CAR_Public/030414.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Monday, April 14, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 73

                            Headlines                            

AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls Party Poppers Rockets For Injury Hazard
AUTOMOBILE FIRMS: Toyota, Nissan Face Suits Over Discriminatory Lending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Foreign Exchange Fees
CHEMICAL SHIPPERS: Consumer Antitrust Suit To Be Turned To Class Action
CIT GROUP: Stockholder Faces a Securities Fraud Suit Filed in NY Court

DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs Expand Allegations, Period in TX 401(k) Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Ex-Felons Seek Restoration of Voting Rights In Appellate Court
HENRY FORD: Emergency-Room Doctors Commence Suit Over Hospital Policies
ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Dept Sued Over Arrest of Anti-War Protesters
LEARNING CURVE: Recalls 3,800 Children's Toys For Lead Poisoning Hazard

LUTHERAN MEDICAL: Agrees To Settle Sexual Harassment Suit V. Physician
RAVENS INDUSTRIES: Voluntarily Recalls Remote Controls Over Fire Hazard
REITER DAIRY: Recalls Fat Free Chocolate Milk For High Vitamin A Levels
SECURITIES LITIGATION: Investment Banks To Take Big Hit in IPO Lawsuits
TEXAS: Senator Questions Class Action Litigation Part Of New Tort Bill

TEXAS: TX Court Hears Arguments on Abortion Facility Regulations Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Byron Considers Options To $12B Appeal Bond
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Sets New Federal Punitive Damage Limits

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN
ACCREDO HEALTH: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. TN
ALLOY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BAYER AG: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CIT GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

CORE LABORATORIES: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in TN
NAM TAI: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
NAM TAI: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in NY
VAXGEN INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

                           *********

AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls Party Poppers Rockets For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
American Promotional Events, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 4,000 Party Poppers.  The Party Popper is a rocket-shaped device
that shoots into the air when the string is pulled.  The cone-shaped
top can pop off rapidly, and can hit and injure both children and
adults.

CPSC and TNT have not received any reports of incidents involving the
Party Poppers.  This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injury.

The recalled Party Poppers are packaged in units of four.  The Party
Poppers were sold in clear cellophane wrappers with blue, yellow and
red cardboard headers.  The Party Poppers and the packaging are labeled
"TNT BIG FUN PARTY POPPER."  The Party Poppers are shaped like rockets
with 3 1/2-inch wooden support sticks.

Wal-Mart stores sold these Party Poppers nationwide from January 2003
through March 2003 for about $2.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 243-1189
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


AUTOMOBILE FIRMS: Toyota, Nissan Face Suits Over Discriminatory Lending
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation's and Honda Motor Company's consumer-credit
units face discrimination suits filed in California Superior Court,
charging it with being discriminatory to black and Hispanic consumers,
Bloomberg reports.  The suits also name as defendant WFS Financial,
Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants charged black and Hispanic
consumers more for auto loans than whites.  The defendants also
allegedly allowed dealers to "mark up" loans by adding interest points
to the rate set by a customer's credit-worthiness.  The average mark-up
for black customers was about $1,000, compared with less than $500 for
whites, the suit charged.

The suits seek to bar racially biased loan practices and a minimum of
$4,000 per incident of discrimination, according to a statement from
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, one of the law firms
representing consumers in the case, Bloomberg reports.

Other automakers have faced similar charges, namely General Motors
Acceptance Corporation's finance company, and consumer-finance units of
Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler.

"American Honda and American Honda Finance require our dealers to
follow strictly fair lending practices," spokesman Wendell Bugg told
Bloomberg.  He declined further comment as the company is still
reviewing the suit.

Toyota Motor Credit spokeswoman Kerry Rivera said the company in
December set a 3 percent cap on points that dealers can add to a loan's
interest rate, Bloomberg reported.  "We're committed to fair lending
and equal opportunity," Ms. Rivera said.  "We set loan rates based only
on someone's credit history."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Foreign Exchange Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company faces a class action filed in California
Superior Court, alleging that it failed to disclose fees related to
purchases made in a foreign currency by its cardholders, Reuters
reports.  The Environmental Law Foundation filed the suit, asserting
that the Company includes in its cardmember agreements unconscionable
and unlawful arbitration provisions.

The suit appears similar to a lawsuit filed against rival credit card
firms MasterCard and Visa International, in California Superior Court.  
Two days ago, the court found that Visa International collected about
$817 million in foreign exchange fees from 1996 to March 30, 2000, and
MasterCard $195 million, Reuters states.  The court then ruled that the
two credit card giants must refund customers who were levied currency-
exchange fees.

The Company told Reuters it intends to fight the suit, which was filed
this month.  Company spokeswoman Judy Tenzer said she did not
immediately know the exact date of the filing, and the Alameda County
Superior Court was not yet open to provide additional details.

"The company has not yet been served with the complaint relating to the
action. The company believes that it has meritorious defenses and, in
the event it is served with the complaint, intends to vigorously defend
the action," American Express stated in the 8-K filing, in which
companies are required to make public announcements.


CHEMICAL SHIPPERS: Consumer Antitrust Suit To Be Turned To Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian chemical shippers Odfjell and Stolt-Nielsen said they
believed a customers $3 million lawsuit against them in the United
States could become a class action targeting them and two other firms,
Reuters reports.  The consumer suit names as defendants the two
Companies, Tokyo Marine Company and Jo Tankers of Norway and the
Netherlands.

The suit was filed in US federal court, over the alleged "cartel
activity" of the four firms, which control about 60% of the world
market.  In February, European antitrust authorities raided offices in
Norway, Britain and the Netherlands of the four tanker firms.  A US
probe commenced soon after.  A day after the raids, the Wall Street
Journal cited several allegedly handwritten diary entries by a Stolt-
Nielsen official showing that the firm had cooperated with Odfjell to
divide the world tanker market between them.

