CAR_Public/030423.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, April 23, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 79

                            Headlines                            

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Sue Over "Uniform" Practices in CA, PA
ANNUITY & LIFE: Named As Defendant in Securities Lawsuits in CT Court
ARIZONA: Suit Criticizes Secrecy Of Decision To Close Gold Dust School
BATTAT INC.: Recalls 300,000 Toy Drumstick Sets Due To Choking Hazard
BROWN SHOE: Trial in Environmental Suit Over CO Facility Set Early 2003

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Certifies Key Portions of Hearing Loss Suit
CARDBOARD COMPANIES: Court Allows Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed To Trial
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Named As Defendant in Travel Agents Lawsuit in NC
DYNACRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls BMX Bicycles For Injury, Accident Hazard
FIRST UNION: Court Hears Appeal on Injunction of Gotham Partners Merger

FIRST UNION: Shareholders Commence Suit V. Gotham Partners Merger in NY
FIRST UNION: OH Shareholders Commence Suit Over Gotham Partners Merger
HIGH SPEED: DE Court Grants Approval To Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement
MINNEAPOLIS: Community Group Launches Federal Lawsuit Over Police Abuse
NORDSTROM INC.: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit Set July 2003 in CA

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in SD Court
PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders File Suits For Securities Violations in VA
SOUTH KOREA: Accounting Fraud Excluded As Basis For Class Action Suits
THOMSON INC.: Recalls Home Entertainment Amplifiers Due To Shock Hazard
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Asks Court To Block $3B in IL Damages

TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in MA Court
WHITE WAVE: Recalls 250T Cases of Soy Milk For Chemical Contamination


                    Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN
ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Zimmerman Reed Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
ASTROPOWER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in DE Court
CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in OR Court
FLEMING COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in AL
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in AL

I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Much Shelist Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D.

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in SD
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SKECHERS USA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
SUPERGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

SUPERGEN INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
VITALWORKS INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
VITALWORKS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT



                           *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Sue Over "Uniform" Practices in CA, PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Inc. faces three suits that have been filed
where a purported class of employees and former employees of the
Company allege that the Company required its associates to wear a
"uniform" which in two of the three actions is allegedly in violation
of California law.  

Two complaints were served on February 4, 2003 and February 10, 2003 in
the Superior Courts of San Francisco County and Los Angeles County,
respectively.  The third action was filed the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the
"uniform," which when purchased, allegedly drove associates' wages
below the federal minimum wage.  In each claim, the plaintiff, on
behalf of his or her class, seeks injunctive relief and economic,
liquidated damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that the actions against it are without merit.  
However, the Company does not believe it is feasible to predict the
outcome of these proceedings.  The timing of the final resolution of
these proceedings is also uncertain.


ANNUITY & LIFE: Named As Defendant in Securities Lawsuits in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Annuity & Life Re Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former
officers and directors face several securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 12, 2001
and November 19, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the
class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous
statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which
described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance.  

The Company has not yet responded to these lawsuits.


ARIZONA: Suit Criticizes Secrecy Of Decision To Close Gold Dust School
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed against the third-largest school district in Arizona,
on behalf of Gold Dust Elementary School parents, claims the Paradise
Valley Unified School District governing board members decided which
Paradise Valley school would close by means of closed- and back-door
meeting or, more specifically, they made up their minds among
themselves or in closed conferences with administrators, The Arizona
Republic reports.

Sue Skidmore, a defendant in the lawsuit and a board member, said she
believes the board has done nothing wrong.  "My perception is the board
acted with integrity, and the board is not out to get any one
community," Ms. Skidmore said.

The Paradise Valley Unified School District is facing a $3.5 million
budget deficit, and closing a school, the district said would save
$850,000.  Already, the school has handed 39 teachers pink slips.

The district has debated which school to close since February, when
eight schools were identified as candidates for closure.  Last year,
Gold Dust was targeted for closing, but pleas from parents saved the
school, and a new state law outlining the process for school closures
was passed in the Legislature.

Lead plaintiff Suzanne Dallimore said that when the list of eight
schools came out, it was clear that minds already had settled on Gold
Dust.  She and parents filed public records requests for enrollment
figures and other date on which the board had based its decision.  
However, the district has not been forthcoming, said Ms. Dallimore.

"We are not suing (the board) to make it keep Gold Dust open . we are
suing the governing board for making a decision [based] on bad
information," she continued.


BATTAT INC.: Recalls 300,000 Toy Drumstick Sets Due To Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Battat Incorporated is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 300,000
sets of toy drumsticks sold with the Parents Bee Bop Band drum sets.
The end piece of the drumstick handle can break off, posing a choking
hazard to young children.  Additionally, the screw at the end of the
drumstick can loosen and detach, posing a choking hazard.  The Company
has received about 240 reports of drumsticks breaking and children
mouthing the small pieces, including one report of a child who began to
choke.
        
The centipede-shaped drumsticks were sold with the Parents Bee Bop Band
drum set.  They're about 10-inches long and were sold in either lime
green or blue with black stripes.  Model numbers involved in this
recall are PM9137T2 and PM91372.  The model numbers can be found above
the UPC code on the packaging.  
        
Target, Sam's Club and smaller retailers sold the Parents Bee Bop
Band drum sets nationwide from November 2001 through March 2003 for
about $25.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 617-9137 between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.
        

BROWN SHOE: Trial in Environmental Suit Over CO Facility Set Early 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc. is set for
early 2003 in the Colorado State Court (District for the City and
County of Denver).

The suit relates to the Company's Colorado facility and alleges claims
for trespass, nuisance, strict liability, negligence and exemplary
damages arising from the alleged release of solvents that are
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to
and near the site.

In July 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and scheduled a trial for early 2003.  The plaintiffs are
seeking damages of approximately $80 million for diminution in property
values and remediation damages to their property, and unspecified
damages, such as for loss of use and enjoyment and discomfort.

The Company is vigorously contesting this lawsuit, believes it has
meritorious defenses and the specified claims are without merit. The
Company is not able to assess the ultimate outcome of these matters,
but it does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, based upon the Company's current assessment of its legal
position and anticipated recoveries from, and/or allocations of damages
(if any) to, third parties.  It is possible, however, future results of
operations for any particular quarter or annual period could be
materially affected by changes in facts or assumptions related to this
matter.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Certifies Key Portions of Hearing Loss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A US District Court judge certified key portions of a class action
against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNI) claiming the
company conspired with Oregon attorneys representing thousands of
railroad employees to fix settlement amounts for workers with hearing-
loss claims.  The action follows on the heels of the judge's nearly
complete dismissal of Burlington Northern's motion to have the case
dismissed, which was handed down Tuesday, April 15.

The suit, filed in US District Court on March 26, 2001, claims the
Company entered into a secret deal that facilitated easy settlements
for awards drastically smaller than those of similar claims in actual
court cases.  In exchange, the Company received the lawyers'
cooperation and an agreement not to take the claims of present and
future clients to court.

The court has already ruled against a motion brought by the law firm
alleged to have conspired with Burlington Northern.  Oregon-based law
firm Bricker Zakovics Querin Thompson & Ritchey PC (BZQ) asked the
court for summary judgment and, on March 10, 2003, the court rejected
nearly every aspect of their motion.

"We are encouraged by the court's rulings," said Steve Berman, the
attorney from Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman representing the
workers.  "We look forward to proving to the court that these two
organizations conspired to defraud thousands of workers."

Judge Marsha Pechman's April 15, 2003 order dismissing Burlington
Northern's arguments found sufficient evidence of the alleged
conspiracy for the suit to move to trial.  The class certification
order, signed on April 16, removed the final obstacle for more than
2800 railway workers who used BZQ to handle hearing-loss claims to seek
compensatory damages in court.

The judge certified a class action against BZQ for those who reside in
Washington state, and also certified a broad class of BN employees from
Washington, Oregon and Montana who entered into settlement agreements
with BN to rescind those agreements.  Plaintiffs in Montana and Oregon
are still permitted to bring individual suits against BZQ.  The
majority of class members -- approximately 2000 -- live in Washington
state.

The suit, filed on behalf of workers by Steve Berman and attorney Sim
Osborn, also of Seattle, claims Burlington Northern and BZQ conspired
to decide hearing-loss settlement amounts by a secret, predetermined
formula, saving Burlington Northern hundreds of millions of dollars in
claims while illegally curbing employees' rights.  BZQ failed to inform
workers of the settlement formula and that the amounts offered by
Burlington Northern were far below similar claims decided in court, and
neglected to inform them that they had agreed never to prosecute their
claims in court, according to the suit.

The suit seeks to release an estimated 2800 workers from settlement
agreements reached with BN, giving the workers the opportunity to
refile their cases.  The court has already ruled that if the
settlements are rescinded workers will not have to repay amounts
already received in settlement.  The suit also seeks to have BZQ
forfeit the fees they earned in these allegedly fraudulent settlements,
estimated to exceed $10 million.

According to the suit, the hearing-loss formula was based on a scale
ranging from "profound hearing loss" to "minimal loss."  This formula
was used to determine the amount of money that an employee would
receive.  The suit states that these amounts were up to ten times less
than awards given to similar hearing-loss claims that went to trial.  
All claims were capped at $65,000, and not a single claim of the 2800
cases settled for more than that amount.

The complaint alleges that when one employee could not get BZQ to
commit to try his case, he hired a different lawyer and won $150,000 in
a jury trial, an amount five times what he would have received under
the formula.  To conceal the conspiracy, BZQ and Burlington Northern
refused to release clients' files, even when those clients were not
bound by confidentiality agreements, the suit states.

BZQ specializes in representing injured railroad workers and is listed
by several railroad workers' unions as "designated council," meaning
that the union approves the firm as counsel for injured railroad
workers who are union members.  According to the suit, Burlington
Northern knew as early as 1966 that hearing loss from excessive noise
was an occupational hazard for railway workers, but failed to
acknowledge the issue.  The suit charges that Burlington Northern did
not address the hearing-loss issue for fear of prompting employee
claims. Later, when Burlington Northern became concerned that it faced
hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure because of hearing- loss
claims, it coordinated the scheme as a way to reduce liability, the
lawsuit claims.

In the claims against BZQ, the court certified the class action for
those plaintiffs who live in Washington state.  The court has not
certified the case as a class action against BZQ in Oregon and Montana.

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman by Phone:
1-206-623-7292, Sim Osborn of Osborn & Smith by Phone: 1-206-441-4110
or contact Mark Firmani of Media by Phone: 1-206-443-9357 or by E-mail:
http://www.hagens-berman.com


CARDBOARD COMPANIES: Court Allows Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed To Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court allowed an antitrust class action filed
against several cardboard companies to proceed to trial, by rejecting a
petition by the defendants to review the certification for the suit,
the Associated Press reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation,

     (2) Temple Inland Inc.'s Gaylord Container Corporation unit,

     (3) Georgia Pacific Corporation,

     (4) International Paper Co.,

     (5) Packaging Corporation of America and

     (6) other companies

Several suits were commenced in 1998, alleging that the large paper
companies conspired to cut the output of linerboard, used as a backing
on cardboard, to artificially drive up the prices for cardboard
sheeting and boxes.  A number of smaller companies that purchase both
cardboard boxes and cardboard sheeting, including Garrett Paper Inc.
and General Refractories Co., filed the suits, which were later
consolidated in the United States District Court in Pennsylvania.  The
court granted certification and the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the certification.

Former independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who is most famous for
investigating former President Bill Clinton for perjury, represented
the paper companies' appeal to the Supreme Court to block the antitrust
suit, arguing the purchasing companies don't meet the requirements for
a class action, AP reports.  Mr. Starr argued that the purchasers
couldn't prove they were all wronged in the same way.  A statute of
limitations challenge was also raised.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Named As Defendant in Travel Agents Lawsuit in NC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Airlines, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of US travel agents, challenging
the reduction and ultimate elimination of travel agent base commissions
by certain air carriers, including the Company and other domestic and
international air carriers.

The amended complaint alleges an unlawful agreement among the airline
defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate commissions in violation of
federal antitrust laws during the years 1997 to 2002.  The plaintiffs
seek compensatory and treble damages, injunctive relief and their
attorneys' fees.  The class was certified on September 18, 2002.  
Discovery has been completed and the trial of this lawsuit is currently
scheduled to begin on September 2, 2003.  

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and are
vigorously defending this lawsuit.  A final adverse court decision
awarding substantial money damages, however, would have a material
adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and
liquidity.


DYNACRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls BMX Bicycles For Injury, Accident Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacraft Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 52,900 BMX bicycles.  The stems on these bicycles can loosen
during use, causing riders to lose control and fall.  The Company has
received 35 reports of stems loosening on these bicycles, resulting in
one report of an injury (a broken finger).
        
The recall includes two models of 20-inch BMX bicycles.  The Next
Voltage-model bicycles are metallic green, have model number 8535-99
and were manufactured between March 2002 and June 2002.  The Vertical
Street Blade-model bicycles are dark blue and chrome colored, have
model number 8527-99 and were manufactured between March 2002 and April
2002.  The model name is written on the bicycle frame, and a label on
the frame near the crank housing shows the model number and manufacture
date.
        
Wal-Mart stores sold the Next Voltage-model bicycles nationwide,
including Puerto Rico, from May 2002 through November 2002 for about
$70.  Pamida stores sold the Vertical Street Blade-model bicycles
nationwide from April 2002 through April 2003 for about $80.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 288-1560
between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.dynacraftbike.com


FIRST UNION: Court Hears Appeal on Injunction of Gotham Partners Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments'
appeal of a lower court's injunction against their planned merger with
Gotham Golf Partners LP.

In April 2002, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the
Supreme Court of New York in New York County on behalf of a purported
holder of its convertible preferred shares.  Among the allegations made
by the plaintiff is that the proposed transaction with Gotham Golf was
approved by First Union's Board of Trustees in violation of duties owed
to the holders of First Union's convertible preferred shares.  The suit
seeks, among other things, unspecified damages, an injunction of the
proposed transaction and the court's certification of the lawsuit as a
class action.  Named as defendants in the lawsuit were the Company, its
five then trustees and Gotham Partners.

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  An oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held in July
2002.  Discovery on the case was stayed pending the ruling of the court
on the motion to dismiss.

On November 1, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
a special shareholders meeting was to be held November 25, 2002, for
the purpose of shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement.  Shortly
thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to show cause why a
preliminary injunction should not be issued to enjoin the November 25,
2002 shareholder vote to consider the Merger Agreement.  A hearing on
the motion was held on November 20, 2002.  On November 21, the New York
Supreme Court of New York County issued an order granting motions for
preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, denying defendant's
motion to dismiss, and scheduling a hearing for November 26 to
determine whether to grant further relief to plaintiff with respect to
the transactions contemplated under the Merger Agreement.

The special meeting of shareholders was convened as scheduled on
November 25, with the vote on the proposed merger transaction tabled
and the meeting adjourned until November 27, at which time the vote was
held and First Union's common shareholders approved the proposed
transaction by the requisite majority vote.

The New York Supreme Court of New York County held a three-day hearing
on November 26, 27 and December 3, 2002.  On December 6, 2002, the
court issued an order reaffirming its preliminary injunction barring
the proposed merger of First Union with and into Gotham Golf.  The
court's order also extended indefinitely the preliminary injunction
previously granted with respect to the proposed merger transaction and
directed the parties to the lawsuit to attend a preliminary conference
for the purpose of scheduling discovery.

The Company filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction with
the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.  In addition, the
Company filed an auxiliary motion for expedited appeal regarding this
matter with the Appellate Division, which motion was denied.  The
Company, Gotham Partners and the other defendants in the litigation
filed joint appellate briefs in support of the reversal of the
injunction.  Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of the
injunction.  

Oral argument with respect to the appeal was held before a judicial
panel of the Appellate Division - First Department of the New York
Supreme Court on March 11, 2003.  There is no specific timetable for
the appellate court to render its decision.

It is not possible to predict the outcome of the appellate process with
respect to lifting the injunction.  In the event that the Appellate
Division rules that the injunction should not be lifted, the case will
proceed to trial on the merits.  In the event that the injunction
imposed by the trial court were lifted and dissolved, it is the
intention of First Union and, to the best of its knowledge, Gotham
Partners and the other Gotham Partners-affiliated parties to the
proposed merger transaction, to take the steps necessary to consummate
the proposed transaction.  


FIRST UNION: Shareholders Commence Suit V. Gotham Partners Merger in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments was served with
a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on
behalf of a purported holder of its common shares, on behalf of himself
and the common shareholders as a class.  

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lawsuit is maintainable as a
class action and a certification that the plaintiff, Robert Fink, is
the representative of the class. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are
the Company, Gotham Partners, the companies affiliated with Gotham
Partners and First Union that are parties to the Merger Agreement,
William Ackman and the four current Trustees of First Union.

Among the allegations asserted are breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting thereof in connection with the transactions contemplated
by the merger agreement between Gotham Partners and the Company.  The
relief requested by the plaintiff includes an injunction preventing the
defendants from proceeding with consummation of the merger, rescission
of the merger if it occurs, an accounting for any profits realized by
the defendants as a result of the actions complained of, an order
permitting the creation of a shareholders' committee composed of
Company common shareholders and their representatives to manage the
affairs of First Union, compensatory damages and the costs and
disbursements of plaintiff's counsel.

On February 14, 2003, the parties to this lawsuit stipulated that the
defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint for an
indefinite period of time.  The stipulation is revocable by the
plaintiff at any time.  The Company believes that the purpose of the
stipulation was to delay court proceedings in this lawsuit until the
outcome of the appeal of the injunction entered in a prior lawsuit is
decided by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court.

The Company regards the lawsuit as without merit and plans to
vigorously defend against the allegations.  The Company will oppose any
attempt by the plaintiff to interfere with the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement, which was approved by more than
64% of the outstanding First Union common shares of First Union and by
approximately 98% of the common shares voted at a special meeting of
shareholders held on November 27, 2002.


FIRST UNION: OH Shareholders Commence Suit Over Gotham Partners Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First Union Real Estate and Mortgage Investments and certain of its
trustees face a class action originally filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on behalf of the Company's common
shareholders.  The suit also names as defendant, Gotham Partners LP.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lawsuit is maintainable as a
class action and certification that the plaintiff, K-A & Company, Ltd.,
is the representative of the class.  Among the allegations asserted are
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting thereof in connection
with the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
Company and Gotham Partners.  This lawsuit was removed by notice filed
by defendants to the United States District Court, Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division.

The relief requested by the plaintiff includes an injunction preventing
the defendants from proceeding with consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger if it occurs, an accounting for any profits
realized by the defendants as a result of the actions complained of, an
order permitting the creation of a shareholders' committee composed of
the Company's common shareholders and their representatives to manage
the affairs of the Company, compensatory damages and the costs and
disbursements of plaintiff's counsel.

The Company regards the lawsuit as without merit.


HIGH SPEED: DE Court Grants Approval To Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement of the class
action filed against High Speed Access Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board:
HSAC) at a hearing on April 16, 2003.  No objections to the settlement
were filed, and any appeals must be filed by May 16, 2003.

The suit names as defendants the Company, its then directors, certain
former directors, Charter Communications, Inc. and Paul Allen.  The
suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants and
Charter.  The suit specifically alleges that, among other things, the
cash purchase price initially proposed by Charter, $73.0 million, was
grossly inadequate and that "(t)he purpose of the proposed acquisition
is to enable Charter and Allen to acquire (the Company's) valuable
assets for their own benefit at the expense of (the Company's) public
stockholders."  The suit also alleges that the $81.1 million purchase
price under the Asset Purchase Agreement was "grossly inadequate," and
that Charter and Mr. Allen acted in a manner calculated to benefit
themselves at the expense of the Company's public shareholders, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

As previously announced, the Company intends to make an initial cash
distribution of $1.40 per share to its stockholders in late May 2003,
but will not make any liquidation distributions until the court's
approval of the settlement (including any appeals) is final in all
respects. The Company will announce the record date for the
determination of stockholders entitled to the initial May 2003
liquidating distribution at a later date.


MINNEAPOLIS: Community Group Launches Federal Lawsuit Over Police Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Minneapolis community group, known as Communities United Against
Police Brutality, filed a class action over alleged abuses by police
officers.  Coinciding with the filing of the federal lawsuit is the
formal withdrawal of a Hennipen County District Court lawsuit, filed
earlier this year, which had sought the start of mediation with the
city and police officials, the St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) reports.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Daryl Robinson, an African-
American man, who claims he was assaulted by a Minneapolis police
officer on September 11, 2001.  The lawsuit claims the assault was
racially motivated and unprovoked by the plaintiff.  According to the
lawsuit, city officials, including the police department's internal
affairs division, took no action on Mr. Robinson's complaints.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of anyone who has an
allegation of illegal treatment by the Minneapolis police.  The suit
also asks the court to order appropriate training, supervision and
monitoring programs relating to police conduct -- all measures that the
community group had wanted to gain through mediation.

"We are moving into an arena that the city cannot control," said
Michelle Gross, a member of the community negotiating team and a leader
of Communities United.  In November, the Minneapolis City Council voted
to instruct police officials to mediate with the community group.  
However, talks were halted by disagreements over who would represent
the group in discussions.

At a news conference, Ms. Gross said she became convinced that the city
and police officials would never consent to mediation unless they could
control the makeup of the opposing side.


NORDSTROM INC.: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit Set July 2003 in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Status conference for a consolidated consumer antitrust class action
filed against Nordstrom, Inc. and other department store and specialty
retailers has been set for July 2003 in the California Superior Court
in Marin County.

The suit alleges that the retail price of the "prestige" cosmetics sold
in department and specialty stores was collusively controlled by the
retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act
and the California Unfair Competition Act.  Plaintiffs seek treble
damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and
prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents
who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the period four years prior to the filing of the
amended complaint.

Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended complaint
denying the allegations.  The defendants have produced documents and
responded to plaintiffs' other discovery requests, including providing
witnesses for depositions.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved for class
certification.  Pursuant to an order of the court, plaintiffs and
defendants have participated in mediation sessions.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in SD Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation and certain of its present and former officers
and directors face a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of South Dakota, Southern Division on
behalf of its shareholders.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, and attorneys fees and costs as well as accountants and
experts fees based on allegations that the defendants misrepresented
the Company's business operations and financial performance and
overstated its revenue and earnings by, among other things:

     (1) maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivables at
         Expanets,

     (2) failing to disclose billing problems and lapses and data
         conversion problems, and

     (3) failing to make full disclosures of problems (including the
         billing and data conversion issues) arising from the
         implementation of Expanets' EXPERT system

The lawsuit was recently filed and has not yet been served.  The
Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of this
litigation, which could be material, and the initiation of this lawsuit
may harm its business and financial condition.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders File Suits For Securities Violations in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PEC Solutions, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 22,2003
and March 14,2003.

The suits uniformly charge the Company and certain of its officers with
making or being aware of false and misleading statements which had the
effect of inflating the market price of our stock, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.


SOUTH KOREA: Accounting Fraud Excluded As Basis For Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A ranking South Korean official said lawmakers from both the opposition
and ruling parties are in the process of putting fraudulent accounting
practices as grounds for filing a class action on hold for one or two
years, Asia Pulse reports.  The proposed class action bill is being
deliberated in Parliament, but, in its final stage, will probably
exclude "bad bookkeeping" as a cause for starting a class action
because many Korean companies need time to get their bookkeeping in
order.

"The reliability and accuracy of accounting in the past was probably
not up to par, and if a law is passed for such violations right now,
there will be considerable confusion in the corporate and financial
sectors," said the ranking official.

The official added this did not mean the government was turning a blind
eye to this cause of action indefinitely, but was giving businesses a
chance to make adjustments and correct past practices.  The opposition
Grand National Party (GNP), which possesses a clear majority in the
273-seat National Assembly, said last week it will approve the bill if
strict preconditions are met beforehand.

These include:

     (1) Giving financial regulators a say in deciding whether or not
         class actions can be conducted;

     (2) Making it mandatory for those instigating a lawsuit to place a
         deposit with authorities which will be forfeited if they are
         proven wrong in court;

     (3) Guidelines should be in place on the amount of damages that
         can be filed for against companies.


THOMSON INC.: Recalls Home Entertainment Amplifiers Due To Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 50,000 home
entertainment amplifiers.  The amplifier can overheat due to a lack of
ventilation, which can cause melting of the plastic front cover and
pose a shock hazard to consumers.  The Company has received 12 reports
of the amplifiers overheating, some of which resulted in melting of the
plastic front cover or faceplate.  No injuries have been reported.
        
The recalled RCA(r) 650-Watt Home Entertainment amplifiers include
model numbers RT2600, RT2600DVD and RT2600DVD5 and serial numbers
beginning with 220 through 230.  The model and serial numbers can be
found on a label on the back of the unit in the lower left corner.  The
recalled units may also have an "A" as the last character in the model
number.  The amplifier units are silver and are about 17 inches wide,
16 inches deep, and 5 inches high.  The amplifiers were manufactured in
China.
        
Radio Shack, Best Buy, and other retailers sold the amplifiers from May
2002 through March 2003 for between $300 and $380.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 613-0897 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.rca.com/recall.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Asks Court To Block $3B in IL Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA asked Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois
to permanently block US$3 billion in punitive damages assigned to the
state of Illinois, in the $10.1 billion light cigarette suit award,
saying the state relinquished further claims against it when it joined
45 other states in a settlement with tobacco firms in 1998, Reuters
states.

The petition was the latest in Philip Morris' efforts to reduce the
landmark damage award, which was handed by Madison County judge
Nicholas Byron in a class action charging the tobacco giant with
misleading smokers that "light" cigarettes are less harmful than
regular brands.  The verdict sparked fears that the Company would have
to resort to bankruptcy and default on its payments for a 1998
settlement with several states.

Last week, Judge Byron ordered Philip Morris to pay only half of the
appeal bond amidst these concerns, and amidst a petition filed by 33
states signed a friend-of-the-court brief asking Judge Byron to reduce
the bond, as the non-payment would affect their respective state
budgets.  Several states had threatened to sue the company if it missed
this week's payment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge James Henry initially issued a 10-day
temporary restraining order that blocked Illinois from obtaining the
punitive damages award, saying the state had released any claims
against tobacco companies in the 1998 settlement agreement, Reuters
reports.  Judge Henry ended the temporary restraining order on Friday,
which expired and had become moot after Madison County Judge Nicholas
Byron on Monday sliced the $12 billion appeal bond in half.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (Nasdaq: TKTX) faces a purported
shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
Middlesex County in Cambridge, Massachusetts, along with its Board of
Directors.

Many of the allegations underlying the claims made in this lawsuit
appear to be somewhat similar to the allegations asserted in a
previously described purported class action lawsuit against the
company.  The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company, and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of the company and injunctive relief.

The Board of Directors intends to contest the suit vigorously, and the
Company believes that the directors have highly meritorious defenses to
the allegations set forth in the complaint.


WHITE WAVE: Recalls 250T Cases of Soy Milk For Chemical Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
White Wave, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 250,000 cases of Vanilla Silk
brand soy milk for contamination with a caustic, sodium hydroxide-based
material used to clean and sanitize manufacturing equipment, the
Associated Press reports.  

The half-gallon containers were packaged in several plants and sold
throughout the United States.  The codes "Jun 17 03" or "Jun 18 03" and
"H CD-70" or "J CD-70" are stamped at the top of each recalled
container.  The first set of numbers is the expiration date, while the
second set is a company code.

Two people were treated for drinking the soy milk but neither case was
serious, company spokesman David Marguiles said Thursday, according to
an AP report.  The chemical affects the taste and smell of the soy milk
so much customers are not likely to drink it, he said. People who do
drink it will probably experience a burning sensation or nausea.

The Company has ordered the soy milk removed from store shelves and are
paying consumers who bought the product a full refund.  It also
recommended that those who experience nausea or other symptoms to
contact their health care providers.

No other Vanilla Silk, Silk or White Wave products are involved in the
recall.  For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-488-9283 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whitewave.com.


                    Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


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

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

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

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

May 3, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Coast Anaheim Hotel, Anaheim
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

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

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

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

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

May 15-16, 2003
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
TriBeCa Grand Hotel, New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com   

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

May 20, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

June 7, 2003
USING MEDITATION TO RESOLVE MOLD CLAIMS - AN ATTORNEYS GUIDE
BridgeportCE
Omni Los Angeles Hotel
Contact: 1-818-505-1490; www.reconferences.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 31-August 1, 2003  
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

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

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

September 8-9, 2003
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

November 17, 2003
Water Contamination Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Accredo Health, Inc. (Nasdaq:ACDO) between June 16, 2002 and April
7, 2003, inclusive.

It has been alleged that the Company, David D. Stevens, its Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Joel R. Kimbrough, its
Chief Financial Officer, violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of Accredo's securities.

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

     (1) that Accredo was failing to timely record an impairment in the
         value of certain receivables that it recently acquired,
         resulting in the Company reporting artificially inflated
         financial results throughout the class period;

     (2) that Accredo's published financial statements during the Class
         Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially false and
         misleading; and

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

Based on the above, the earnings guidance and positive statements
concerning Accredo were lacking in a reasonable basis and were
therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 8, 2003, before the market opened, Accredo announced that it
was reducing its previously issued earnings guidance and that it was
examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables it recently
acquired.  In response to this announcement, the price of Accredo
common stock plunged over 43% in one day to close at $14.29, after
having closed at $25.40 the previous day.

Allegedly, during the class period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12
million worth of their Accredo stock while in possession of the facts
about the Company.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 or
by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit 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). The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock 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.  


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Zimmerman Reed Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP initiated a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of ADC Telecommunications,
Inc. (Nasdaq:ADCT) from November 2, 2000 through March 28, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that ADC and certain of its officers issued
materially false statements and omitted material facts concerning ADC's
earnings and financial condition.  Specifically, defendants represented
that ADC would continue to achieve significant growth and that ADC,
unlike its competitors and customers, would remain largely unaffected
by a widespread downturn in the telecommunications industry which
occurred in 2000.

ADC is a Minnesota-based company that offers value-added solutions of
network equipment, software and systems integration services.  The
shareholder alleges that defendants, despite contrary public
statements, knew the Company was not immune from the telecommunications
downturn in that sales in the first quarter of 2001 (November,
December, January) were declining rapidly, inventory was rising,
competitors were experiencing a downturn, consumers were deferring
purchases and the Company's investments in small technology companies
was rapidly deteriorating.

Further, as a result of the downturn, the Company made plans to embark
on cost-cutting activities which ultimately resulted in significant
layoffs.  However, despite those plans, it was not until March 28,
2001, that defendants substantially lowered fiscal 2001 earnings
guidance, cut as many as 4,000 jobs and closed some facilities.

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to $8.21 per share, a
decline of over 60% from the class period high.

For more details, contact Robert C. Moilanen or Carolyn Anderson by
Phone: 800-755-0098 or 612-341-0400 or by E-mail: RCM@zimmreed.com.  


ASTROPOWER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in DE Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
AstroPower, Inc. (Nasdaq: APWR) between February 22, 2002 and August 1,
2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain officers of the
Company.

During the class period, the Company asserted that it would be able to
benefit from the rising demand for solar power products and described
its revenue and earnings growth as strong.  The complaint alleges that
the Company could not effectively control its expanding and
progressively complex operations through, among other things, its
inability to allot resources amongst its various manufacturing
facilities to successfully meet regional demand or to adapt its
production capacity to actual demand.  

Therefore, at the same time that AstroPower was reporting its excellent
position to take advantage of the rising demand for solar products, it
was actually competing less effective than its rivals.  Furthermore, to
continue the impression that its operations were successful, the
Company reported artificially inflated revenue and earnings by, among
other things, recording revenue before shipping products, contrary to
its stated principles of revenue recognition.

On August 1, 2002, after the close of trading, AstroPower announced its
results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002.  Reported revenue
and net income had not increased.  Second quarter income was $365,000,
or $0.02 per diluted share in comparison with $1.7 million, or $0.07
per diluted share in the year-earlier second quarter and revenue of
$20.4 million represented only a one percent increase over reported
revenue for the prior quarter and was roughly $4.9 million lower than
analysts' consensus estimate.

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Lantronix, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:LTRX) between August 30, 2000 and
September 11, 2002, both dates inclusive.  Credit Suisse First Boston,
Frank Quattrone and Kevin A. McCarthy are named as defendants in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Lantronix
         securities without any rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining
         these recommendations to obtain investment banking business;
         and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent and objective
         analysis.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Lantronix
securities was artificially inflated throughout the class period
causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com.  


CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Atmel Corporation securities (Nasdaq:ATML) between July 22, 1999 and
August 6, 2001, both dates inclusive.  Credit Suisse First Boston,
Frank Quattrone and Tim Mahon are named as defendants in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint
alleges that defendants:

     (1) issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Atmel
         securities without any rational economic basis;

     (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining
         these recommendations to obtain investment banking business;
         and

     (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that
         prevented them from providing independent and objective
         analysis.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Atmel
securities was artificially inflated throughout the class period
causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com.  


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in OR Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Electro
Scientific Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:ESIO) between September 17, 2002
and March 20, 2003, inclusive.

It has been alleged that the Company, David Bolender, James T. Dooley
and Joseph Reinhart violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the market,
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
ESIO's securities.  The complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

As a result of the foregoing, the ESIO financial statements published
during the class period did not contain "all adjustments ... necessary
for a fair presentation" of its financial position.

On March 20, 2003, after the close of the market, ESIO issued a press
release, announcing that it would be restating its financial statements
for the first and second fiscal quarters.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Electro Scientific common stock fell from
$15.17 per share to $12.51 per share, a one-day decline of over 17%.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


FLEMING COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE:FLM) securities in
connection with Fleming's June 17, 2002 public offering.

The complaint charges Fleming's officers, directors and its
underwriters and auditors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.  Fleming was the largest US distributor of consumer package goods
in the wholesale grocery industry, where it operated a network of
"multi-tier" distribution centers throughout the United States and
western Canada.

The complaint alleges that in connection with the Offering, Fleming
issued 9.2 million shares of common stock at $19.40 per share and $200
million in Notes.  The Fleming Securities were sold pursuant to a
Registration Statement and Prospectus, as amended, which contained
false and misleading statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made therein
not misleading.

The Registration Statement materially misstated the Company's financial
results of operation by, among other things, including financial
statements that misrepresented and/or omitted the true facts,
including:

     (1) That Fleming was taking unauthorized deductions on invoices
         received from vendors which reduced recognition of expenses
         associated with the cost of goods sold and understated
         accounts payable;

     (2) That Fleming had lengthened the amortization period for long-
         term assets by increasing the capitalization rate for interest
         costs and by lowering the allowance for credit losses, in
         violation of GAAP.

The Registration Statement also represented that Fleming's retail
operations were profitable at a time when the Company was, in fact,
losing money on its retail business and was in the process of divesting
itself of those operations.  As a result of these misrepresentations,
the Fleming Securities were inflated in connection with the Offering,
and plaintiff and other persons who purchased the Fleming Securities in
the Offering paid inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

On July 30, 2002, less than two months after defendants sold more than
$378 million worth of the Fleming Securities to the public, Fleming
issued a release announcing that, contrary to the prior positive
statements contained in the Registration Statement, defendants were in
fact evaluating strategic alternatives for dealing with the Company's
money-losing retail operations.  Recently, Fleming filed for protection
under the Bankruptcy Code.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com/cases/flemingcompanies/.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in AL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired HealthSouth
Corporation securities (OTC: HLSH) between February 25, 1998 to March
19, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous false and
misleading financial statements that revenues and profits were
increasing while in fact the Company was in financial distress.  The
complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts that:

     (1) after HealthSouth's initial public offering in 1986, the
         Company began to artificially inflate its earnings to match
         Wall Street analysts' expectations and maintain the market
         price of HealthSouth's common stock and

     (2) between 1999 and the second quarter of 2002, the Company
         intentionally overstated its earnings by at least $1.4
         billion.

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


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

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

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

     (2) that since at least fiscal 1999 in violation of GAAP the
         Company had materially overstated the Company's revenues,
         earnings, assets and equity by at least $1.4 billion in
         furtherance of its scheme to report revenues that met or
         exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations and to
         artificially inflate the price of HRC's stock analysts; and
     (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's periodic net
         income, assets and shareholders' equity were materially
         misstated at all relevant times.

The class period ends on March 19, 2003, the day following the SEC's
filing of a civil fraud action against HRC and Mr. Scrushy alleging
that "... shortly after 1986, and at Scrushy's instruction, the company
began to artificially inflate earnings to match Wall Street
expectations and maintain the market price for HRC's stock."

On March 19, 2003, prior to the market's opening, HRC issued a press
release announcing that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
served a search warrant at the company's corporate headquarters.

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

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


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Much Shelist Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
i2 Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:ITWOE) (formerly ITWO) between April 18,
2000 and January 24, 2003, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants 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 defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of i2's securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
in press releases and in filings with the SEC, i2 reported increasing
revenues and "record" financial results.  These statements were each
materially false and misleading when made because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among
others:

     (i) that the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer contracts
         and

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

As a result of the foregoing, i2's financial statements issued during
the Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On January 27, 2003, before the opening of trading, i2 shocked the
market when it announced that it would re-audit its financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 because of
"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."

The Company further reported that it had notified the SEC of these
allegations, and that the SEC staff has begun an informal inquiry into
these matters.  The Company also advised investors that they should not
rely on the financial information contained in its annual reports on
Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 or in its
quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2000
through September 30, 2002.

Common shares of i2 plunged from a close of $1.26 on January 24, 2003
to a close of $0.92 on January 27, 2003, the next trading day,
resulting in a single-day decline of more than 26%, on very heavy
trading volume.  Reportedly, on or about April 7, 2003, the Nasdaq
stock market furnished i2 with a notice of intent to delist its common
stock, stating that the Company's inability to timely file its annual
report on Form 10-K violates its rules.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Texas on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired i2
Technologies, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:ITWO) during the period from
April 18, 2000 through January 24, 2003, both dates inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants 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 alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results during the class
period.  In particular, defendants ignored warnings from former
executive officers of i2 that the Company was improperly recognizing
revenue from several customer contracts.  Defendants nevertheless
continued to report "record" financial results throughout the class
period in press releases and filings with the SEC.

Moreover, during the class period, i2 completed several multi-billion
acquisitions using its common stock as currency, and the officers of i2
named as defendants in the complaint, along with other i2 insiders,
sold to the unsuspecting public hundreds of thousands of shares of i2
stock at artificially inflated prices for tens of millions of dollars
in proceeds.  Before the market opened on January 27, 2003, more than a
year after defendants had been notified of i2's improper revenue
recognition, i2 disclosed that it would re-audit its financial
statements for 2000 and 2001, and informed investors that they should
not rely on previously issued financial statements pending the re-
audit. Following this disclosure, i2 stock fell more than 26%.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of i2 securities was artificially inflated
throughout the class period, causing plaintiff and the other members of
the class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com.  


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG) between April 26, 1999 through
March 10, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in
press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
including the Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with
the Company's acquisition of Jones Pharma, Inc. during the class
period.

Specifically, the complaint 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.  The complaint further alleges that the Company
failed to disclose:

     (1) that certain of its rebate and pricing practices subjected it
         to heightened governmental scrutiny;

     (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 announced unexpectedly that it
was the subject of an SEC investigation for its pricing and rebate
practices.  As a result of this announcement, the price of King
Pharmaceuticals common stock declined to $12.17 per share from $15.90
per share.

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


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased securities of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:KG) between
April 26, 1999 and March 11, 2003.  The class included shareholders who
exchanged Jones Pharma, Inc. shares for King shares in connection with
the August 2000 merger.

Defendants are charged with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The complaint names as
defendants:

     (1) Jefferson Gregory,

     (2) Joseph Gregory and

     (3) James Lattanzi

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


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern
Division, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased
securities of NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NOR) between August 2,
2000 and December 13, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges NorthWestern and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning
NorthWestern's business operations and financial performance caused
NorthWestern's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors.  NorthWestern provides value-added energy and
communications services, including air conditioning, heating,
ventilation, plumbing and related services to residential and business
customers nationwide.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
misrepresented the Company's revenue and earnings by maintaining
insufficient reserves for accounts receivables at the Company's
communications subsidiary Expanets, and by failing to make full
disclosures of problems with the implementation of a new "information
technology system infrastructure."  NorthWestern's problems were
revealed on December 13, 2002, when the Company issued a press release
disclosing that NorthWestern would dramatically miss its earnings
estimates for 2002.  

The press release blamed the earnings shortfall on "the need to
significantly increase reserves for accounts receivable" and "billing
adjustments" at the Company's communications subsidiary, Expanets.  
Moreover, the Company press release revealed that defendants estimated
the NorthWestern would need to increase its reserves "by at least $50
million" and that financial results for 2002 could not be reported
until a year-end audit was completed.

On the same day as these disclosures, NorthWestern's stock plummeted
37% from the previous day's close, on higher than normal trading
volume.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone:
(310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in SD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of purchasers
of NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE:NOR) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 7, 2002 and March 31, 2003.

The complaint charges NorthWestern and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the class period, defendants issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning the financial and
operational condition of the Company.  In fact, throughout the class
period, while many of the Company's competitors were announcing revised
guidance, NorthWestern consistently stated that the Company's
proprietary business model was allowing NorthWestern to continue to
achieve "improved performance" and earnings of between $2.30 to $2.55
per share by the end of 2002.  Both prior to and throughout the class
period, management of the Company consistently represented that its
subsidiaries, including Expanets and Blue Dot, were achieving and would
continue to achieve these results.

In fact, however, investors would ultimately learn at the close of the
class period, which defendants had managed to conceal throughout the
class period, that:

     (1) The Company's non-utility subsidiaries were not performing
         according to plan, with at least 20% of Blue Dot's locations
         performing so poorly that they would be sold or closed within
         the foreseeable future, and with Expanets running its reserves
         about $66 million short of its rapidly escalating
         delinquencies;

     (2) defendants had artificially inflated the Company's balance
         sheet as well as its reported earnings and EPS figures, by
         failing to write down the impairment of, and take necessary
         reserves for, its failing Blue Dot and Expanets businesses,
         which impairments and reserve adjustments ultimately resulted
         in a massive $880 million charge;

     (3) through a complicated scheme of questionable accounting and
         subsidiaries owned partially by senior management, losses at
         both Blue Dot and Expanets were subverted and reallocated to
         owners of minority interests or shareholders in the Company's
         subsidiary, which allowed the Company to keep these losses off
         its balance sheet, and to artificially inflate earnings and
         income and mask the poor performance of NorthWestern
         throughout the class period; and

     (4) defendants had materially misstated the conditions of both
         Blue Dot and Expanets, which were not poised for nor
         experiencing "long-term growth" nor "value creation," but were
         rather in poor financial and operational condition, with at
         least 20% of Blue Dot's locations terminal and with an unknown
         amount of other locations also in poor condition, and with
         almost $302 million in charges and reserves required to be
         taken by Expanets, in addition to an approximate $289 million
         charge required for Blue Dot.

As a result of the foregoing, at no time during the Class Period did
defendants have a good faith basis to project earnings anywhere near
$2.55 per share for fiscal year 2002.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Redback Networks, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:RBAK) between June 14, 1999
through March 8, 2000, both dates inclusive.  Robertson Stephens, Inc.
and Paul Johnson are named as defendants in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that defendants Robertson Stephens and its analyst
Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading statements, analyst
reports, and "Buy" recommendations on Redback.  For example, defendants
praised Redback's acquisition of Siara Systems, Inc. (Siara) while
failing to disclose that Mr. Johnson owned Siara stock and that he
stood to reap approximately $4.8 million from the acquisition.

Moreover, the complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' biased
analyst reports and ratings on Redback, and their failure to disclose
Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, the price of Redback securities
were artificially inflated during the Class Period, thereby causing
plaintiff and members of the Class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: Rabin,
Murray & Frank LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com.   


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sycamore Networks, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:SCMR) between January 10,
2000 through September 7, 2000, both dates inclusive. Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Paul Johnson are named as defendants in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that defendants Robertson Stephens and its analyst
Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading statements, analyst
reports, and "Buy" recommendations on Sycamore.

For example, Defendants praised Sycamore's acquisition of Sirocco
Networks, Inc. (Sirocco) while failing to disclose that Mr. Johnson
owned Sirroco stock and that he stood to reap approximately $1.9
million from the acquisition.  Moreover, the complaint alleges that as
a result of defendants' biased analyst reports and ratings on Sycamore,
and their failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, the
price of Sycamore securities were artificially inflated during the
Class Period, thereby causing plaintiff and members of the Class to
suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
Skechers USA, Inc. (NYSE: SKX) between April 3, 2002 and December 9,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Skechers and certain of its executive officers
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning
Skechers' revenue and earnings caused Skechers' stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The complaint alleges that, starting in 2002, Skechers began assuming
the role of distributor of its products in several international
markets including Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Benelux region and
Austria.  Unencumbered by a third-party distributor, Sketchers was able
to increase its profit margin on sales without moving any additional
inventory.  Although temporarily enjoying increased profits, Skechers'
overall merchandise sales ultimately began to slow and the Company was
forced to significantly reduce earnings accordingly.

The market, unprepared for the temporary effect Skechers' distributor
role would have on its earnings, was stunned when the Company, after
having posted record revenue in first- and second-quarter 2002, began
revising its earnings and ultimately recorded a loss.  Moreover, while
Skechers stock was soaring as a result of the market's favorable
reaction to the increased profits, individual defendants who knew the
truth about the Company's long-term outlook sold substantial personal
holdings in the Company and reaped more than $42 million of profits
from stock sales during the class period.

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


SUPERGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Super Gen, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SUPG) from April 18, 2000 through March 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that:

     (1) the efficacy of MitoExtra(tm) was exaggerated;

     (2) the drug had significant risks associated with its use;

     (3) that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved
         generics or supergenerics;"

     (4) that the Company submitted no data to support its claim that
         MitoExtra(tm) is superior to existing cancer drugs; and

     (5) that the name "MitoExtra(tm)" was rejected by the FDA

Such materially false and misleading statements caused the Company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period
and caused damages to the class members.

On March 14, 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced
a warning to the public concerning SuperGen's cancer drug, Mitozytrex.  
At the heart of the FDA's warning was that SuperGen marketed Mitozytrex
to the public with exaggerations about the efficacy of Mitozytrex and
without advising the public of the significant risks associated with
the use of the drug.  The FDA also took issue with SuperGen's
characterization that its "Extra" technology platform did not create
"improved generics or supergenerics," as previously claimed by the
Company. Market reaction to these revelations was swift.

Immediately following the announcement, shares of the Company fell from
$3.09 to a class period low of $2.55 with an unusually high trading
volume of 1,712,400 shares.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
(888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


SUPERGEN INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SuperGen Inc. (Nasdaq: SUPG)
common stock during the period between April 18, 2000 and March 13,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that:

     (1) the efficacy of MitoExtraT was exaggerated;

     (2) the drug had significant risks associated with its use;

     (3) that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved
         generics or supergenerics;"

     (4) that the Company submitted no data to support its claim that
         MitoExtraT is superior to existing cancer drugs; and

     (5) that the name "MitoExtraT" was rejected by the US Food and
         Drug Administration (FDA)

Such materially false and misleading statements caused the Company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period
and caused damages to the class members.

On March 14, 2003, the FDA announced a warning to the public concerning
SuperGen's cancer drug, Mitozytrex.  At the heart of the FDA's warning
was that SuperGen marketed Mitozytrex to the public with exaggerations
about the efficacy of Mitozytrex and without advising the public of the
significant risks associated with the use of the drug.  The FDA also
took issue with SuperGen's characterization that its "Extra" technology
platform did not create "improved generics or supergenerics," as
previously claimed by the Company.  Market reaction to these
revelations was swift.

Immediately following the announcement, shares of the Company fell from
$3.09 to a class period low of $2.55 with an unusually high trading
volume of 1,712,400 shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld 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


VITALWORKS INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of VitalWorks, Inc. (Nasdaq: VWKS) from April 24, 2002
through October 23, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that VitalWorks, a provider of information
management technology and services targeted to healthcare practices and
organizations, as well as certain of its officers and directors, issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
increasing revenues and future prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that VitalWorks was
experiencing a marked increase in customer attrition, and that demand
for VitalWorks' products and services had materially declined.  

These misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of VitalWorks
stock to be artificially inflated throughout the class period, and
enabled officers and directors of VitalWorks to sell approximately $6.8
million worth of VitalWorks stock at artificially inflated prices.  On
October 23, 2002, VitalWorks announced that it had failed to achieve
pre-announced third quarter 2002 revenues and was lowering revenue
guidance for the remainder of fiscal year 2002.  

Additionally, VitalWorks reported that it had lowered fiscal year 2003
revenue guidance by over 10%.  On October 24, 2002, the first day of
trading after VitalWorks' announcements, the price of VitalWorks common
stock dropped over 56% in value to close at $3.13 per share.  The
complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class Members.

For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by Phone:
866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com
or jshah@classactioncounsel.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classactioncounsel.com.


VITALWORKS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired VitalWorks, Inc.
securities (NASDAQ: VWKS) between April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002.  
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, VitalWorks
repeatedly touted the alleged strong demand for its products and
services, and represented that recent regulations affecting healthcare
providers, along with a lucrative co-marketing agreement with an
imaging company, would provide it with material recurring revenues.

These representations were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing declining demand
for the Company's products and services in general and that the
regulations-related and imaging revenues would not be significant in
the near term.  On October 23, 2002, after the close of trading, the
Company announced that its 2002 and 2003 results would be materially
less than its previous guidance due to poor regulatory-related revenues
and a longer buying cycle caused by customer order postponements.  

In reaction to this announcement, VitalWorks' stock price plummeted by
over 56% in one day, falling from a closing price of $7.18 per share on
October 23, to close at $3.13 per share on October 24, 2002, on
unusually heavy trading volume (14.1 million shares).  During the class
period, VitalWorks insiders sold a total of 830,161 shares of
VitalWorks common stock at artificially inflated prices, reaping total
proceeds in excess of $6.8 million.

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:
VWKS@bernlieb.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 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *