CAR_Public/030429.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, April 29, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 83

                           Headlines                            

AETNA INC.: Trial in CA Consumer Fraud Suit Set December 5, 2003
AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD: Recalls Fire Sprinklers For Injury Hazard
ARKANSAS: Residents Sue Collection Board For Check-Cashing Firms
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: To Settle For $55M Taxol Antitrust Lawsuit
CREDIT CARDS: Trial in Mastercard, Visa Antitrust Suit Commences

DIAL CORPORATION: Trial For IL Sexual Harassment Suit Commences
ERIE INSURANCE GROUP: Settles With Policyholders Over Auto Parts
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Insurer Says Survivors' Suit Is Dismissed
IDAHO: Judge Sends School's Suit Over Funding To Appeals Court
INDIAN FUNDS: Federal Judges Hear Contempt Charge V. Sec. Norton

INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Says NYSE To Review Some Stock Transactions
PDS GAMING: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in NV Court
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Pension's Stock Purchase
RAZMATAZ LLC: Attorney General Files Suit For False Advertising
SAIPAN WORKERS: Judge Okays $20M Settlement For Garment Workers

SPRINKLER CORPORATION: Fire Sprinklers Recalled Over Injury Risk
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris To Seek Faster Appeal For Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Asks For Increase of Suit Appeal Bond
WAL-MART STORES: Fined for Not Reporting Home Gym Gear Hazards
WESTAR ENERGY: Workers Sue Over Mismanaged Retirement Accounts

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in TN
ALLIANT ENERGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI
CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files AL Securities Suit
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY

INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in MO
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Shumacker Witt Files Securities Suit in TN
MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in LA
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA

                         *********

AETNA INC.: Trial in CA Consumer Fraud Suit Set December 5, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against Aetna, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego is set
for December 5, 2003.

Linda Ross and The Stephen Andrew Olsen Coalition for Patients Rights
filed the suit purportedly on behalf of the general public of the State
of California.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) the former Aetna, Inc.,

     (2) Aetna Health of California Inc. and

     (3) additional unnamed "John Doe" defendants

The suit alleges violations of California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500.  The suit further alleges that defendants are
liable for alleged misrepresentations and omissions relating to
advertising, marketing and member materials directed to the Company's
HMO members and the general public and for alleged unfair practices
relating to contracting of doctors.  This action is in the discovery
phase.

AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD: Recalls Fire Sprinklers For Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Household, Inc., formerly known as Sunbeam Corporation, is
cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by
voluntarily recalling nationwide about 60,000 Star ME-1 dry fire
sprinklers.  

Chemetron Corporation, an inactive subsidiary of AHI, manufactured
these sprinklers from 1977 through 1982. This recall announcement
follows the resolution of an administrative proceeding filed by CPSC on
October 9, 2001, in which CPSC alleged these sprinklers are defective
and are likely to fail to operate in a fire, thereby exposing consumers
to the risk of death or serious injury.
        
CPSC reports that samples of Star ME-1 sprinklers removed from several
locations and tested by independent testing laboratories did not
operate as intended.  Although there have been no reports that Star ME-
1 dry sprinklers manufactured by Chemetron Corporation have failed to
operate while in use, CPSC has received reports of two failures
involving Star ME-1 dry sprinklers manufactured by other companies.  
One report involved a 1976 sprinkler, and the other, sprinklers
installed in 1990.
        
Chemetron's Star ME-1 sprinklers have the following information molded
onto the sprinkler: the name "Star," the designation "ME-1," and
the year of manufacture, starting with 1977 and ending with 1982.  
These sprinklers were typically installed in areas of buildings where
the sprinklers or water supply pipes may be subject to freezing.
Examples of such areas include unheated attics, freezers and coolers,
porches, and parking garages. The types of facilities in which the
sprinklers were installed include nursing homes, convalescent and long-
term care facilities, supermarkets and other stores, warehouses,
hospitals, and office buildings.
        
Although Sunbeam Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in
February 2001, AHI has agreed to pay up to $1 million to assist in the
replacement of the Star ME-1 dry sprinklers that Chemetron manufactured
from 1977 through 1982.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 551-5014
toll-free anytime or visit the recall Website:
http://www.starme1recall.com.


ARKANSAS: Residents Sue Collection Board For Check-Cashing Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Arkansas residents, who have used check-cashing firms, are suing
the state's Board of Collection Agencies on the grounds that the Board
helps the check-cashing companies charge usurious fees, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.  The borrowers are represented by Todd Turner
of Arkadelphia, who is seeking class action status for the lawsuit. It
was recently filed in the Pulaski County Circuit Court.

"If we are successful, I hope we can stop the state from licensing
additional check cashers," said Mr. Turner.  "Some of these lenders are
charging fees of 500 percent or more."  

The companies loan money with a personal check as security.  The
Arkansas state Constitution limits annual rates of interest to 7.25
percent.  However, a federal law supersedes the state limit; and banks,
therefore, do not have to keep rates at or below the limit.  While
competition in the market keeps rates low for credit-worth borrowers,
says the residents' lawsuit, the payday lenders take advantage of their
customers with bad credit.  Also named in the lawsuit is state Attorney
General Mike Beebe, who is responsible for defending the Board of
Collection Agencies.

Charles Stewart, who moved to Arkansas after he retired in Minnesota,
is among the plaintiffs.  He claims a $200 loan in 1999, ballooned to a
$3,000 debt.  Mr. Stewart said he has sued a number of check cashers
and said he has won several judgments.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: To Settle For $55M Taxol Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical firm Bristol-Myers Squibb reached a $55 million multi-
state settlement, spearheaded by California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer, of a lawsuit that alleged pharmaceutical the Company illegally
denied consumers access to cheaper, generic versions of its cancer-
fighting drug Taxol.

"This settlement will help compensate the State of California and
individual cancer patients, who overpaid for potentially life-saving
treatments because Bristol abused the patent process to stifle
competition," Mr. Lockyer said in a statement.  "Just as important, the
settlement prevents Bristol from repeating this conduct in the future."

The settlement requires Bristol to pay $12.5 million to compensate
consumers who purchased Taxol or its generic equivalent, paclitaxel,
between January 1, 1999 and February 28, 2003.  Bristol must provide
another $37 million in restitution for governmental entities which
bought Taxol or paclitaxel.  The balance of the firm's $55 million
payment will fund the claims administration process and reimburse
litigating states for their costs.

The settlement was filed in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.,
by California, 45 other states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.  The court must
approve the settlement before it becomes final.

Cancer victims who paid for Taxol or paclitaxel with no help from
insurance will have first claim on the $12.5 million consumer
restitution fund.  These "cash consumers" overpaid for the two drugs by
as much as 30 percent, according to the litigating states.  The
average, per-patient cost of a standard course of treatment using Taxol
totaled $6,000 to $10,000.  After the cash consumers have been
compensated, the balance of the $12.5 million will be distributed to
consumers whose purchases of Taxol or paclitaxel were at least
partially covered by private or public insurance.

The litigating states estimate there are 150,000 claimants nationwide.  
The number of Californians who overpaid for Taxol or paclitaxel is not
known.  The exact amount each state will receive to compensate
governmental entities and programs remains undetermined.  California
officials estimate, based on distribution formulas under discussion,
the state will receive at least $3.5 million.  That figure represents
money spent on Taxol or paclitaxel under the Medicaid program, by state
institutions and by the Public Employees' Retirement System for self-
insurance of state workers.

Paclitaxel, the actual pharmaceutical ingredient in Taxol, is used to
treat ovarian, breast, lung and AIDS-related cancer.  It was discovered
by the National Cancer Institute, and developed and tested at taxpayer
expense.  In 1992, the US Food and Drug Administration gave Bristol
exclusive rights to market Taxol for five years.   In 1993, Bristol
told a congressional committee that "near-term generic competition for
Taxol is a certainty."   

The antitrust complaint, however, alleged Bristol delayed market entry
of a generic version of Taxol until 2000 by fraudulently securing
patents that had no legal validity.  Bristol's sales of Taxol have
totaled more than $5.4 billion since 1998.

The settlement prohibits Bristol from filing a patent infringement
claim related to Taxol, and from collecting royalties pursuant to a
Taxol license, for 10 years.  During the same period, the settlement
also bars Bristol from making fraudulent or baseless claims related to
any patent, and from enforcing or seeking to enforce any patent it
knows to be invalid.  For the first five years of the settlement,
Bristol must file annual compliance reports with the court.


CREDIT CARDS: Trial in Mastercard, Visa Antitrust Suit Commences
----------------------------------------------------------------
A major antitrust case brought by five million of the nation's
merchants against MasterCard International and Visa USA commenced in
the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn
before Judge John Gleeson.  Jury selection completion is expected in
the morning, followed by the opening statement by merchants' lead
counsel Lloyd Constantine.

"The evidence will show that Visa and MasterCard refused to play by the
rules of fair competition, rules which are the foundation of our
American system of free enterprise," said Lloyd Constantine of the New
York firm Constantine & Partners.  "Visa and MasterCard broke these
rules and they broke the antitrust law.  They deceived consumers and
merchants.  They crushed competition, not by being better or cheaper,
but by deceit and unfair tactics.  Visa and MasterCard are attempting
to monopolize the debit card market, just as they have monopolized the
credit card market.  The merchants also claim that Visa, MasterCard and
their 8000 banks have forced merchants to accept their off-line
signature debit card transactions at prices which are five to ten times
as high as the competition, raising the costs of American stores and
the prices paid by American shoppers by billions of dollars a year,
over the last 11 years."

"The evidence will reveal many conspiratorial acts, meetings, joint
ventures, joint activities and numerous episodes where Visa and
MasterCard engage in virtually identical anticompetitive conduct at the
same time, sometimes the same day," Mr. Constantine continued.

Merchants are forced to pay excessive interchange fees for off-line
signature debit transactions offered by MasterCard and Visa.  Those
off-line transactions do not have the protection of PIN numbers and the
evidence will show that off-line debit results in high rates of fraud
and "bounced" transactions, which often carry additional fees charged
to consumers' bank accounts.

The exact figure for damages will be presented by the merchants later
in the trial by Dr. Frank Fisher, an economist who also served as the
federal government's expert witness in the Microsoft case.  Under US
antitrust law damages for violations are trebled.

"The evidence will show that if Visa and MasterCard are not stopped, it
will cost American consumers more than $100 billion in excess charges
this decade alone," Mr. Constantine said.  "Visa and MasterCard's own
consultants told them that if they lose this case, they will have to
lower their prices and play by the rules of fair competition.  In other
words, if they can no longer force merchants, they will simply have to
compete.  And at the lower competitive price, merchants would willingly
continue to accept their off-line debit transactions."

The lawsuit, filed in October 1996, by Wal-Mart, The Limited, Sears
Roebuck, Safeway, Circuit City, and three trade associations charges
Visa and MasterCard with violating US antitrust law by monopolistic and
anticompetitive business practices concerning debit cards.  The case
was certified as a class action and now includes five million merchants
in the US.  Judge John Gleeson has already granted many of the
merchants' summary judgment motions and denied all of the defendants'
summary judgment motions.

On May 8th, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments
from Visa and MasterCard in another antitrust case won against them by
the US Justice Department.  In October 2001, a federal district court
ruled the associations broke the law by limiting competition from other
card issuers, especially American Express and Morgan Stanley's Discover
card.  Earlier this month, in still another case, a California judge
ordered Visa and MasterCard to refund an estimated $800 million to US
customers who paid a hidden fee on purchases made in foreign countries.


DIAL CORPORATION: Trial For IL Sexual Harassment Suit Commences
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dial Corporation, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, is scheduled for trial
on April 28, in one of the biggest sexual harassment class actions ever
to reach a courtroom, The Arizona Republic reports.

The Chicago district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) said it is the agency's largest case since it settled
a sexual harassment complaint against Mitsubishi five years ago for $34
million.  Dozens of women are expected to testify to their claims that
they endured a sexually hostile, abusive and threatening environment at
Dial's soap factory in Montgomery, Illinois, 50 miles west of Chicago.

"EEOC's case is about the company having a standard operating procedure
of tolerating harassment, and we strongly deny that," said Dial
spokeswoman Cindy Demers.

There are 91 plaintiffs, and because compensatory and punitive awards
are capped at a total of $300,000 for each plaintiff, the class could
recover $27 million.

"Sexual harassment at Dial covered the spectrum," the EEOC said in
court papers.  Female employees were continuously propositioned and
assaulted by virtually every part of their bodies, including their
breasts, buttocks and genitals, the EEOC contends in its lawsuit.  
Additionally, they were called degrading names, and pornography was
posted in the plant, the plaintiffs say.

"It is difficult to imagine any kind of sexual harassment and
misconduct to which women at Dial were not subjected," EEOC's brief
says.  "It also is difficult to imagine a more malicious, reckless and
ineffective response to sexual harassment than that exhibited by Dial
for years."  

Court papers say women were blamed for the sexual harassment when they
complained.  The women learned that complaining not only was futile,
but would make their lives more difficult.  

"Dial's paper sexual harassment policy was a pathetic joke," the EEOC
says.

One of the plaintiffs, Juanita Flores, has worked at the plant for 28
years.  She said, in a phone interview, that harassment on the Dial
site started the day she applied, when a man approached her with money,
implying he wanted sex.  In 1992, without warning, she said, a co-
worker assaulted her, swinging his arms and grabbing at her breasts,
according to the lawsuit.  Ms. Flores said the man's supervisor walked
in and laughed; she thought she was going to be raped, the suit claims.  
A second supervisor walked in and ordered him to stop.

In July last year, Federal Judge Warren Urbom refused Dial's request
that he dismiss the lawsuit.  Noelle Brennan, the lead EEOC lawyer on
the Dial case, said that if the jury finds Dial liable for an ongoing
pattern or practice of discrimination, the agency would be able to
include additional women affected by the violation.

"Our class members and EEOC are anticipating complete vindication," Ms.
Brennan said.


ERIE INSURANCE GROUP: Settles With Policyholders Over Auto Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Insurance Group settled a class action, which includes about
600,000 policyholders, by payment of $6.25 million, over plaintiffs'
allegation that the company tried to authorize the use of cheaper auto
parts for the repairs it covered, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, some three
years ago, alleged that Erie violated its policies by specifying that
"aftermarket" replacement parts be used to fix cars, instead of
"original equipment manufacturer" parts.

Karen Kraus Phillips, spokeswoman for Erie, said policyholders can
choose whatever parts they want, although non-OEM (non-original
equipment manufacturer) parts will still be "high quality" if they are
used at the policyholder's choice.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff policyholders could
receive as little as $10 each.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Insurer Says Survivors' Suit Is Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss insurer Zurich Financial Services said recently that US District
Court, in New York, has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Holocaust
survivors against the insurance company, according to a report by
Associated Press Newswires.

The class action was filed in 1998, against Zurich Financial and a
number of other European insurance companies, claiming they willfully
failed to pay benefits on policies held by victims of the World War II-
era genocide, or to heirs of those victims.

"As early as 1996, Zurich created a task force to actively investigate
potential claims of Holocaust victims and to address any that were
uncovered," said Zurich Financial's Chief Executive James Schiro in a
statement.  "The dismissal of this lawsuit confirms that the issue has
been fully addressed by Zurich."

In December 2000, a similar class action also was dismissed, Zurich
Financial said.  The latest decision in New York, means there are no
remaining class actions relating to (insurance policies held by victims
of the Holocaust, or the victims' heirs,) pending against the company.


IDAHO: Judge Sends School's Suit Over Funding To Appeals Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 12-year-old class action brought by 20 Idaho school districts
against the state over funding and safety issues, is being sent to the
Idaho Supreme Court by Fourth District Judge Deborah Bail, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Judge Bail issued the order on Friday last week, a day after the
Legislature passed House Bill 403, which, if it became law, would take
the matter out of Judge Bail's hands and divide the case among Idaho's
judicial districts.

When the lawsuit started in 1990, the 20 school districts were also
claiming it was the state's responsibility to provide funding for all
school functions.  The courts later narrowed the focus of the lawsuit
to deal only with unsafe school buildings.

Nonetheless, Judge Bail has declared Idaho's system for funding school
construction unconstitutional and has ordered the Legislature to fix
it.  Several bills intended to remedy the problem have passed, and some
of the schools have used those options provided in the bills to achieve
the limited goals of state-funded construction provided.  Other
districts say the problem is unresolved.

Addressing the basic problem of the state's responsibilities vis a vis
the schools, Judge Bail wrote in her order:  "The only true remedy in
this case is for the Idaho Legislature to draft legislation which will
satisfy its duties under the Idaho Constitution."

"It is the Idaho Constitution which places the ultimate responsibility
for the schools with the Idaho Legislature," Judge Bail said.  "Had the
founding fathers of this State wished to have placed this
responsibility solely on the local governmental bodies, they
certainly would have done so."

Robert Huntley, attorney for the six school districts that remain an
active part of the lawsuit, called Judge Bail's order a victory for all
school children in Idaho.  Mr. Huntley said the judge's decision has
the effect of overruling the Legislature because the bill has not yet
been signed.

"She (Judge Bail) trumped them by making the decision final before it
(House Bill 403) becomes law," Mr. Huntley said.  Mr. Huntley, attorney
for the school districts added that he likely will ask the state
Supreme Court to rule the legislation (HB 403) unconstitutional.

Judge Bail said at the time she issued her order last Friday, sending
the school districts' lawsuit to the Supreme Court and defining the
state's responsibilities toward the state's schools under the
Constitution, that she was motivated to issue the order, in part, by a
desire to have the Supreme Court rule on the issue of whether the
District Court had the authority to appoint a "special remedial
master."  In this case, engineering consultant Charles Hummell was
hired to determine which school buildings were safe and which needed
the most immediate attention.  Judge Bail ordered Mr. Hummell to begin
work, but the state has refused to pay the initial $11,000 bill.

"If he does not get paid, the court system will be crippled in its
ability to use special masters," Judge Bail said in a telephone
interview late Friday.  "It seems like a good time to get the Supreme
Court's view on it . and it is a major opportunity for them to speak
on the remedy phase."

Robert Cooper, a spokesman for Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, said,
"We don't have any specifics on how we will proceed, but the attorney
general will follow whatever course of action will fix schools the
fastest."

Senate Republican Floor Leader Bart Davis of Idaho Falls called Judge
Bail's move a remarkable step forward in a case that has dragged on for
half a generation, and he said the time is ripe for additional
appellate review.


INDIAN FUNDS: Federal Judges Hear Contempt Charge V. Sec. Norton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal appeals judges have expressed a measure of skepticism about a
lower court's contempt ruling against Interior Secretary Gale Norton
over mismanaged American Indian royalties derived from leases for the
use of the Indians' land by third parties, according to a report by the
Associated Press Newswires.

Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg and Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were joined,
during the hour-long hearing on Thursday of last week, by the third
judge composing the appeals panel for this case, Judge Karen LeCraft
Henderson, who has remained silent.  All three judges were appointed
during Republican administrations.

Judges Ginsburg and Randolph posited for consideration the issue of
their court's jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the contempt
charge should have been a criminal and a civil matter, allowing for a
quicker appeal.  Both judges seemed disturbed that current Cabinet
members could be judged for actions committed by their agency before
they took over.

"What can they do to purge a contempt that was begun and completed
before they got to town?" Judge Ginsburg asked.

"She (Secretatry of Interior Gale Norton) is being held in contempt for
the actions of her predecessors.  That has repercussions," Judge
Randolph said.  "It's a slap on her reputation, whether it is in her
official capacity or not."

Ms. Norton is the third Cabinet member held in contempt for allegedly
concealing failures to fix the systems used for handling the royalties
derived from Indian land.  Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the first two, served during the
Clinton Administration and were found in contempt in 1999.

The system, in addition to having internal flaws of an accounting
nature, has been much mismanaged over many years.  To respond to the
judge's order, Ms. Norton would either have had to fix the present
system or come up with one that the interested parties thought was
workable.  Much like the Founding Fathers who were supposed to fix the
Articles of Confederation, took a good look, scrapped it and came up
instead with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Additionally, the judge presiding over the Indians' class action, Judge
Royce Lamberth, wanted from Ms. Norton an accounting of the past, as it
were:  how much was taken in, how much appears to be missing, what is
unaccounted for, and for what years.

The case started with a lawsuit filed in 1996, on behalf of 350,000
Indian accountholders, who were, and still are, suing for an accounting
of their monies over more than a century of mismanagement of the
royalties funds; in addition to development of a system that works to
protect present and future funds.

In his ruling, Judge Lamberth said he found Secretary Norton and
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Neal A. McCaleb did not comply
with his 1999 order to account for more than a century of money
collected from oil, gas, mining and timber royalties on Indian land.  
Judge Lamberth said they committed "fraud on the court" by concealing
the failures and misrepresenting their progress in fixing the
management problems and protecting the Indian money.

Congress assigned Indians small parcels of land in 1887 and directed
the Department of the Interior to manage4 the royalties.  An
undetermined amount of money was lost or stolen or never collected as
royalties owed for use of Indian land.

The Indians' class action claims the government mismanaged between $10
billion and $40 billion through failures of the Trust Asset and
Accounting Management System.  The plaintiffs' lawyer, Elliott Levitas,
a former Democratic congressman from Georgia, urged the appeals court
to force the government to get past its own "malfeasance" and
"intransigence" and finally complete the accounting.

"The only way for this case to move forward," said Mr. Levitas, "is for
this court to issue an opinion that makes it clear it will not tolerate
undue delay, and make the government do what it has not done for 130
years."


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Says NYSE To Review Some Stock Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Bakeries Corporation announced that it is cooperating with a
review by the New York Stock Exchange of some of the company's stock
transactions, namely, some transactions that occurred before February
11, 2003, when the company issued a release saying that its full-year
earnings would be 90 to 95 cents a share down from previously stated
earnings of $1.30 a share.  That news triggered a one-day drop of 25
percent in Interstate stock, according to a report by the Associated
Press Newswires.  One week later the first of seven shareholder class
actions that would be brought against the company, was filed.

If the Exchange finds any possible abnormal or illegal trading, it
would forward the information to the Securities Exchange Commission
(SEC), which has regulatory authority over publicly traded companies.

The company's stock dropped 35 percent December 17, 2002, when it
disclosed in a quarterly conference call that its earnings were off 45
percent compared with the same period the previous year.  The stock
dropped sharply again on February 11, 2003, after the company revised
its earnings guidance.

One week later, the first of seven shareholder suits was filed against
Interstate and some of its officers and directors.  Six of the suits
allege that between September 17, 2002, and December 17, 2002, company
officials made misleading statements to keep the stock price
artificially inflated so that various officers would have time to sell
some of their Interstate stock.  Between September 20 and October 16,
seven company officers or directors sold Interstate stock in blocks
ranging from 1,700 shares to 75,000 shares.


PDS GAMING: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in NV Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against PDS Gaming
Corporation (NasdaqSC:PDSG) voluntarily dismissed the suit, filed in
the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

The complaint alleged that the members of the Company's Board of
Directors violated their fiduciary duties in approving a letter of
intent with respect to a proposal submitted by a management group to
acquire shares of common stock of the Company as announced in the
Company's press releases dated February 24, 2003 and February 26, 2003.  
The Company moved for the suit's dismissal, and the plaintiff responded
by agreeing to voluntarily dismiss the suit.

A special committee of the Company's Board of Directors, consisting of
its independent directors, and the management group continue to
negotiate towards a definitive agreement.  The proposal is subject to,
among other things, the execution of a definitive agreement, approval
by a committee of the Company's independent directors and by a majority
of the Company's shares not owned by the management group, the
procuring of all necessary consents of the Company's commercial lenders
and the trustees under the indentures covering the Company's
outstanding debt securities, the securing of required approvals from
all gaming regulatory agencies, the obtaining of the necessary
financing, and the receipt by the Company of a favorable fairness
opinion from an investment bank.

For more details, contact Peter D. Cleary, President and Chief
Operating Officer by Phone: 702/736-0700


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Pension's Stock Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit card issuer Providian Financial Corporation announced recently
it will pay $8.6 million to settle a class action alleging its 401(k)
plan should not have bought the company's plunging stock in 2001, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The company's stock had plummeted by 94 percent during 2001, after
management revealed previously undisclosed loan losses during the
second half of that year had nearly ruined Providian.  The result of
the stock plunge was that $15 billion in shareholder wealth was wiped
out, and investors could point to the fact that some of the purchase of
company stock by the plan had been made in the critical year of 2001.

The San Francisco-based company is making some recovery under a new
management team that sold a large part of its credit card portfolio and
fired thousands of workers.  Providian reported a first-quarter profit
of $4.7 million earlier last week.

As part of its comeback, Providian has been settling many of the
lawsuits, which arose out of its past troubles.  The latest settlement
is with the 401(k) plan participants.  Under the terms of this
settlement, the payment of $8.6 million, which will include attorney
fees, will be paid by the company's insurance.

"We are pleased to resolve this action, and our management team will
continue to focus its attention on building shareholder value," said
Providian spokesman Alan Elias recently.


RAZMATAZ LLC: Attorney General Files Suit For False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a civil suit against Jeffrey
Razet, owner and operator of Razmataz, LLC, (www.razmatazcoins.com and
www.razmatazgifts.com), a Sterling Heights business claiming to sell
"Operation Freedom" coins in order to help troops fighting the war in
Iraq.

Earlier, Mr. Cox warned Mr. Razet in a Notice of Intended Action (NIA)
that he had 10 days to clean up his deceptive Internet advertising,
stop misrepresenting the contributions that US soldiers will receive
from the company, and provide the Attorney General's office with
specific information regarding the companies activity.  While the
Razmataz website was not operational as of Friday, April 18, 2003, Mr.
Razet has twice failed to meet with the Attorney General's office in
order to provide additional information.  

"Mr. Razet has had ample opportunity to present his case to this office
and yet he refuses to do so," Mr. Cox said in a statement.  "I will not
allow Mr. Razet any more time to rip anyone else off by playing on
their patriotic emotions.  Today, we are moving forward with the court
case and will be seeking to recover any funds that Mr. Razet was able
to get by duping consumers into his scam."

The complaint alleges that in addition to engaging in fraudulent
activity, Mr. Razet violated Michigan's Consumer Protection Act (MCPA)
and Uniform Trade Practices Act (MUTPA).   Relief sought under the MCPA
and MUTPA include restitution to consumers and/or damages, and civil
penalties of up to $25,000.


SAIPAN WORKERS: Judge Okays $20M Settlement For Garment Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Alex R. Munson, on the island of Saipan, in the
US Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, formally approved, recently,
the $20 million settlement that lawyers for the garment workers in
Saipan say could lead to better working conditions at factories around
the world that make clothes for sale in America, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  The settlement was first reached in a federal
racketeering (RICO) lawsuit late last year.

The settlement will give compensation and back pay to 30,000 workers
and set up an independent monitoring system to regulate wages, overtime
pay, working conditions and living conditions at factory barracks.  All
but one of the 55 retailers and manufacturers involved in the Saipan
garment industry signed the settlement.  The retailer not signing is
Levi Strauss & Co., which says it stopped buying garments from Saipan
factories in 2000.  The retailers in the agreement include Target
Corp., Gap Inc., J.C. Penney Co., Abercrombie & Fitch and 22 others.  
The settlement does not include an admission of wrongdoing by any of
the defendants.

The suit was filed as a class action on behalf of garment workers from
Bangladesh, China, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, who alleged
they worked 12-hour days in unsafe conditions.  Most of the workers are
Chinese women.

Up to $8 million of the settlement will go to workers in direct
compensation, said Michael Rubin, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs.  
Other funds will be used for the monitoring program and to help workers
who incurred large debts to come to Saipan.  Some funds will be
allocated to help ease the cost of returning home if some workers lose
their jobs.  Mr. Rubin said most of the attorneys' fees in the lawsuit
have been waived by the plaintiffs law firms.

"We care deeply about the human rights involved and the legal
principles involved," said Mr. Rubin.  He added that the Saipan
settlement should provide a model for garment industry monitoring
worldwide and for other industries as well.


SPRINKLER CORPORATION: Fire Sprinklers Recalled Over Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warned consumers
regarding approximately 400,000 Star ME-1 dry fire sprinklers
manufactured from 1983 through 1995 by Sprinkler Corporation of
Milwaukee, Inc. (SCM), formerly known as Star Sprinkler Corporation.

CPSC warns that these sprinklers present a safety risk and should
immediately be replaced.  This warning follows the resolution of an
administrative proceeding filed by CPSC on October 9, 2001, in which
CPSC alleged these sprinklers are defective and are likely to fail to
operate in a fire, thereby exposing consumers to the risk of death or
serious injury.
       
CPSC reports that samples of Star ME-1 dry sprinklers removed from
several locations and tested by independent testing laboratories did
not operate as intended.  CPSC has received reports of two failures
involving Star ME-1 dry sprinklers.  One report involved a 1976
sprinkler, and the other, sprinklers installed in 1990.
        
Because SCM is no longer in operation and has no assets, it is unable
to conduct a recall, so no free replacement or refund is available for
its sprinklers.  Nevertheless, SCM urges building owners to follow CPSC
guidance by inspecting the sprinkler systems in their buildings and
replacing any Star ME-1 fire sprinklers manufactured from 1983 through
1995.
        
SCM's Star ME-1 sprinklers have the following information molded
onto the sprinkler: the name "Star," the designation "ME-1," and the
year of manufacture starting with 1983 and ending with 1995.  These
sprinklers were typically installed in areas of buildings where the
sprinklers or water supply pipes may be subject to freezing.  Examples
of such areas include unheated attics, freezers and coolers, porches
and parking garages.  The types of facilities in which the sprinklers
were installed include nursing homes, convalescent and long-term care
facilities, supermarkets and other stores, warehouses, hospitals, and
office buildings.
        
Replacing these sprinklers also complies with the requirements of
the recently revised "National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 25:
Standard for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water-Based
Fire Protection Systems."  Specifically, NFPA 25 now advises that all
dry sprinklers that have been in service for 10 years or more should be
immediately replaced or tested.  Star ME-1 fire sprinklers produced
before 1994 are specifically subject to this requirement.  Although not
subject to the revised standard, Star ME-1 fire sprinklers produced
from 1994 through 1995 also should be replaced because, according to
CPSC, over time, they can cease to operate effectively in a fire.
        
For more information, visit the NFPA's Website: http://www.nfpa.org.  
For more information on the SCM Star ME-1 fire sprinklers, call CPSC's
Hotline: (800) 638-2772 or visit the National Fire Safety Association's
Web site: http://www.nfsa.org.
        

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris To Seek Faster Appeal For Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. said its Philip Morris USA unit will seek an
expedited appeal of the recent 'light'-cigarettes ruling in a class
action brought on behalf of 1.1 million Illinois smokers who contended
Philip Morris misled and deceived them into believing the company's
'light' cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes, The Wall
Street Journal reports.

Louis Camilleri, chairman and chief executive of Altria, the New York
company previously known as Philip Morris Cos., told the people
gathered for the annual meeting that he vows to challenge the Illinois-
state court judgment that has triggered credit-rating downgrades for
the country's largest cigarette maker.

Mr. Camilleri said he believed that Altria, which also owns Kraft
Foods, would ultimately prevail in the new wave of challenges for the
major tobacco companies marketing light cigarettes, despite the March
21 verdict against it.  There were "numerous legal errors" in the class
action judgment rendered by Judge Nicholas Byron of Madison County,
Illinois, Mr. Camilleri continued.  "His (Judge Byron's) whole judgment
was verbatim from the plaintiffs' lawyer, typos included," Mr.
Camilleri said.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyer Asks For Increase of Suit Appeal Bond
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Tillery, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Illinois "lights"
tobacco case, asked Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron
to increase the amount the company must pay to appeal the case, the
Associated Press reports.

Earlier, the court ruled against the Company, ordering it to pay
Illinois smokers $10.1 billion after the firm allegedly misled them to
believe that "light" cigarettes were less harmful than ordinary 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.

Mr. Tillery urged the judge to order the firm to use money it pays in
dividends to its corporate parent, Altria Group, and put the money
toward the appeal bond instead.  He said the dividend payments are
illegal under the law of Virginia, where Philip Morris is
headquartered.

"They have large amounts of money that should be paid into the (bond)
instead of being illegally paid to their parent," Mr. Tillery told AP
after Thursday's hearing in Madison County Circuit Court.

Company spokesman John Sorrells told AP "Philip Morris USA has acted in
full compliance with Virginia law, including with respect to the
payment of dividends."  He declined to comment further.

Appeal bonds are intended to ensure entities that lose big lawsuits
have the money to pay any judgment, AP states.  On Thursday, Elizabeth
Warren, a Harvard professor and bankruptcy expert, testified that
Virginia law prohibits companies with more liabilities than assets from
paying dividends to shareholders.  Last month's $10.1 billion judgment
makes Philip Morris insolvent, she said, and thus unable to pay
dividends legally.


WAL-MART STORES: Fined for Not Reporting Home Gym Gear Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed to pay a civil penalty of $750,000.  The
penalty resolves a lawsuit filed in May 2001 by the Justice Department,
on behalf of CPSC, in the US District Court for the District of
Maryland, in which the government charged Wal-Mart with failing to
report safety hazards associated with home exercise equipment.  
        
After an initial investigation by CPSC, the case against Wal-Mart was
referred to the Civil Division of the Justice Department, led by
Assistant Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, and then filed in court
with the assistance of the US Attorney's Office in Baltimore, Md., led
by United States Attorney Thomas M. DiBiagio.  Commission and Justice
Department attorneys cooperated in the litigation and settlement of the
case.   
        
"This case demonstrates that retailers, like manufacturers, importers,
and distributors, are required to report consumer product defects and
injuries to the Consumer Product Safety Commission in a timely manner,
and that there are penalties for those who fail to do so," said CPSC
Chairman Hal Stratton.  "Prompt and timely reporting by companies will
allow us to act swiftly to protect consumers from injuries."
        
The lawsuit and civil penalty settlement represent the first time a
retailer has been sued and paid a penalty for failing to report a
safety problem where the retailer was not also an importer or private
labeler.  Under the settlement being announced today, Wal-Mart also
agreed to establish internal record keeping and monitoring systems to
keep track of information about product safety hazards.
        
Under the law administered and enforced by the CPSC, manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers must immediately report product hazards to
CPSC.  CPSC and the Department of Justice charged that Wal-Mart failed
to report hazards with Weider and Weslo brand exercise gliders, despite
knowing of at least 29 consumers who were injured while trying out the
gliders in Wal-Mart stores across the country.  The injuries included
fractured vertebrae, herniated discs, and a compression injury to a
woman's spine.
        
In November 2001, Icon Health & Fitness Inc., the manufacturer of the
gliders, agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty for failing to inform
the CPSC in a timely manner of 86 incidents and 68 injuries involving
the same Weider and Weslo exercise equipment.  The injuries were the
result of a defect in the arm supporting the seat on the exercise
gliders that can disconnect during use, causing the user to fall
abruptly.  That settlement also required Icon to establish internal
record keeping and monitoring systems to keep track of information
about product safety hazards.
        
In April 1999, CPSC and Icon jointly announced a recall of the gliders.  
Consumers are advised to stop using the Weider Shape Glider (Model
WECR 4306), the Weider Power Glide (Model WECR 4406), and the Weslo
Shape Trainer (Model WLCR 4356) immediately and call or write Icon
Health & Fitness for a free repair kit.  For more information, call
Icon by Phone: (800) 999-3756 between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. MT Monday
through Friday, or by Mail: Icon Health & Fitness Inc., Attn: Customer
Service Department, 1550 South 100-0 West, Logan, Utah 84321-8206.


WESTAR ENERGY: Workers Sue Over Mismanaged Retirement Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 30 Westar Energy workers have filed class actions in the US
District Court in Wichita, Kansas, claiming that the company's
retirement plan fell in value last fall, suffering "tens of millions of
dollars in losses," when the company restated earnings and disclosed it
had been subpoenaed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over
"meaningless" trades with Cleco Corp, the Wichita Eagle (Kansas)
reports.

The lawsuits are alleging that employer, Westar Energy, mismanaged the
workers' retirement accounts, causing them to lose money in the
retirement accounts during the period management kept the company's
stock price artificially inflated by making false and misleading
statements to the market while executives sold off their stock at the
inflated prices.  When the true state of affairs was revealed when the
company subsequently restated earnings, the stock plunged in value.

The lawsuits claim the company violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing false and misleading statements to the market between
March 31, 2001, and December 26, 2002.

The stock has been climbing again since James Haines has taken over as
president and chief executive last fall.  Ronald Pope, a Topeka
attorney representing the Westar employees, has acknowledged, "The
stock still has value and the company still has value."  But, "we are
critical of the way they managed the 401(k) plan under the previous
management."  Not all the money lost in stock value has been recovered.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Accredo Health, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ACDO) between June 16, 2002 through April 7, 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
during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price of the
common stock.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
failed to timely record an impairment in the value of certain
receivables that it had acquired in a recent acquisition, and 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).  Additionally, 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 announced
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 dropped over 43%, to close at $14.29, down from $25.40.

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


ALLIANT ENERGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Alliant Energy Corporation
(NYSE:LNT) between January 29, 2002 to July 18, 2002, inclusive.  The
case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against defendants CIT Group, Inc. (NYSE:CIT), Albert R. Gamper, Jr.
(CEO and President) and Joseph M. Leone (CFO), on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of CIT in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering (IPO) commenced on or about July 1, 2002, and who have
been damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 because CIT's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained
materially false and misleading statements of fact.  The complaint
specifically alleges that the Prospectus falsely represented that CIT's
reserves for losses in its telecommunications finance portfolio were
"adequate" despite recent declines in the sector, which were expected
to continue and characterized as adequate its reserves for credit
losses in general.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false
because they failed to disclose that the Company's loan loss reserves
for its finance portfolio in the telecommunications industry, and its
loan portfolio in general, were materially deficient in light of
material credit losses that had already been incurred.  On July 23,
2002, CIT announced that it took a $200 million charge to strengthen
the telecommunications loan reserves that it represented were adequate
only three weeks previously.  On April 8, 2003, the price of CIT common
stock closed at $17.40 per share, which is 24% lower than the IPO price
of $23 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: (888) 844-5862 by
E-mail: http://www.srk-law.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files AL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of
all persons whose National Surgery Centers, Inc. (NSC) common stock
and/or options were converted to shares and/or options of HealthSouth
Corporation (formerly NYSE: HRC; now OTC: HLSH) as the result of a
merger consummated on or about July 22, 1998.

Named as defendants in the complaint are HealthSouth, certain of its
officers and directors, and Ernst & Young LLP, HealthSouth's auditor.  
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Proxy/Prospectus issued in connection with the NSC merger materially
overstated revenue, earnings and assets and understated expenses and
liabilities of HealthSouth, thereby causing NSC shareholders to receive
HealthSouth stock which was overvalued due to the fraud.

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


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Imperial Chemical
Industries PLC (NYSE:ICI) between August 1, 2002 through March 24,
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
during the class period.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued numerous press releases in which they stated that
they had resolved the Company's distribution and software problems that
the Company had experienced at its Quest division's Fragrance & Food
businesses.  Defendants further stated that the Company was on track to
report strong financial results, that the Company had cleared its
backlog of customer orders and that the Company had not lost any
customers as a result of its production problems.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose among others:

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

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

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

On March 25, 2003, before the open of trading, ICI issued a profit
warning with respect to its fiscal 2003 first quarter.  The Company
announced that its first quarter profit would drop approximately 24%,
as a result of, among other things, "business lost following the
customer service problems in 2002."  

Following this announcement, shares of ICI fell from a close of $9.60
per share on March 24, 2003 to a close of $5.60 per share on March 25,
2003, or a single-day decline of more than 36%, on nearly twenty times
normal trading volume.

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


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Interstate Bakeries Corporation
(NYSE: IBC) common stock during the period between September 17, 2002
and December 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of IBC common stock.  

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued numerous statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and future prospects.  Specifically, defendants claimed
that the Company was experiencing a rebound in the sales of its sweet
cake products, which had slowed down in the previous quarter, and
described how the Company would be able to increase prices for certain
bread products and maintain its anticipated level of profitability in
the face of increasing commodity prices.

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

     (1) that since the beginning of the class period, the Company was
         actually experiencing a negative variance with respect to cake
         sales as compared to the prior year and, therefore, had not
         seen any indication of any rebound in cake sales; and

     (2) the Company did not maintain sufficient centralized control
         over price increases to ensure that the Company could raise
         prices on bread products without damaging profitability;
         defendants knew that an increase in prices typically would
         result in a sacrifice in market share and the Company actually
         was exposed to significant risk with respect to its ability to
         attain profits based upon commodity prices.

On December 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, IBC shocked the
market by reporting extremely poor second quarter earnings, which it
attributed primarily to weak sales of its sweet cakes.  Following this
announcement, shares of IBC common stock plunged in value by over 35%,
from $23.16 per share on December 16, 2002, to $15.00 per share on
December 17, 2002, on extremely heavy trading volume that was almost
fifty (50) times more active than normal.  Prior to the disclosure of
the Company's true financial condition, certain of the Individual
Defendants and other IBC insiders sold shares of their personally-held
common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $16 million.

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


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Shumacker Witt Files Securities Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shumacker Witt Gaither & Whitaker, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Northern Division at Greeneville, on behalf of purchasers of
securities of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (NYSE:KG) between February
16, 2000 and March 10, 2003.  The suit was brought against the Company
and:

     (1) John Gregory,

     (2) James Gregory, and

     (3) James Lattanzi

The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects and the allegedly
strong demand for its branded pharmaceutical products, notably Altace
and Levoxyl.

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

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

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

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

The complaint further alleges that on March 11, 2003, King
Pharmaceuticals shocked the market when it revealed that it was subject
to an SEC investigation for, among other things:

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

     (b) its "best price" lists;

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

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

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

For more details, contact Hugh Moore or Bill Colvin by Mail: 1100
SunTrust Bank Building, 736 Market Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402-4856
by Phone: 800-665-8847 or 423-425-7000 by E-mail: hmoore@swgwlaw.com or
wcolvin@swgwlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.swgwlaw.com.  


MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin Murray Commences Securities 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
DoubleClick Inc. securities (Nasdaq:DCLK) between November 29, 1999 and
April 15, 2001, both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (3) ML&Co., and

     (4) Henry Blodget

The complaint charges defendants Merrill Lynch and Blodget with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that defendants issued analyst reports concerning DoubleClick
that recommended the purchase of DoubleClick common stock and that set
price targets for DoubleClick common stock, which were materially false
and misleading and lacked any reasonable factual basis.  

In particular, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
significant material conflicts of interest which resulted from the use
by defendant Merrill Lynch of Mr. Blodget's reputation and ability to
issue favorable analyst reports, in order to obtain investment banking
business for Merrill Lynch.  It is also alleged that defendants, in
issuing their DoubleClick analyst reports, in which they recommended
the purchase of DoubleClick securities, failed to disclose material,
non-public, adverse information which they possessed about DoubleClick.

Throughout the class period, defendants maintained an "Accumulate/Buy"
or "Buy/Buy" recommendation on DoubleClick stock in order to obtain and
support lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

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 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Orthodontic Centers of America,
Inc. (OCA) (NYSE:OCA) between November 14, 2002 and March 18, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


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

The complaint charges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 19, 1999 and December
31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Parametric common
stock.  Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues
and financial performance.

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

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

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

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

On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular trading, Parametric
shocked the market by announcing that it had identified "$20 to $25
million of previously recognized maintenance revenue which should have
been deferred and recognized in fiscal 2003 and later periods."  
Accordingly, the Company announced, it "expects to report a
corresponding reduction in maintenance revenue in prior periods,
primarily in fiscal year 2002."  

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

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


                              *********


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  * * *