US chemicals group JLM Industries (JLMI) has asked the court to make
the suit a class action.  The suit further alleges collusion and price-
fixing by the defendant firms.

"We think it is baseless and without merit, and we intend to defend
vigorously against it," Stolt-Nielsen S.A. Executive Vice President
John Wakely told Reuters.

Odfjell's investor relations chief Espen Bjelland told Reuters Odfjell
did not know whether any other customers aimed to join the class action
sought by JLM.  "We know that it is a customer, JLM Industries, which
has sued, but it is possible that several others could join in," Mr.
Bjelland said.

The companies said they had not received any word on the investigations
by the US and European competition authorities, but Odfjell said it was
preparing to hand over various documents they had requested.  "Breaches
of antitrust regulations in the European Union and/or the United States
may lead to substantial fines as well as potential civil lawsuits,"
Odfjell said in a statement.


CIT GROUP: Stockholder Faces a Securities Fraud Suit Filed in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court in New York by a Company shareholder, alleging
that the Company made false and misleading statements about its
financial status last year as part of its initial public offering,
Reuters reports.

The commercial and consumer finance company was part of Tyco
International Ltd (TYC), but Tyco later sold off CIT Group through the
$4.6 billion initial public offering last July to raise cash for debt
repayment.

The suit alleges that the Company, in connection with the IPO, made
false statements in a prospectus and in its registration statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit further
stated that the company falsely represented that its loan loss reserves
for the telecommunications industry and its reserves for the entire
finance portfolio were adequate.  The suit finally also alleged that it
understated the true risks facing the company and overstated the
company's assets, Reuters states.  A CIT spokeswoman could not
immediately be reached for comment.


DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs Expand Allegations, Period in TX 401(k) Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Houston, Texas energy
company Dynegy, Inc. expanded the suit to include more detailed
allegations and a longer period of time covered, the Pantagraph.com
reports.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court in Texas on
behalf of employees covered by the company's 401(k) retirement plan.  
The suit alleges that the Company's management, which also was in
charge of the retirement plans, didn't live up to its responsibilities
in handling the 401(k) investments.

The lawsuit further alleged that the Company played a role in the
questionable accounting and trading activities that led to an
investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the payment of fines
totaling $8 million.  Both actions reduced the value of Dynegy stock
for retirement purposes, the lawsuit said, the Pantagraph.com reports.

Dynegy spokesman David Byford told the Pantagraph the company is
"analyzing these claims and we intend to vigorously defend against
them. That's the extent of what I can say right now."


FLORIDA: Ex-Felons Seek Restoration of Voting Rights In Appellate Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of whether former felons in Florida can have their voting
rights restored is being played out in the courts; the outcome could
even impact the next presidential election.  Lawyers for the Brennan
Center for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law group based at New
York University, are representing hundreds of thousands of ex-felons in
a class action.  The suit asks that ex-felons be allowed to vote again,
despite a 135-year-old Florida law that bans them, The Bradenton Herald
reports.

The basic legal issue in the plaintiffs' class action will depend on
whether a three-judge federal appellate panel from the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta believes that state law dating back
to 1868, and amended a century later, deliberately discriminates
against ex-felons, especially blacks, who form a disproportionate
number of that group.

Last year, US District Judge James Lawrence King of Miami rejected all
constitutional arguments made in the ex-felons' lawsuit.  He ruled
that, while evidence suggested Florida's "felon disenfranchisement"
policies were racially motivated in 1868, the plaintiffs failed to
offer "any evidence that the Legislature that enacted the law in 1968,
did so to discriminate against African Americans."

Florida is one of seven states that ban the automatic restoration of
ex-felons' voting rights, requiring instead that they apply to the
state's Clemency Board.  The other states are Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Nevada and Virginia.  Last month, Wyoming, which would
have been enumerated on the list of states banning automatic
restoration of voting rights, changed its law to permit nonviolent ex-
felons to vote again.

The plaintiffs' class action claims that the clemency-board process
sets a challenge so high that ex-felons essentially are barred from
casting a ballot for the rest of their lives.  The appellate panel in
Atlanta could uphold Judge King or order a trial of the issues.  If the
latter happens, it is likely that Governor Jeb Bush's administration,
which staunchly opposes automatic restoration of ex-felons' voting
rights, would appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Much could be riding on the outcome, according to independent political
observers.  The assumption is that if the ex-felons could vote again,
they might cast ballots primarily for Democratic candidates.  
Independent pollster James Kane points out that the Republicans' fear
is based in realities, since a great many of the ex-felons are African-
Americans, and African-Americans vote Democratic 90 percent of the
time.  In a close election they could make a great difference.

"They changed the language somewhat, but the basic policy of forever
disenfranchising ex-felons is still the same and continues to have a
discriminatory effect," said Jessie Allen, an attorney for the Brennan
Center.  

Ms. Allen said an estimated 613,000 ex-felons were denied voting rights
three years ago, and 167,000 of those were blacks.  As a result, she
said, five percent of Florida's voting-age public and 10 percent of
Florida's black voting-age population were blocked from the polls,
suggesting "a serious problem with our democracy."

Attorney David Thompson, a lawyer with the Jeb Bush administration,
countered that the state law never originally was meant to be racially
biased against blacks after the Civil War and that the Florida
Legislature never had race in mind when it revised the law during the
Civil Rights era.  "Everyone agrees there was no racist intent there,"
said Mr. Thompson.


HENRY FORD: Emergency-Room Doctors Commence Suit Over Hospital Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Ford Health System faces a class action filed in Wayne County
Circuit Court on behalf of all staff doctors of the emergency-medicine
department at its Detroit campus, Crains Detroit.com reports.

Emergency-room doctors C. Patrick Loeckner, Dorris Tyson and Karen
Randall-Kristal filed the suit, alleging the System violated a lawsuit
Wednesday against Henry Ford Health System, claiming that it has
violated an agreement to pay ER physicians millions of dollars in
revenue. The System allegedly proposed and implemented a plain in 2003,
which required ER doctors to manage and assume the risks for certain
expenses in the department.

The agreement allegedly called for the doctors to receive a portion of
department revenues that exceeded expenses, under a prearranged
formula, according the suit, which was filed by The Googasian Group
P.C., a Bloomfield Hills law firm that usually sues doctors and
hospitals for patients.

The suit further alleges that:

     (1) hospital admission policies gave priority to patients from
         Henry Ford Health System satellites.  That forced the Detroit
         ER doctors to give care to patients who should have been
         admitted quickly to the intensive-care, cardiac or other
         hospital units;

     (2) emergency medical care became increasingly difficult after the
         hospital eliminated its pediatric-care unit and 24-hour
         pharmacy;

     (3) emergency-room staff doctors were paid salaries "tens of
         thousands of dollars below" those paid to ER doctors at other
         area hospitals.

     (4) these adverse working conditions sapped the morale of ER
         doctors, causing several to take positions at other hospitals

Hospital officials have not yet reviewed the lawsuit and declined to
comment, Henry Ford Health's media-relations director, Dwight Angell
told Reuters.


ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Dept Sued Over Arrest of Anti-War Protesters
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Chicago, Illinois faces a class action filed by anti-war
war demonstrators arrested during a downtown Chicago protest, the
TimesLeader.com reports.  The suit alleges the Chicago police violated
their promise to let the peaceful protest commence.

The police arrested more than 200 people in the March 20 protest, as
10,000 demonstrators crowded a plaza near the city's federal courthouse
before marching to the main artery running up the lakefront.  "The
police made an arbitrary decision ... to pin and herd people in and
say, OK, that's it, no more First Amendment for you," attorney Janine
L. Hoft said at a news conference, the Associated Press reports.

The policy allegedly gave permission for the march but then for an
unspecified reason rescinded the permission.  According to witnesses,
police tried to contain the crowd but demonstrators repeatedly broke
through their ranks, only to be stopped again as horse-mounted officers
and others in riot gear headed them off, AP reports.

Police department spokeswoman Officer Joann Taylor told AP the
department does not comment on pending lawsuits.


LEARNING CURVE: Recalls 3,800 Children's Toys For Lead Poisoning Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Curve, Int'l, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
approximately 3,800 children's activity toys.  The paint on the metal
wires of these toys contains excess levels of lead.  Lead poisoning is
a serious hazard to children and is associated with behavioral
problems, learning disabilities, hearing problems and growth
retardation.

The Company has not received any reports of incidents or injuries
involving these toys.  This recall is being conducted to prevent the
possibility of injury.

There are two types of activity toys involved in this recall.  One toy
is a flower shaped toy intended to attach to a stroller, with a green
painted metal wire on which plastic beads slide along.  The item is the
Lamaze Flower Stroller Wrap (SKU #97222).  The other toy is a floor-
based toy with a foam stuffed base, a blue painted metal wire on which
plastic beads and stuffed animal heads slide along.  This item is the
Lamaze Soft Bead Buddies (SKU #97325).  Each item has a sewn-in label
with the Lamaze logo on the front.  

These toys were sold in March 2003 through specialty and toy stores
nationwide for around $19.99.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 704-8697 between
8:00 am and 5:00 pm CT, Monday through Friday or visit the company's
Website: http://www.learningcurve.com


LUTHERAN MEDICAL: Agrees To Settle Sexual Harassment Suit V. Physician
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lutheran Medical Center agreed to settle for $5.4 million a class
action filed by employees allegedly sexually harassed by staff
physician Dr. Conrado Ponio.  The settlement is the largest of its kind
in New York, officials said, The New York Daily News reports.

Several female employees alleged that the sex-obsessed physician abused
them during routine physical examinations for new workers.  Newly hired
nurse Tara McCormack thought the breast and gynecological exams were
routine.  Another nurse, Sheila Linz recalls protesting, but the doctor
"wouldn't take no for an answer."  The victims spoke out yesterday, at
a news conference announcing the settlement.

Dr. Ponio, 50, began working at the hospital in 1996.  He was fired in
January 2000, after the allegations became public.  The state revoked
his medical license February 13 this year, the Daily News stated.

Under the consent decree filed yesterday in Brooklyn Federal Court,
Lutheran is also required to institute strict prohibitions against
sexual harassment.  "We obviously deplore Dr. Conrado Ponio's
behavior," Wendy Goldstein, president and CEO of Lutheran told the
Daily News.


RAVENS INDUSTRIES: Voluntarily Recalls Remote Controls Over Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raven Industries is voluntarily recalling about 450 Infrared Remote
Controls used only with Adjustamagic, Scape and Maxwell Adjustable
Beds.  An internal component can overheat, presenting risks of fire or
thermal burns to consumers.  The Company has received two reports of
melted housings, with no injuries.

The recalled remote controls were distributed with these beds
nationwide from November 1999 through November 2002.  Retail value was
approximately $20, if purchased separately.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 336-4092
between 8:30 am and 4:00 pm CST Monday through Friday.


REITER DAIRY: Recalls Fat Free Chocolate Milk For High Vitamin A Levels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reiter Dairy, Inc., Barberton, Ohio, recalled 150 half gallons of its
Topps Vitality Fat Free Chocolate Milk because it contains a
significantly higher-than-labeled level of vitamin A.  (Approximately
44,700 International Units (IU) per quart are present in each quart of
the product instead of the intended level of 2,000-3,000 IU.)

Excessive amounts of vitamin A ingestion can lead to severe health
problems, including birth defects in babies born to mothers who consume
excess levels of vitamin A during the first trimester of pregnancy.  
Among infants, the ingestion of excessive levels of vitamin A may cause
an increase in the pressure of the fluid within the brain, hair loss,
and abnormal changes in bone formation.  For persons of all ages,
excess vitamin A ingestion can lead to reversible or irreversible liver
disease.

The same product is also being recalled because it contains too much
vitamin D as well (4,000 IUs instead of the intended 400-600 IUs).  The
consumption of excess amounts of vitamin D may result in abnormally
high blood levels of calcium and phosphate, which, in rare instances,
may lead to abnormal deposits of calcium in various parts of the body.  

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product
contained more than the labeled amount of vitamins due to an error by
the manufacturer.  The fat free chocolate milk, packed in 1/2 gallon
containers coded "MAR 27," was distributed to retail stores in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York.  Consumers who have purchased Topps
Vitality Fat Free Chocolate Milk are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-362-0825.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Investment Banks To Take Big Hit in IPO Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment analyst CreditSights states that three big investment banks
will be taking huge financial hits, as the multi-billion dollar initial
public offering (IPO) lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York runs it course, Reuters
reports.

Investment firms Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse
First Boston could face the biggest penalties in the suit, which
charges Wall Street banks with manipulating and artificially inflating
the stock price of hundreds of IPOs.  The three investment banks
underwrote the majority of 309 initial public offerings implicated in
the suit.  As a result, they stand to pay the lion's share of a
settlement that could total as much $4 billion, according to research
company CreditSights Inc.

"The banks themselves are saying that they're concerned," CreditSights
analyst David Hendler, referring to warnings about ongoing civil
litigation made by investment banks in their annual reports told
Reuters.  "If they're concerned, then why shouldn't we be concerned?"

Hundreds of suits were commenced in 2001 against 309 issuing companies
and 55 investment banks, alleging fraud and violations of federal
securities laws.  The suits similarly assert that:

     (1) analysts manipulated the market with optimistic research;

     (2) banks ramped up commissions in exchange for access to IPO
         shares; and

     (3) investors allocated IPOs were required to buy shares in the
         after market in a practice known as "tie-ins."

In February, the court refused to dismiss the suits, allowing them to
move closer to trial.  The pressure to settle the suits might be
strong, according to a Reuters story.  However, some market watchers
point out that it is too early to predict a settlement, and that if the
suit is settled, plaintiffs' lawyers would settle for substantially
less than $4 billion.

Furthermore, in a bear market where revenues have fallen, investment
banks will be more likely to fight allegations to try to avoid paying
penalties, Lehman Brothers financial services analyst Brock Van Der
Vliet told Reuters.  

"We reserve for litigation expenses when they are probable and
estimable," a Goldman (GS: Research, Estimates) spokeswoman told
Reuters. "We are very comfortable with the reserves we have."

A spokeswoman at Morgan Stanley (MWD: Research, Estimates) did not
return a call for comment.  Credit Suisse declined to comment.

Among other banks, CreditSights estimates that Merrill Lynch (MER:
Research, Estimates) faces penalties of $326 million, FleetBoston
Financial (FBF: Research, Estimates) faces paying $383 million, and
Lehman Brothers (LEH: Research, Estimates) will have to pay an
estimated $158 million.   


TEXAS: Senator Questions Class Action Litigation Part Of New Tort Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Senator Rodney Ellis of Houston, a member of the Senate
committee now hearing testimony on the tort bill, said recently that
the proposed legislation, passed by the Texas House, could hinder class
actions lawsuits like those against life insurance companies that
engaged in race-based pricing, Associated Press Newswires reports.  
Therefore, said Senator Ellis, he doubts that the sweeping measure the
Texas House passed will remain intact.

"A number of Republican colleagues, as well as Democratic colleagues,
have said to me, privately, that they have serious reservations about
this bill (HB4)," Senator Ellis said.  "I would be very surprised if
such a Draconian measure, which is what we have before us, gets out of
this Senate in that form."

Senator Ellis said the bill goes too far in favor of corporations and
could have a "debilitating" effect on people who have been wronged.  
However, Richard Trabulsi Jr., President of Texans for Lawsuit Reform,
said the bill contains "meaningful reforms that are long overdue and
desperately needed."  

He urged that its major provisions be maintained.  Among other things,
the bill would:

     (1) place a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, such as pain and
         suffering, in medical malpractice lawsuits;

     (2) require plaintiff to pay attorneys fees for the defendant if
         the plaintiff does not win an award bigger than a previous
         settlement offer; and

     (3) require participants in class actions to first seek remedies
         through state agencies.

The class action portion of the bill was a key subject as the Senate
State Affairs Committee began to hear testimony.  Senator Ellis said
Texans who had banded together, for example, to sue certain life
insurance companies because they set discriminatory pricing based on
race might not have that opportunity under the proposed House bill.

His aunt was a plaintiff in one of those cases, and the amount of money
she won was too small to justify an individual lawsuit, said the
Senator.

"There is no way she could have gotten a lawyer to take the case.  It
would not have been logical for her to even take the time to go and sue
an insurance company and take in only $250.  And it wasn't the money in
that case that mattered so much.  It was the opportunity to get some of
our dignity back," said Senator Ellis.

Unitrin Inc., American General Life and Accident Insurance Co. and Life
Insurance Co. of Georgia, are among the companies that have settled
with class action plaintiffs across the country who alleged policies
were priced on the basis of race.

Defenders of the lawsuit limitation bill disagreed with Senator Ellis
that the House bill would prevent legitimate class actions such as the
race-based pricing lawsuits.  The bill only requires that class action
litigants exhaust administrative remedies first.  The bill would
actually help those in class action cases by limiting attorneys fees
and giving more of the final judgment money to victims, said Kenneth
Hoagland, spokesman for Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

Consumer advocates criticized the bill's class action provision.  The
legislation "is simply one more lobby-driven attempt to deny and delay
justice for Texans who have been cheated," said Dan Lambe, executive
director of Texas Watch.

Senator Bill Ratliff, R-Mt. Pleasant, who chairs the Senate State
Affairs Committee, has said he will take time to hear testimony from
all sides.  The Republican-led House committee that heard the bill was
criticized by Democrats and consumer groups for not allowing adequate
public input and for holding a secret meeting.


TEXAS: TX Court Hears Arguments on Abortion Facility Regulations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The 125th Judicial District Courtroom, Harris County Courthouse held a
hearing to certify a class action filed by women injured by abortion
against the State of Texas, State Department of Health, and the Texas
Medical Disclosure Panel on April 11, 2003.

Women who have been injured by abortion in Texas filed suit against the
state for failing to enforce existing abortion facility regulations to
protect the health of women seeking abortions.  A hearing will be held
on whether the class action can proceed.  The plaintiffs are women who
sought and received abortions in Texas and received a variety of
physical and emotional injuries, including ruptured uterus, sterility,
severe guilt and depression.  

The suit alleges that the state of Texas:

     (1) fails to require abortion providers to give enough information
         for informed consent;

     (2) fails to adequately investigate unlicensed abortion
         facilities;

     (3) fails to adequately inspect and examine licensed facilities;

     (4) fails to cooperate with other state agencies attempting to
         prosecute illegal activity in abortion facilities;

     (5) fails to prevent the unauthorized practice of medicine by
         unlicensed individuals in abortion facilities; and

     (6) fails to require abortion clinics to report child abuse which
         resulted in pregnancy.

The Texas Justice Foundation President, Allan Parker, stated: "Instead
of protecting women, the State wants to protect itself by having this
lawsuit dismissed."

Several of the women were injured by abortions performed in abortion
clinics by non-licensed personnel, including non-doctors.  One of the
plaintiffs is the mother of a minor child who was under medical care
for depression, but who obtained an abortion without her parents'
consent resulting in a significant increase in the child's mental
illness, including required hospitalization.

Abortions are being performed in an illegal manner and which do not
adequately protect the health of women.  These women injured by
abortion are seeking protection for women's health.

For further information, contact the Texas Justice Foundation's Media
Assistant, Queta Aguilar by Phone: 210-614-7157, ext. 203.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Byron Considers Options To $12B Appeal Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron of Madison County, Illinois, seems
willing to consider alternatives to having Philip Morris USA post a $12
billion appeal bond in order to appeal a recent class action tobacco
verdict, Dow Jones Business News reports.

Attorneys for the Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris's parent company,
appeared in a hearing before Judge Byron on Tuesday, to ask the judge
to reconsider a requirement that Philip Morris post the $12 billion
bond to appeal Judge Byron's March 21 verdict.  The verdict ordered
Philip Morris USA, the largest cigarette-maker in the United States, to
pay $10.1 billion in damages to 1.1 million Illinois smokers for
misleading them into thinking its Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights
cigarettes are less harmful than its regular brands.

Plaintiff Philip Morris said the company cannot get a surety bond that
large for non-payment of cash, and has said the court's requirement
could bankrupt the tobacco company.

Judge Byron did not reach a decision during the Tuesday hearing on the
request to an alternative to the $12 billion bond; however, he is
planning to continue the closed-door meetings with the two sides that
he began Tuesday, on Thursday morning.

Speaking to reporters during a conference call, an attorney for the
plaintiffs said the two parties were ordered by the judge not to
comment on the details of the ongoing discussions.

In the public portion of Tuesday's hearing, Judge Byron said the
tobacco company has other options, including having Altria Group,
Philip Morris' parent, guarantee part of the judgment.

In a related matter, earlier Tuesday, Philip Morris scored a victory in
Cook County Circuit Court when Judge James F. Henry granted the
company's request for a temporary restraining order against the state
of Illinois, barring it from collecting the $3.6 billion punitive
damage award it received in Judge Byron's judgment.  Judge Henry will
meet with the two sides on Friday to set a hearing date.

Philip Morris pursued the request for the restraining order and the
ultimate injunction with the Cook County Circuit Court because this
court has jurisdiction over matters relating to the 1998 tobacco
settlement between the major tobacco companies and 47 states.  Philip
Morris is contending that the state of Illinois relinquished all claims
to a punitive damage award when it entered into the Master Settlement
Agreement with Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies in 1998,
to resolve the lawsuit brought by its attorney general and the
attorneys general of the other 45 states.


UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Sets New Federal Punitive Damage Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Utah couple's 20-year battle against State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. has resulted in new federal limits on punitive damages
nationwide, the Deseret News reports.  The United States Supreme Court,
in a 6 to 3 opinion, struck down an unprecedented $145 million punitive
damages award for a Cache County, Utah, couple involved in a 1981 fatal
car accident in Sardine Canyon, Utah.

In its opinion, the High Court ruled the award, which Utah's Supreme
Court had permitted, was constitutionally excessive and was "neither
reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed."

Curtis and Inez Campbell sued State Farm after it refused to settle
claims arising from the accident, which left one man dead and another
permanently disabled.  At trial, jurors found Mr. Campbell 100 percent
liable and ordered him to pay the victims more than three times the
proposed out-of-court settlement.  State Farm refused to settle the
claims under its policy with the Campbells, and the Campbells sued the
company charging bad faith and fraud.  A jury originally awarded them
$145 million in punitive damages and $2.6 million in compensatory
damages.  However, the trial judge reduced the awards to $25 million
and $1 million, respectively.

Upon appeal to Utah's Supreme Court, the court reinstated the higher
jury award of damages, in October 2001.  Among its findings the state
Supreme Court determined State Farm was guilty of "malicious and
reprehensible" conduct toward its clients, especially those who are
elderly, poor or minorities.

The US Supreme Court not only found the Utah court's award
"constitutionally excessive," but determined that punitive damage
awards must generally be capped at no more than 10 times the actual
harm suffered by defendants, rather than the 145-to-1 ratio in the
instant case.

"This is a major decision that will affect all state and federal courts
in the way in which they compute punitive damages and the degree to
which they allow juries to impose punitive damages," said University of
Utah law professor John Flynn.  "It is a very significant decision."

The court declined to impose a "bright-line ratio" which punitive
damages cannot exceed, but noted that an award that is more than four
times the amount of compensatory damages "might be close to the line of
constitutional impropriety."

The High Court said the Utah justices had inappropriately used the case
"as a platform to expose and punish the perceived deficiencies of State
Farm's operations throughout the country and had erred in allowing
evidence of perceived wrongdoing in states other than Utah.

"While we do not suggest there was error in awarding punitive damages
based upon State Farm's conduct toward the Campbells, a more modest
punishment for this reprehensible conduct could have satisfied the
state's legitimate objectives, and the Utah courts should have gone no
further," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion for the U.S.
Supreme Court.

In dissenting opinions, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
wrote that the U.S. Constitution does not constrain the size of
punitive damage awards.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also dissenting,
wrote that the High Court "has no warrant to reform state law governing
awards of punitive damages."

The case will now return to the Utah Supreme Court so justices here can
re-evaluate the evidence and impose damages in line with the High
Court's ruling.  The Campbells' attorney, Rich Humpherys, said in a
recently released statement that large corporations will take advantage
of the newly imposed punitive damage cap.

"We are concerned that some companies, such as State Farm, will view
today's ruling as some sort of 'green light' to defraud consumers, with
little concern for being held accountable," said Mr. Humpherys.

Companies could possibly calculate the amount of punitive damages, Mr.
Humpherys said, and then "feel free to commit intentional misconduct
whenever the risk of punishment seemed low enough."

Curtis Campbell died in December 2001, from Parkinson's disease.  He
was 83.  State Farm has not paid the Campbells any of the $2.6 million
in compensatory damages ordered by the state Supreme Court, even though
that amount has never been appealed by State Farm.  Mr. Humpherys noted
that the US Supreme Court did not set aside the Utah Supreme Court's
findings of fraud and misconduct that State Farm perpetrated on the
Campbells, and which are the grounds for the awards of compensatory and
punitive damages, the latter of which will be amended in accordance
with the guidelines set down by the High Court.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, against
Accredo Health, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACDO) on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Accredo Health, Inc. between June 16, 2002 and 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;

     (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
         (GAAP).

During the Class Period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12 million
worth of their Accredo stock while in possession of the true facts
about the Company

On April 8, 2003, 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.  On this
news, the price of Accredo common stock down over 43%, to close at
$14.29, down from $25.40.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or
(212) 889-3700 or by E-mail: Nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.


ACCREDO HEALTH: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, against
Accredo Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:ACDO).  The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Accredo Health, Inc. between June 16,
2002 and 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;

     (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
         (GAAP);

     (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) defendants' earnings guidance and positive statements
         concerning the Company lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 8, 2003, 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.  The
market reacted swiftly to this news, pushing the price of Accredo
Health common stock down over 43%, to close at $14.29, down from
$25.40, 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 Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-
free), by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


ALLOY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Alloy, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ALOY) securities between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003.  
Alloy is a teen-focused media company and direct marketer that targets
Generation Y consumers, i.e., the approximately 60 million people in
the United States between the ages of 10 and 24.

The complaint alleges that the Company claimed that its merchandising
and advertising segments complemented one another in a way that gave
the Company an edge over competitor teen retailers and media businesses
and which would enable it to succeed despite difficult market
conditions in the second half of 2002.  Unbeknownst to investors, the
Company faced fierce competition for the youth market and the weak
economy forced the Company to cut its prices and increase operating
expenses, e.g., by offering free shipping and deep discounts, thereby
eroding Alloy's gross profit margin.

On January 23, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
EBTA for its fiscal fourth quarter ending January 31, 2003 would be $11
million to $12 million instead of the previously projected $15 million
to $16 million and that fiscal 2002 EBTA would be in the range of $30
to $31 million instead of the previously forecast $34 million to $38
million.  On this news, the Company's share priced plummeted by 49%, or
$4.57, from the previous day's closing price of $9.10.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: ALOY@bernlieb.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


BAYER AG: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) of Bayer AG (NYSE: BAY) between May 26, 1999
and February 21, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between May 26, 1999 and February 21, 2003.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about the successful
introduction and strong sales of the Company's new cholesterol fighting
product, Baycol, and represented that the Company enjoyed and would
continue to enjoy strong revenue, earnings and earnings per share
growth as a result of the addition of Baycol to the Company's product
line.

The complaint further alleges that defendants also misrepresented that
Baycol was safe for use by patients attempting to treat high
cholesterol and did not present a significant risk of adverse side
effects.  In fact, Baycol was not safe but rather, dangerous to the
public requiring the drug to be withdrawn.  Baycol caused fatal
Rhabdomyolysis in patients who used Baycol in combination with
gemfibrozil, another lipid lowering drug, the complaint alleges.

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

For more details, contact Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: BAY@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com  


CIT GROUP: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock of CIT Group
Inc. (NYSE: CIT) in or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering commenced on or about July 1, 2002, and who have been damaged
thereby.  The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the Company, Albert R.
Gamper, Jr. (CEO and President) and Joseph M. Leone (CFO).

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because CIT's IPO registration
statement and prospectus contained materially false and misleading
statements of fact.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Prospectus falsely represented that CIT's reserves for losses in
its telecommunications finance portfolio were "adequate" despite recent
declines in the sector, which were expected to continue.

In addition, the prospectus further characterized as adequate its
reserves for credit losses in general.  According to the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading when made
because, among other reasons, they failed to disclose that the
Company's loan loss reserves for its finance portfolio in the
telecommunications industry, and its loan portfolio in general, were
materially deficient in light of material credit losses that had
already been incurred.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's assets and
shareholders' equity were overstated in the Prospectus by reason of the
foregoing.  On July 23, 2003, CIT announced that it took a $200 million
charge to strengthen the telecommunications loan reserves that it
represented were adequate only three weeks previously.  On April 8,
2003, the price of CIT common stock closed at $17.40 per share, which
is 24% lower than the IPO price of $23 per share.

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


CORE LABORATORIES: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE:
CLB) between May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action charges that defendants violated 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 Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CORE LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Core Laboratories, N.V.
(NYSE:CLB) from May 6, 2002 through 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 Marc A. Topaz, Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
(888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CORE LABORATORIES: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Core Laboratories, N.V.
(NYSE:CLB) securities between May 6, 2002 and March 31, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

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


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired i2 Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:ITWO)
securities between April 18, 2000 and January 24, 2003, inclusive.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b), by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of i2 securities.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants repeatedly
issued financial results that were materially false and misleading when
made because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer contracts;

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

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

On January 27, 2003, defendants announced that i2 would re-audit its
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 due
to "recent information developed during the audit committee's ongoing
investigation of certain allegations regarding the company's revenue
recognition with respect to certain customer contracts and its
financial reporting for those years."  Defendants further reported that
i2 had notified the SEC of these allegations, and that the SEC staff
has begun an informal inquiry into these matters.  After this news, i2
common stock fell from a close of $1.26 per share on January 24, 2003
to a close of $0.92 per share on January 27, 2003, the next trading
day, amounting to a single-day decline of more than 26% on very heavy
trading volume.

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


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Chemical
Industries plc (NYSE:ICI) from August 1, 2002 through March 24, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Imperial Chemical Industries PLC and certain of
its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statement
concerning its business and financial condition.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous press releases in
which they stated that they had resolved the Company's distribution and
software problems that the Company had experienced at its Quest
division's Fragrance & Food businesses.  Defendants further stated that
the Company was on track to report strong financial results, that the
Company had cleared its backlog of customer orders and that the Company
had not lost any customers as a result of its production problems.

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 ICI's software, distribution and production problems at
         its Quest division were not "temporary" problems or "unique"
         to the Naarden, The Netherlands location, but impacted
         company-wide operations and profitability;

     (2) that ICI's software, distribution and production problems at
         its Quest division had not been "essentially" or "largely"
         "resolved" or "rectified"; and

     (3) that contrary to ICI's representations that it had cleared its
         backlog of orders and not lost any customers as a result of
         the software, distribution and production problems at Quest,
         ICI's customers were, in fact, obtaining new sources of supply
         and discontinuing their relationships with ICI.

On March 25, 2003, before the open of trading, ICI shocked investors
when it issued a profit warning with respect to its fiscal 2003 first
quarter.  Defendants announced that its first quarter profit would drop
approximately 24%, as a result of, among other things, "business lost
following the customer service problems in 2002."  Following this
announcement, shares of ICI fell from a close of $9.60 per share on
March 24, 2003 to a close of $5.60 per share on March 25, 2003, or a
single-day decline of more than 36%, on nearly twenty times normal
trading volume.

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


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (NYSE:ICI)
securities between August 1, 2002 and March 24, 2003, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against the company and certain key officers and directors.

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

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


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Lawsuit 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 Imperial Chemical Industries PLC
(NYSE: ICI) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs"), each representing 1
pound Sterling Ordinary Share, during the period between August 1, 2002
to March 24, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between August 1, 2002 and March 24, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of ICI securities.  Throughout the class period, as
alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued numerous press releases in
which they stated that they had resolved the Company's distribution and
software problems that the Company had experienced at its Quest
division's Fragrance & Food businesses.  

Defendants further stated that the Company was on track to report
strong financial results, that the Company had cleared its backlog of
customer orders and that the Company had not lost any customers as a
result of its production problems.  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 ICI's software, distribution and production problems at
         its Quest division were not "temporary" problems or "unique"
         to the Naarden, The Netherlands location, but impacted
         company-wide operations and profitability;

     (2) that ICI's software, distribution and production problems at
         its Quest division had not been "essentially" or "largely"
         "resolved" or "rectified"; and

     (3) that contrary to ICI's representations that it had cleared its
         backlog of orders and not lost any customers as a result of
         the software, distribution and production problems at Quest,
         ICI's customers were, in fact, obtaining new sources of supply
         and discontinuing their relationships with ICI.

On March 25, 2003, before the open of trading, ICI shocked investors
when it issued a profit warning with respect to its fiscal 2003 first
quarter.  Defendants announced that its first quarter profit would drop
approximately 24%, as a result of, among other things, "business lost
following the customer service problems in 2002."  Following this
announcement, shares of ICI fell from a close of $9.60 per share on
March 24, 2003 to a close of $5.60 per share on March 25, 2003, or a
single-day decline of more than 36%, on nearly twenty times normal
trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie
Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in TN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division at Greeneville, on behalf of purchasers of King
Pharmaceuticals (NYSE:KG) publicly traded securities during the period
between February 16, 2000 and March 10, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the Class Period and violated sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with
the Company's acquisition of Jones Pharma, Inc.  The complaint also
alleges that defendants issued statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and future prospects and the strong demand for
its branded pharmaceutical products, notably Altace and Levoxyl.

Additionally, the Company failed to disclose that certain of its rebate
and pricing practices subjected it to heightened governmental scrutiny.  
As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were each materially
false and misleading when made as they misrepresented and/or omitted
the following adverse facts which then existed and disclosure of which
was necessary to make the statements made not false and/or misleading,
including:

     (1) that the Company's rebate practices and "best price" lists
         subjected it to heightened regulatory scrutiny as governmental
         agencies increased their activity in this area;

     (2) that the Company had understated the level of generic
         competition for Levoxyl; and

     (3) that the Company had engaged in questionable sales to VitaRx
         and Prison Health Services during 1999 and 2000.

On March 11, 2003, King Pharmaceuticals was subject to an SEC
investigation for, among other things:

     (i) the sales of its products to VitaRx and Prison Health Services
         during 1999 and 2000;

    (ii) its "bestprice" lists;

   (iii) all documents related to the pricing of its pharmaceutical
         products to any governmental Medicaid agency during 1999; and

    (iv) the accrual and payment of rebates on Altace from 2000 to the
         present

In response to this announcement, the price of King Pharmaceuticals
common stock declined precipitously, falling from $15.90 per share to
$12.17 per share.

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


NAM TAI: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. (NYSE:
NTE) common stock during the period between December 3, 2002, through
February 14, 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 December 3, 2002, through February 14, 2003, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Nam Tai common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements regarding 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;

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

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

On February 18, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it would be moving "a $1.5 million charge related to its JIC unit from
its fourth quarter to its second quarter."  The Company stated that "it
determined the noncash charge, for the creation of a minority interest
in its JIC unit, should have been reflected in the period when the
minority interest was created."  As a result, the Company's second-
quarter earnings have been revised to $3.8 million, from an originally
reported $5.3 million.  Following this announcement, shares of Nam Tai
stock fell from $33.41 per share on February 14, 2003, to $27.65 per
share on February 18, 2003, on volume of 752,000 shares traded.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie
Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com


NAM TAI: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Nam Tai Electronics,
Inc. (NYSE:NTE) from December 3, 2002 through February 14, 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 December 3, 2002, through February 14, 2003, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Nam Tai common stock.  Throughout
the class period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued
numerous statements regarding 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;

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

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

On February 18, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it would be moving "a $1.5 million charge related to its JIC unit from
its fourth quarter to its second quarter."  The Company stated that "it
determined the noncash charge, for the creation of a minority interest
in its JIC unit, should have been reflected in the period when the
minority interest was created."

As a result, the Company's second-quarter earnings have been revised to
$3.8 million, from an originally reported $5.3 million.  Following this
announcement, shares of Nam Tai stock fell from $33.41 per share on
February 14, 2003, to $27.65 per share on February 18, 2003, on volume
of 752,000 shares traded.

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action, pursuant to Section 27(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Act of
1933, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired securities
of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) in exchange for securities of
Telxon Corporation on or about November 30, 2000 pursuant to the merger
of Telxon and Symbol.  The defendants named in the complaint are the
Company and nine of Symbol's current and former directors and officers:

     (1) Tomo Razmilovic,

     (2) Kenneth V. Jaeggi,

     (3) Robert W. Korkuc,

     (4) Jerome Swartz,

     (5) Harvey P. Mallement,

     (6) George Bugliarello,

     (7) Leo A. Guthart,

     (8) Charles B. Wang, and

     (9) James H. Simons

The complaint asserts that Defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.  Plaintiff alleges in essence that the
financial statements of Symbol as of September 30, 2000, that were
contained in the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy/Prospectus for
the merger of Telxon and Symbol, were materially false and misleading
and not in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP).

On April 18, 2002, Symbol disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission was conducting a formal inquiry into Symbol's fiscal year
2000 and 2001 financial statements.  On August 13, 2002, Symbol
announced that it might be required to restate its financial results
for all of 2000 and 2001.  Subsequently, on February 13, 2003, Symbol
announced that the scope of its accounting problems was far greater
than previously disclosed going back to 1999.

In a press release, Symbol stated "that it may have to restate its
revenue and income" for the years 1999 through 2002. In particular,
Symbol indicated, among other things, that there would be a net
reduction in revenue and income for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.  It was
reported on March 13, 2002 that Symbol would have to restate revenue
and income for 1999 and 2000 by as much as $140 million a year.

Plaintiff alleges that Symbol's undisclosed violations of GAAP that
occurred prior to and at the time of the merger, as well as the false
and misleading financial statements and other representations included
in the Registration Statement, damaged Telxon securities holders who
received Symbol securities in the merger.

For more details, contact Louis Gottlieb, or David J. Goldsmith by
Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York NY 10017 by Phone: 212-907-0879 by E-
mail: lgottlieb@glrslaw.com or dgoldsmith@glrslaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com


VAXGEN INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of VaxGen, Inc. (Nasdaq: VXGN) publicly traded securities
during the period between August 6, 2002 and February 26, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges VaxGen and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  VaxGen is engaged in the development
and commercialization of AIDSVAX, a vaccine designed to prevent
infection or disease caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), the
virus that causes AIDS.  During the class period, defendants were
completing the final stages of AIDSVAX's Phase III clinical trials
required to obtain Food and Drug Administration approval to market
AIDSVAX as an AIDS vaccine.  Throughout the class period, defendants
caused VaxGen to make a number of positive statements about the status
of the trial and describing their eventual plans to manufacture and
market AIDSVAX, causing VaxGen's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.

On February 26, 2003, however, defendants were forced to admit that the
reliability of their earlier reports of higher efficacy rates for non-
caucasians were impaired because they had not taken the requisite
"penalties" to account for the fact that less than 500 of the 5000
clinical trial participants were non-caucasians, resulting in an
extremely small subset of data being analyzed for non-caucasians.

As the news that earlier promises that AIDSVAX could prove useful for
non-caucasians fell apart, the stock declined further, resulting in a
total loss in market cap since November 18, 2002 of approximately 85%.

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