreement has been
reached with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  The court will
issue an order confirming the approval shortly.


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Asks Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss a class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former executive officers, on
behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's common stock on the
open market between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2001.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and press releases
concerning when the Company's service would be commercially available,
which caused the market price of its common stock to be artificially
inflated.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint have no
merit and will vigorously defend against this action.  The Company
later filed a motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  This motion is still pending.


STARBASE CORPORATION: Asks Court To Dismiss Stockholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starbase Corporation asked the Superior Court of the State of
California for Orange County to dismiss the stockholder class action
derivative suit, alleging that the Company's former directors had
breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders.  

In January 2003, defendants filed a demurrer seeking to have all the
claims dismissed, and also filed a motion to stay discovery pending a
ruling on the demurrer.  On February 25, 2003, plaintiff filed its
first amended suit, naming as defendants:

     (1) five former directors,

     (2) the investment banking firm that provided financial services
         to the Company,

     (3) two law firms that provided legal services to the Company and

     (4) an individual and entity that helped arrange financing for the
         Company

The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of the Company's
stockholders who tendered shares of the Company's common stock to
Borland Software Corporation in the tender offer commenced by Borland
on October 11, 2002 and that ended on November 11, 2002, or in the
merger that was completed on January 7, 2003.

Plaintiff alleges that the five former directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with a proposed
financing of Starbase in mid-2002, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted the purported breach of fiduciary duty.  

On March 21, 2003, the Starbase defendants filed a demurrer to have the
amended complaint dismissed.  No dates have been set for the end of the
discovery or for trial.  The defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.  There is no indication at present that the
lawsuit will have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.


STATE COMPENSATION: CA Court Rejects Claims in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
State Compensation Insurance Fund has won a tentative decision in one
of the largest and most widely watched class action lawsuits in
California history.  San Francisco Superior Court Judge John Munter's
tentative ruling rejects all claims sought by plaintiffs, who sought
more than $1 billion in damages on behalf of California employers, and
validates the claims reserving and business practices of State
Compensation Insurance Fund.


Plaintiffs in the case, entitled A & J Liquor Co. Inc., et al vs. State
Fund, alleged that State Fund adopted and implemented from 1989 through
mid-October 1995 an unlawful claims reserving standard -- "maximum
probable potential" -- and thereby overcharged and damaged 163,900
policyholders who entered into or maintained a workers' compensation
insurance contract with State Fund between January 1, 1987 and December
31, 1994 and who were eligible for experience rating or group
dividends.

Noting that State Fund acted in "good faith," the judge rejected the
plaintiffs' allegation that State Fund "overreserved" and inflated
surplus to build up a "war chest" to compete for market share against
private carriers in California's workers' compensation marketplace.

"At all relevant times and in all material respects, State Fund's
management acted in good faith toward its policyholders with respect to
the matters of reserving, dividends, and premiums," Judge Munter said
in his 113-page ruling.  Judge Munter concluded that "the plaintiffs
have failed to prove that there has been a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; or that there has been a
breach of contract; or that there has been fraud or deceit; or that
there has been violation of California's unfair competition law.
Likewise, on each of these theories of recovery, plaintiffs also have
failed to prove causation and damages."

Judge Munter ruled that plaintiffs "shall recover nothing" and that
State Fund may request an award of the costs of the suit that was filed
on February 9, 1996.  Plaintiffs included attorneys William Kershaw,
Lyle Cook, Donald Carlson, Nicholas Roxborough and Drew Pomerance.

"Judge Munter's tentative decision is a major victory for State Fund
and its California policyholders and is a validation of the importance
State Fund places on integrity in all aspects of its business," said
State Fund President Dianne C. Oki.  "Since 1914, State Fund has
protected the interests of employers, their injured workers and
safeguarded California's workers' compensation insurance system.  With
this decision, State Fund has received justice.  We could not have
wished for a better decision."

Plaintiffs have 20 days to seek a modification of the tentative
decision by the Superior Court or the decision becomes final.  State
Fund officials are confident that Judge Munter's decision on the case
will become final.  The trial lasted 113 days and included more than
1,200 exhibits.

The Business Trial Practice Group of the legal firm of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, including attorneys Greg Long, Fred
Puglisi, Jim Burgess, Justine Casey and Phil Atkins-Pattenson --
assisted State Fund in the trial.

"This was a long and difficult case, with complex legal and factual
issues," said Attorney Long. "I am delighted that the Court's tentative
decision rejects the unfounded allegations against our client."

The plaintiffs, A&J Liquor Co., Inc., Mac's Radiator Service, Inc., D&L
Automotive Repair, Ira Newman, Inc., and U.S. Guards Company, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all "similarly situated" companies, filed
this class action against State Fund in February, 1996.  In the last
year, attorneys involved in the litigation informed legislators that
State Fund would lose the case and predicted that the State of
California would ultimately have to pay the damages -- more than $1
billion.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Says Philip Morris Could Reach Bond Consensus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron, during a hearing on
Tuesday, said that plaintiffs and Philip Morris could probably reach a
compromise on the $12 billion appeal bond, Associated Press Newswires
reports.  While Judge Byron issued no ruling, he said, before closing
his courtroom, "I see some possibilities for resolving this matter.  
What will be reached will be reached on a consensual basis."

Philip Morris attorney George Lombardi suggested to Judge Byron on
Tuesday that the company could post "some alternative form of security"
instead of cash, calling it a "multibillon-dollar alternative" to $12
billion cash order.

Last month, Judge Byron issued a record $10.1 billion verdict against
Philip Morris and gave the company until April 21, to post the 12
billion appeal bond.  In the class action brought on behalf of one
million Illinois smokers of light cigarettes, Judge Byron found Philip
Morris liable for deceiving the smokers into believing that "light"
cigarettes are less harmful than regular brands.

"The best I can say is the court is doing what he thinks is in the best
possible interests of the class and Philip Morris," said plaintiffs'
attorney Stephen Tillery after the hearing.  "If you call that a
compromise, it certainly is a resolution that he hopes will satisfy
everybody."

Philip Morris's attorneys also asked Judge Byron during the Tuesday
hearing to reduce the bond, saying that the company cannot afford to
post it while continuing to abide by the $206 billion Master Settlement
Agreement of 1998, with 46 states, whose terms provide that the four
tobacco companies provide annual payments to the states.  Philip
Morris's share of the annual payment, due by April 15, is $2.6 billion.  
Both sides are scheduled to return to talks in the judge's courtroom on
Thursday.

Attorneys general from 37 states and US territories filed a friend-of-
the-court brief Monday, asking Judge Byron to reduce the bond, saying
they did not want the annual payouts from the settlement affected by
the order.

While Philip Morris's lawyers were in the Madison County courtroom,
another batch of its lawyers convinced a Chicago judge to temporarily
stop the state of Illinois from collecting its $3.6 billion share of
last month's verdict as a form of punitive damages.  Cook County Judge
James Henry issued a 10-day restraining order, banning Illinois from
collecting its share until a full hearing can be held.  Philip Morris
said the state is not entitled to any of the damages because it already
collects billions each year from a national tobacco settlement reached
in 1998.


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Faces Several Lawsuits For Securities Fraud in CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimate Electronics, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado, on behalf of
persons who purchased Ultimate common stock between March 13, 2002 and
August 8, 2002.

The suits allege violations of Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933.  The named defendants are the Company and:

     (1) Ed McEntire, the Company's CEO,

     (2) David J. Workman, the Company's President, and

     (3) Alan E. Kessock, the Company's CFO

The Company has initially reviewed the suit's allegations and believes
they are without merit.


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Begins In Discrimination Suit For Deaf Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class action charging United Parcel Service Inc. of
discriminating against hearing-impaired employees has begun, before US
District Judge Thelton Henderson, in San Francisco, Associated Press
Newswires reports.  The lawsuit, filed in 1999, by Eric Bates, 30, a
delivery truck driver, from Fremont, California, now covers 900 current
and former UPS employees nationwide, who say they were skipped for
promotions and/or were given inadequate training and safety
instructions because they were hearing impaired.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, but attorneys said the
plaintiffs are seeking personalized damages that may include money,
promotions or other jobs at UPS.  There is no jury in the case, which
is expected to last for months.

Larry Paradis, an attorney with Disability Right Advocates, located in
Oakland, California, told Judge Henderson that hearing-impaired UPS
employees are "systematically marginalized."  He said they are not
given adequate training and are rarely promoted to delivery or
supervisory roles.  Plaintiffs also allege that UPS has a policy of
denying hearing-impaired workers jobs operating delivery trucks
weighing under 10,000 pounds.

The Department of Transportation requires that trucks over five tons
must be operated by those meeting certain vision and hearing
requirements, and demands that those drivers become DOT certified.  
However, the government leaves it to the companies' discretion to
decide which drivers are qualified to operate lighter vehicles.

UPS attorney Christopher Martin told Judge Henderson that the company's
policy about qualifications of drivers for driving trucks of various
weights is "consistent with business necessities and therefore not
unlawful."  The US Postal Service and FedEx Corporation allow some deaf
drivers to operate delivery vehicles under 10,000 pounds.


VIRGINIA TECH: Restores Affirmative Action Policy in Hiring, Admissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Tech restored its affirmative action policy, after a four-hour
meeting last weekend, its board of visitors voting 8-5 in favor of
rescinding a March 10 ban on preferences for racial minorities and
other less represented groups in hiring, admissions and scholarships,
the Associated Press reports.  The decision was handed out despite
assertions from the attorney general's office that some of its
diversity programs are unconstitutional.

The special meeting was closed after several weeks of protest over its
decision to dismantle affirmative action.  A crowd of 250 people
gathered to watch the meeting.  

"We love diversity as much as you do," Vice Rector William Latham said
to a chorus of hissing from the crowd, according to an AP report.  "But
we have to do it within the framework of the law, and you only have to
do it politically."

The board also created a committee on Sunday to review Tech's diversity
programs and make sure they don't violate the Constitution.  Attorney
General Jerry Kilgore will continue examining diversity policies at
Tech and other schools, spokesman Tim Murtaugh told AP.  "If they have
programs that continue to be based on race, then yes, they are" acting
illegally, he said. "That would be unfortunate."

The university had reviewed its diversity program at the request of
Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, who warned Virginia schools that race-
conscious policies violate federal law.  Gov. Mark Warner told AP he
was pleased the board would further study "ways to strike a reasonable
balance in promoting diversity in University programs."


VIROPHARMA INC.: PA Court Allows Securities Suit Over Drug To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the securities class action filed
against biotechnology firm Viropharman, Inc., that accuses it of
misleading investors into believing its experimental common-cold drug
would be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the Associated
Press reports.

Company shares plummeted last year after the FDA rejected the drug over
concerns about its safety.  Several suits were filed after on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 3,1999 and March
19,2002.

The suit alleges that certain statements by the Company about PicovirT
were misleading, and 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 July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

Federal Judge Clarence Newcomer rejected the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that investors "sufficiently alleged that
the defendants either knew that their statements were false or acted
with reckless disregard for the truth."

Plaintiffs' attorney Marc Topaz declined comment on the ruling, which
clears the way for a trial, the Associated Press reports.  Tom Doyle,
ViroPharma's general counsel, pointed out that the judge tossed some of
the plaintiffs' claims, which he called "frivolous."

"We intend to vigorously challenge the remaining allegations.  They are
also without merit," he told AP.


                            Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Feared at Australia's Education Dep't HQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are fresh fears about asbestos in the Education Department's
headquarters in Adelaide.  The Australian Education Union says staff is
concerned about a number of asbestos hot spots in the Flinders Street
building.

Vice President Dan Farmer says asbestos in ceilings needs to be
removed, particularly while renovations are occurring in the building.  
"What our members are concerned about is there has been asbestos
identified within the ceiling but there hasn't been appropriate clean
up done on those ceilings and on those tiles," he said.

He said the union's members were also concerned about delays in
displaying asbestos warning signs.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Tagged As Cause Of Vickers Worker's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Vijay Joglekar, a pathologist at Furness General Hospital, notes
the presence of asbestos fibers in the lungs of Reginald Thomas, a
Vickers scaffolder who died of pneumonia due to lung cancer, which has
spread to the patient's liver.

Peter Thomas, son of the deceased, said his father had told him about
how shipyard workers used to have snowball fights with asbestos when
effects of the deadly substance was not yet known.  He further
mentioned that his 86-year-old father, a long-serving ship stager, had
turned the planks holding the ships to get the dust off them.

Reginald Thomas had been a smoker but quit in 1980.  Coroner Ian Smith
said Mr. Thomas died of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

"I have got to ask myself whether I am satisfied that on the balance of
probabilities Mr. Thomas died of asbestos exposure and the answer is
yes," he said.
  

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB's Deal Still on Track Even if Motion Not Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss engineering group's $1,200,000,000 settlement of asbestos
injury claims is still on track, according to asbestos legal experts
after a motion to change the members of the creditors committee of a
bankrupt ABB unit was not heard on April 7.

Along with its bankrupt unit Combustion Engineering Inc., ABB Ltd.
(NYSE: ABB), wants to close the settlement in order to allay lingering
fears about possible spiraling liabilities.  The company said that it
was confident the deal would go on as planned.

"The settlement is still on track. Though I am not part of these
discussions, I know progress has been made between the creditors and
the company," said David Austern, who has been appointed to represent
future Combustion Engineering claimants.  Austern is also general
counsel to the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, an asbestos
bankruptcy trust.

David Bernick, a lawyer for ABB, said the hearing scheduled was
continued, not because of delay, but because of progress made between
Combustion Engineering and the creditors committee.  "The anticipation
is that the motion will not have to be heard because of progress made,"
said Mr. Bernick, who would not provide any details on the discussions.

The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Wilmington was scheduled to
hear the motion on Monday.  A hearing will be held on April 18 to
discuss certain issues of the confirmation plan.  The principal
confirmation hearing will be held April 24, Mr. Bernick said.

Combustion Engineering, which made industrial boilers insulated with
asbestos, filed for bankruptcy Feb. 17, along with a pre-negotiated
reorganization plan to deal with millions of dollars in asbestos-
related personal injury claims.

The company had asked the bankruptcy court to reconfigure the
committee, saying the bulk of the members did not reflect the wishes of
the majority of the creditors.  The committee had wanted more time to
investigate whether settlement agreements between Combustion
Engineering and certain claimants tainted the voting process on the
reorganization plan.  It also wanted to probe the transfer of some of
the unit's assets to affiliates in 1999.

Under Combustion Engineering's proposed plan, parent company ABB would
put up the unit's assets of $800,000,000, as well as $350,000,000 in
cash and $50,000,000 in stock to settle more than 100,000 personal
injury claims.  Combustion Engineering has no current operations, but
has real estate assets.

ABB bought Combustion Engineering in 1990 during an acquisition spree
that caused many of its current debt problems.  ABB is now focusing on
power and automation technologies in an effort to return to
profitability after a $787,000,000 loss last year and wants to cut its
total debt to $6,500,000,000 by the end of 2003 from close to
$8,000,000,000 at the end of 2002.

Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the
1970s, when scientists concluded that inhaled fibers could be linked to
cancer and other diseases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alliance Applauds Rep. Cannon's Asbestos Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Chris Cannon's (R-Utah) introduction of the "Asbestos Compensation
Fairness Act of 2003 " (H.R. 1586), which would provide for fair and
efficient judicial consideration of claims arising out of asbestos
exposure, and would ensure that individuals who suffer impairment - now
or in the future - from asbestos-related illnesses receive compensation
for their injuries gets nods from The Alliance of American Insurers.

Kenneth D. Schloman, Alliance Washington counsel, said, "The Alliance
of American Insurers is encouraged by the progress being made in
Congress to resolve the asbestos crisis as quickly as possible, and we
believe Rep. Cannon's common-sense bill is a solid step forward in this
debate.

"The current litigious environment actually harms those who are sick,
denying them the compensation they deserve, while doing severe damage
to our economy and clogging our courts with merit-less cases.

"The Alliance supports a number of provisions in the Cannon
legislation: ending forum shopping and mass consolidations;
compensating genuine victims; applying proportional liability; and
protecting innocent retailers and distributors."

The Cannon plan would provide certainty by utilizing objective medical
criteria, protect American taxpayers by not creating a new bureaucracy,
and extend the statute of limitations so that claimants would no longer
be forced to file premature lawsuits in order to protect their claim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA Lawmakers to Address Asbestos Suit Reform Bills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance of American Insurers says a number of asbestos litigation
reform bills were filed in both the Louisiana House and Senate for the
session that began March 31.

"The Alliance has been working with other insurers and the Louisiana
Association of Business and Industry on the critical issues of civil
justice reform generally and asbestos litigation reform specifically,"
said Joe Woods, Alliance Southwest Regional Manager.

"Our efforts have produced draft legislation that implements an
inactive court docket based on objective medical criteria and venue
reform.  That legislation has now been introduced for action during the
2003 legislative session that began this week and runs through June 23,
" Mr. Woods said.

Rep. Ronnie Johns (R) introduced the House bill, HB 1401 while Sen.
Noble Ellington (D) introduced the Senate bill, SB 853.

John Lobert, senior vice president of state government affairs for the
Alliance, declared that the medical criteria would mandate that chest
x-rays-read by a certified B-reader-show opacities of ILO grade 1/1 or
greater or bilateral pleural encasement of ILO grade B2 or higher.  
Pulmonary function tests must show forced vital capacity equal to or
less than 70 percent of predicted or total lung capacity equal to or
greater than the predicted lower limit of normal.  If these criteria
weren't met, the claimant would be placed on an inactive court docket
until such time as the requisite level of impairment is shown.  
Meanwhile, the statute of limitations is tolled.  The bill also limits
the ability of non-Louisiana residents to bring asbestos suits in the
state's courts.

"These changes are particularly important because questionable
diagnosis methods have resulted in a flood of new claims costing
billions of dollars from people who aren't sick from asbestos and
likely never will be," Mr. Lobert said.  "The changes included in these
bills would put a stop to these meritless cases that are taking money
away from the true victims of asbestos-those who are sick or dying."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Updates Asbestos-Related Stats
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & Aikman Corporation is party to about 780 pending asbestos-
related cases, as of December31, 2002, according to its latest annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The lawsuits
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
used in boilers manufactured before 1966 by its former operations,
which were sold in 1966.

Asbestos-containing refractory bricks lined the boilers and, in some
instances, the Company's former operations installed asbestos-
containing insulation around the boilers.  These pending cases do not
include cases that have been dismissed or are subject to agreements to
dismiss due to the inability of the plaintiffs to establish exposure to
a relevant product and cases that have been settled or are subject to
settlement agreements.  

Total settlement costs for these cases have been less than $617,750 or
an average of less than $10,127 per settled case.  The defense and
settlement costs have been substantially covered by primary insurance
carriers under a claims handling agreement that expires in August 2006.

The Company has primary, excess and umbrella insurance coverage for
various periods available for asbestos-related boiler and other claims.
The Company's primary carriers have agreed to cover around 80% of
certain defense and settlement costs up to a limit of
about $70,500,000 for all claims made, subject to reservations of
rights.  The excess insurance coverage, which varies in availability
from year to year, is $620,000,000 in aggregate for all claims made.

Based on the age of the boilers, the nature of the claims and
settlements made to date, and the insurance coverage, Collins & Aikman
does not believe that these cases will have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
However, it cannot assure that the Company will not be subjected to
significant additional claims in the future, that insurance will be
available as expected or that unanticipated damages or settlements in
the future would not exceed insurance coverage.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Cuts GE Excess Cover for Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York state court's ruling says that each claimant's exposure to
asbestos in the turbine engines of General Electric Co. is a separate
occurrence under the company's insurance program.  GE now stands to
lose millions of dollars of excess liability coverage for asbestos
claims.

GE's contention that the thousands of asbestos claims it faces are a
single occurrence triggering two decades of policies that attached
excess of GE's primary coverage with the now-insolvent Electric Mutual
Liability Insurance Co. of Bermuda was rejected.  State Supreme Court
Justice Ira Gammerman found that each claimant's exposure was a
separate occurrence and that excess policies in force between 1965 and
1985 are triggered only to the extent that each occurrence exceeds
EMLICO's primary limit of at least $5,000,000.

The ruling noted that EMLICO's policies during that period did not
include an aggregate limit, and none of the asbestos claims against GE
has exceeded the EMLICO limit.  Justice Gammerman's ruling granted
summary judgment to Appalachian Insurance Co., a unit of Factory Mutual
Insurance Co., but will also apply to numerous other GE excess insurers
that either joined the motion or will seek to benefit from it.

A GE spokesman said the company would appeal the ruling.

According to Justice Gammerman, GE faced relatively few asbestos claims
until 1991, when it became a target in widening liability litigation.  
By April 2002, the company had been named in 413,717 claims, the vast
majority related to asbestos insulation used in GE's custom-designed
turbine engines.

GE and EMLICO in 1992 reached an asbestos claims handling agreement
under which all turbine-related claims were to be treated as a single
occurrence under EMLICO's primary policies.  Justice Gammerman rejected
GE's argument that its design, manufacture, sale, installation and
servicing of the engines was a single, continuous occurrence under the
excess policies.  He ruled that the agreement is not binding on excess
insurers.

EMLICO's relationship with GE became a subject of controversy in 1995,
when the insurer re-domesticated to Bermuda from Massachusetts and
promptly declared itself insolvent by more than $500 million because of
underreserving for GE asbestos and pollution claims.  During months of
litigation that followed, EMLICO reinsurers charged that GE controlled
EMLICO and engineered its move to Bermuda in part to speed up
reinsurance recoveries under more favorable Bermuda liquidation laws.
GE denied the charges and the disputes were later settled.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford's Earnings Could Be Affected by Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewis, a UBS Warburg insurance analyst said Hartford Financial
Services Group Inc.'s 2004 earnings could be diluted by as much as 50
cents a share if the company takes an asbestos charge and makes a
subsequent equity offering.

In a research note, the analyst looked at two potential scenarios if
the insurer takes a pretax asbestos charge of $1,000,000,000 or
$1,500,000,000 and makes a subsequent equity offering of $
1,000,000,000 or $1,400,000,000.

Excluding an asbestos charge and a potential $1 a share charge for
deferred acquisition costs, Mr. Lewis said earnings could be cut by 16
cents or 22 cents a share in 2003 and 37 cents or 50 cents a share in
2004.  Deferred acquisition costs are expenses associated with the sale
of life-insurance policies that must be amortized over the lifetime of
a policy, including agent commissions.

Hartford Financial is expected to announce the results of an
examination of its asbestos reserves sometime in the second quarter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Gets $2.6M Compensation in Asbestos Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hunter, wife of a man who died in 2001 of lung cancer due to
asbestos exposure while working during his college days as a summer
employee in Owens Illinois, gets $2,600,000.  The Baltimore Circuit
Court jury, after five hours of deliberation, decided that Barbara
Hunter should receive $4,200,000 for wrongful death, but it was reduced
to $600,000 under a state law mandating a limit of $600,000.  The
jurors awarded $2,000,000 for damage to her marital relationship.

Harry Hunter, 67, developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in 1956
when he worked as an electrician for 33 days at the Curtis Bay yard,
the plaintiffs' lawyers said in the suit against the Toledo, Ohio-based
Company.  Mr. Hunter's lawyers argued that Mr. Hunter was exposed
heavily to Kaylo, an asbestos covering once used to insulate steam
pipes.

"Mr. Hunter suffered an excruciating, brutal, unnecessary death," says
Gary J. Ignatowski, lead attorney from the firm of Peter G. Angelos
representing the Hunters.  "The company knew the dangers of their
product as far back as 1944."

Owens Illinois would appeal the decision, according to Scott Patrick
Burns, an attorney for the company.  Mr. Burns said no ships were at
the yard that would have required the use of Kaylo while Mr. Hunter was
there, and that there was no evidence that the company's product was
the sole trigger of Mr. Hunter's illness.

Mrs. Hunter declined to comment on the case.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Grainger W.W. Inc. Faces Several Asbestos Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grainger W. W. Inc. (NYSE: GWW) is named, along with numerous other
non-affiliated companies, as a defendant in around 600 lawsuits brought
on behalf of about 1,110 named plaintiffs pending in the courts of
various states, as of January 28, 2003, according to its latest annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuits typically involve claims of personal injury arising from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos and allegedly
distributed by the Company.  From January 1, 2002, to January 28, 2003,
the Company has been dismissed from around 60 similar lawsuits,
typically because there has not been product identification.

The Company has denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in the
remaining lawsuits.  If a specific product distributed by the Company
were identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to
exercise indemnification remedies against the product manufacturer.

In addition, the Company believes that a substantial portion of these
claims is covered by insurance.  The Company is engaged in active
discussions with its insurance carriers regarding the scope and amount
of coverage.  While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these lawsuits, it believes that the ultimate resolution will not have,
either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.


COMPANY PROFILE

Grainger W W Inc  (NYSE: GWW)
100 Grainger Pkwy.
Lake Forest, IL 60045-5201    
Phone: 847-535-1000
Fax: 847-535-0878
http://www.grainger.com
  
Employees  :15,236
Revenue    :$4,643,900,000
Net Income :  $211,600,000
Assets     :$2,437,400,000
Liabilities:  $769,800,000
(As of December 31. 2002)

Description: W.W. Grainger is a top US business-to-business distributor
of maintenance, repair, and service equipment, components, and supplies
such as compressors, motors, signs, lighting and welding equipment, and
hand and power tools. Grainger's FindMRO sourcing center for indirect
spot buys locates products through its database of 8,000 suppliers and
5 million products. Grainger has 388 branches in the US (90% of sales),
184 in Canada, and five in Mexico. Customers include contractors,
service and maintenance shops, manufacturers, hotels, and government,
health care, and educational facilities. Grainger also provides
materials-management consulting services.  


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-Railroad Workers Commence Suit for Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Former workers of Union Pacific Railroad Company filed nine lawsuits in
3rd District Court early last week blaming the company for illnesses
they claimed were caused by asbestos exposure.  The Company allegedly
knew about the dangers looming when the men were exposed to harmful
substances such as asbestos while working for Union Pacific.  

According to the charges, five men have cancer.  They were facing the
end of their lives and were having difficulty breathing because of
damaged lungs.  Some of them have even developed dementia while others
were in constant pain due to damaged nervous systems.  Now four
survivors face a similar future.  They were maintenance workers, pipe
fitters and machinists who later became afflicted with lung cancer,
asbestosis or mesothelioma.

Some of the workers, like the late James A. Starbuck of Salt Lake
County, worked for the railroad company as early as the mid-1930s.  
Others like Ogden's L.D. Curtis worked for the company from 1949 until
1988.  The lawsuits don't specify how much money the plaintiffs are
seeking.

"I hope to get some resolution for these families who have watched
their loved ones deal with or die from a horrible disease," said
attorney Brent Hatch, whose law firm Hatch, James & Dodge represents
the nine plaintiffs.


COMPANY PROFILE

Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP)
1416 Dodge St.
Omaha, NE 68179    
Phone: 402-271-5777
Fax: 402-271-6408
Toll Free: 888-870-8777
http://www.up.com

Employees  : 47,000
Revenue    : $12,491,000,000
Net Income :  $1,341,000,000
Assets     : $32,764,000,000
Liabilities: $22,113,000,000
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: Union Pacific's Union Pacific Railroad is the leading rail
freight carrier in the US (ahead of Burlington Northern Santa Fe).
Union Pacific Railroad transports coal, chemicals, industrial products
and other freight over a system of more than 33,000 route miles in 23
states in the western US. The company owns 27,400 route miles of its
rail network; trackage rights, which allow UP to use other railroads,
account for the rest. Through the two operating subsidiaries of its
trucking unit, Overnite Holding, UP provides less-than-truckload (LTL)
freight hauling services.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq:AKLM) from January 11, 2002
through September 19, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

As alleged in the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants
issued numerous statements which described the Company's increasing
income and improving 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 was engaging in aggressive sales practices,
         known as channel stuffing, whereby it induced customers to
         take product that they neither wanted, needed or could sell in
         the short-term;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ramon Pinon by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th
Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail:
rpinon@whesq.com


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Paskowitz & Associated Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq:AKLM)
publicly traded securities during the period between January 11, 2002
and September 19, 2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz by Phone: 1-800-705-9529
or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq: AKLM) between January 11, 2002 and
September 19, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain officers
of the Company.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
engaged in a variety of manipulative and deceptive practices which were
designed to make it falsely appear that Acclaim's financial position
was improving and that the Company would be experiencing increasing
revenues in the future.  Indeed, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented that following material adverse facts which were known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, such as:

     (1) the Company was engaging in "channel stuffing," aggressive
         sales practices involving the inducement of clients to receive
         product that they neither wanted, needed or could sell in the
         short term;

     (2) Acclaim was undergoing adverse and sustained operating
         problems at the Company's internal studios concerning the
         development, content, cost, market testing, distribution and
         sales of products;

     (3) Acclaim was experiencing a declining demand for the Company's
         products, causing Acclaim's inability to achieve revenue and
         earnings guidance provided by defendants for fiscal 2002 and
         beyond;

     (4) the Company's distribution and retails sales tracking
         information systems were insufficient, allowing Acclaim to
         materially miscalculate the Company's provisions for sales
         returns and price concessions.

As such, defendants' opinions, projections and forecasts regarding
Acclaim and its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis.

On September 19, 2002, defendants surprised the market by releasing an
announcement that the Company actually expected to report an operating
loss for the fourth quarter of 2002, principally because of lower
revenues that were reduced below defendants' guidance by 25%, among
other reasons.  Additionally, Acclaim decreased its guidance for the
first and second quarters of its 2003 fiscal year, also concerning the
2003 fiscal year.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, Gustavo
Bruckner, Derek Behnke or George Peters 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 Acclaim.


ACCREDO HEALTH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Accredo Health, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ACDO) from June 16, 2002 through April 7, 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 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Accredo common stock.

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 was failing to timely record an impairment in
         the value of certain receivables that it had acquired in a
         recent acquisition.  As a result, the Company's reported
         financial results were artificially inflated throughout the
         class period;

     (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements published during the class period were not prepared
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         and were therefore materially false and misleading;

     (3) that the Company would not have been able to meet its stated
         earnings guidance had it properly reserved for its accounts
         receivables; and

     (4) based on the first three, defendants' earnings guidance and
         positive statements concerning the Company was lacking in a
         reasonable and therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 8, 2002, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo shocked
the market by announcing that it was reducing its previously issued
earning guidance and that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for
accounts receivables that it acquired in a recent acquisition.  In
response to this announcement, the price of Accredo Health common stock
declined precipitously falling from $25.40 per share to as low as
$13.76 per share, on extremely heavy volume.

During the class period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12 million
worth of their personally-held Accredo stock while in possession of the
true facts about the Company.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


AFC ENTERPRISES: Landskroner-Grieco Launches Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of securities of AFC Enterprises, Inc.,
(Nasdaq:AFCE) between March 2, 2001 and March 24, 2003.  The suit is
brought against the Company, Frank J. Bellati (CEO), and Gerald J.
Wilkins (CFO).

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 March 2, 2001 and March 24, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of AFC securities.  According to the complaint, the
Company's class period statements were materially false and misleading
because the press releases and SEC filings issued during the class
period failed to reveal that AFC inflated its operating results by:

     (1) improperly accounting for the sale of corporate-owned stores
         to franchisees;

     (2) improperly accounting for the value of certain long-lived
         assets;

     (3) understating advertising costs; and

     (4) improperly accounting for inventory at the Company's Seattle
         Coffee Company division

As a result of the Company's fraudulent accounting, AFC's financial
statements published during the class period were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and,
therefore, it was not true that the Company's financial statements were
a "fair presentation" of the Company's financial position.  Indeed, by
announcing its intention to restate its financial statements, AFC has
admitted that its prior financial statements were materially false and
misleading when issued.

On March 24, 2003, after the market closed, AFC shocked the market by
announcing that it would be restating its financial statements for
fiscal year 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002.  The Company
also reported that it was examining whether or not its financial
statements for fiscal year 2000 should be restated.

In response to this negative announcement the price of AFC common stock
dropped by over 20% on extremely heavy trading volume.  AFC insiders
privy to the Company's fraudulent accounting practices did not share
investors' losses.  In a December 2001 public offering, AFC insiders
unloaded 7,000,000 shares of their holdings at $23 per share.

Indeed, during the class period, defendants and other Company insiders
cashed out at prices as high as $34 per share, reaping profits of over
$30 million.

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


ALLOY INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Alloy, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ALOY) from August 1, 2002 through January 23, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Alloy, a teen-focused media company and
direct marketer that targets Generation Y consumers, the approximately
60 million people in the United States between the ages of 10 and 24,
and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and
misleading statements.  Specifically, defendants represented that
Alloy's merchandising and advertising segments complemented one another
in such a way that Alloy would have an edge over competitor teen
retailers and media businesses which would enable it to succeed despite
difficult market conditions in the second half of 2003.

Unbeknownst to investors, Alloy faced fierce competition in the youth
market and the weak economy forced Alloy to cut its prices and increase
operating expenses by offering free shipping and deep discounts.  On
January 23, 2003, defendants disclosed that the earnings before taxes
and amortization (EBTA) for the fourth quarter ending January 31, 2003
would be $11 million to $12 million instead of the previously projected
$15 million to $16 million.  In addition, the EBTA for fiscal 2002
would also be significantly less than previously projected.  On this
news, the Company's stock plummeted 49%.

For more details, please contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.


CERNER CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of
all purchasers of Cerner Corporation (Nasdaq:CERN) securities between
October 16, 2002 through April 2, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning the Company's financial results
and business prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose, among other facts, that:

     (1) many of the Company's clients were delaying the purchase of
         products from the Company and others were canceling their
         purchases altogether;

     (2) the Company was losing business to its competitors; and

     (3) its attempts to change the organization structure of the
         Company had created confusion and hindered the Company's
         operations by negatively impacting the ability of the Company   
         to close certain sales transaction.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially
inflated throughout the class period, allowing certain insiders to sell
more than 90,083 shares of personally held Cerner common stock.  On
April 3, 2003, however, Cerner shocked the market by announcing that it
was lowering revenue and earnings guidance for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003 to between $0.13 to $0.15 per share compared to
analysts estimates of $0.38 per share.  Following the release of this
news, Cerner's stock price declined in excess of 44% on heavy volume.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


CORE LABORATORIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE:
CLB) common stock during the period between May 6, 2002, and March 31,
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 May 6, 2002, and March 31, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Core common stock.  

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports with the SEC
which described the Company's increasing 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 the Company had materially overstated its net income and
         earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect on
         certain accounts receivable;

     (3) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of
         expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from certain
         field locations;

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

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

On March 31, 2003, after the markets had closed trading for the day,
the Company shocked the market by announcing that it would be restating
its financial results for prior 2002 quarterly operating results
because of:

     (i) the issuance of duplicate invoices in the Company's Mexico
         operations;

    (ii) the need for higher provisions for doubtful accounts
         receivables;

   (iii) the need for timely booking of expenses and foreign exchange
         translation losses from certain field locations;

    (iv) changes in the estimated life of certain assets; and

     (v) consolidation costs of two Nigerian offices.

Following this announcement, shares of Core common stock fell $1.31 per
share, or more than 12.5%, to close at $9.09 per share, on volume of
515,300 shares traded, or almost four times the average daily 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 by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


FIFTH THIRD: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Fifth Third Bancorp (Nasdaq:FITB) from September 21, 2001 through
January 31, 2003, inclusive.  The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, against the Company and certain of its senior officers and
directors.

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.  Among other things, the Complaint alleges 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 of Old Kent into its operations. The
Company 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 merger (as
well as other mergers) 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 Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: clowther@whesq.com


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court in Dallas, Texas on behalf of purchasers
of i2 Technologies, Inc. between April 18, 2000 and January 24, 2003,
inclusive.

i2 Tech is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Dallas, Texas.  i2 Tech provides value chain management
solutions and utilizes a radical process methodology to help companies
deal with the variability that comes from today's gap in managing
supply and demand.  This methodology combines integrated planning and
execution to allow customers to integrate disparate planning systems
with workflow management systems to optimize their business'
performance.  The defendants include the Company and:

     (1) Sanjiv S. Sidhu,

     (2) Gregory A. Brady,

     (3) William M. Beecher,

     (4) Nancy F. Brigham and

     (5) David C. Becker

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5).  The action
arises from damages incurred by the class as a result of a scheme and
common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and
deceit on the class during the class period.  Defendants' scheme
included rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the present financial condition and business prospects of
the Company.  The scheme was revealed when i2 Tech announced that it
would re-audit its financial statements for the years ended December
31, 2000 and 2001 because on an ongoing investigation of the Company's
revenue recognition and its financial reporting.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun or Timothy J. Burke by
Phone: 888/388-4605 by E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.secfraud.com


MOTOROLA INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Launches Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk initiated a securities class action against
Motorola, Inc. for violations of the federal securities laws (including
Sections 10(b) and 20(a)), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from at least February 3, 2000 through May 14, 2001.  The
lawsuit alleges that Motorola and certain management issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Motorola securities.

Specifically, on February 3, 2000, defendants issued a press release
announcing that Motorola would provide products and services to Telsim
Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Telsim), a Turkish cellular
phone system operator, which should be highly profitable to Motorola.  
The press release, however, failed to disclose that Motorola's deal
with Telsim required Motorola to provide the Turkish company with $1.7
billion in vendor financing and could not proceed without this
arrangement.

On March 29, 2001, Motorola filed with the SEC and only partially
disclosed the magnitude of its vendor financing commitments and impact
to Motorola.  Six weeks later, Motorola finally revealed that $728
million of the Telsim loan was past due and that Motorola had actually
loaned Telsim $2 billion in vendor financing and collectibility was
therefore in question

For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk by Mail: 501 West Broadway,
Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, by Phone: 877-493-5366 by Fax: 619-
238-5425 or by E-mail: fk@class-action-law.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Finkelstein & Krinsk Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk initiated a securities class action against Royal
Ahold NV for violations of the federal securities laws (including
Sections 10(b) and 20(a)), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between at least January 8, 2002 and February 21, 2003.  The
lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain management insiders
participated in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock
price and misrepresent the financial condition of its business.

During the class period, defendants issued statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's
net income and financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted
and/or misrepresented undesirable facts including that AHOLD overstated
its operating earnings for its US Foodservice division.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient
internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true
financial condition of AHOLD, allowing the value of the Company's net
income and financial results to be materially overstated.

On February 24, 2003, before the market opened for trading, AHOLD
announced that it discovered over $500 million in "overstatements of
income related to promotional allowance programs," requiring the
Company to restate its previously-issued financial reports for fiscal
years 2001 and 2002.  Following this report, shares of AHOLD declined
over 60%, to close at $4.16 per share.

For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk by Mail: 501 West Broadway,
Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, by Phone: 877-493-5366 by Fax:
619-238-5425 or by E-mail: fk@class-action-law.com.


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Ultimate Electronics, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ULTE) from March 13, 2002 through August 8, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that during the class period, the defendants
issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading financial
statements and press releases concerning the Company's publicly
reported revenues and earnings directed to the investing public.  

Throughout the class period, the Company maintained that it could
offset any reduction in margins incurred as a result of this transition
through continued sales of high margin items, including direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) service and systems and audio equipment.  
Yet, in part to enjoy a large economic windfall as a result of its
class period offering of Ultimate stock, the Company failed to disclose
that high margin sales were decreasing rapidly and with it, a critical
stabilizer to the Company's bottom line.  On August 8, 2002 the Company
finally disclosed that because of the reduction in high margin sales,
the Company would miss its second quarter earnings EPS outlook by
almost 50%.

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


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ULTE), during the period between March 13, 2002 and August 8, 2002
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by disseminating an inaccurate and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with a Secondary
Offering of 2.75 million shares of the Company's common stock to the
public.  In addition, 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 March 13, 2002 and August 8,
2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Ultimate Electronics
securities.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued positive statements
regarding the Company's financial results, sales, and product demand.
Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.  For example, the Company
was experiencing significant declines in its sale of high-margin
products like audio equipment and direct broadcast satellite (DBS)
systems, while its lower-margin products, like televisions, comprised
the bulk of the Company's sales.  This placed extreme pressure on the
Company's bottom line, thereby diminishing the Company's ability to
achieve its stated projections in Q2 2002 and to support its
artificially inflated stock price.

On August 8, 2002, Ultimate Electronics issued a press release
announcing that it would miss its second quarter earnings guidance by
almost 50%.  The press release also revealed that, "(a)bout 50% of the
shortfall in the gross margin percentage is attributable to the DBS
category."

For more details, contact Trig R. Smith by Phone: 303-861-3003 or
800-711-6483 or by E-mail: tsmith@dyershuman.com


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of purchasers of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ULTE)
publicly traded securities during the period between March 13, 2002 and
August 8, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that during the class period, the defendants
issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading financial
statements and press releases concerning the Company's publicly
reported revenues and earnings directed to the investing public.

Throughout the class period, the Company maintained that it could
offset any reduction in margins incurred as a result of this transition
through continued sales of high margin items, including direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) service and systems and audio equipment.

Yet, in part to enjoy a large economic windfall as a result of its
class period offering of Ultimate stock, the Company failed to disclose
that high margin sales were decreasing rapidly and with it, a critical
stabilizer to the Company's bottom line.  On August 8, 2002 the Company
finally disclosed that because of the reduction in high margin sales,
the Company would miss its second quarter earnings EPS outlook by
almost 50%.

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 by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Lawsuit in CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Ultimate Electronics,
Inc. (Nasdaq:ULTE) securities between March 13, 2002 and August 8,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

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


                              *********


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

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

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *