CAR_Public/030508.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, May 8, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 90

                            Headlines                            

ACCREDO HEALTH: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in W.D. TN
ACCREDO HEALTH: Investors Lodge Derivative Lawsuit in TN Court
ALASKA: Fisheries Official Says Firm Never Tried To Lower Prices
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in AL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Investors Commence Stock Suits in N.D. GA

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces GA Lawsuits For ERISA Violations
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in GA, FL
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust Suit in S.D. NY
CALIFORNIA: CALA Says Healthcare Crisis Caused By Litigation
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Archdiocese Fails To Protect People From Priest

CERNER CORPORATION: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in MO
CHIRON CORPORATION: Average Wholesale Pricing Suits Consolidated
CONNECTICUT: Officers Resign For Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
CHICAGO PIZZA: Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit In CA Court
CRYOLIFE INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

CRYOLIFE INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Courts
EL PASO: Asks FERC For More Time To File Energy Suit Settlement
FLORIDA: Picher Board To Decide on Joining Environmental Lawsuit
NEXTEL: Customer Commences Class Action in PA Over Add-On Fees
NOKIA INC.: Consumers File Amended Lawsuit Over Defective Phones

PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in E.D. VA
PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Commences Rights Lawsuit Over Homeless Sweeps
PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Another "Light Cigarettes" Suit in IL Court
READERS' DIGEST: Shareholder Suits V. Directors, Funds Dismissed
REALNETWORKS INC.: Suit For Consumer Act Violations Filed in WA

RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Shareholder Files Suit over Failed Buyout
SECURITIES LITIGATION: Lawyers' Group To Lodge 30,000 Complaints
SUPERIOR FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle AR Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: GA Court Keeps Intact Desecration Lawsuits
ZAPATA CORPORATION: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
AVERY DENNISON: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Launches Lawsuit in N.D. AL
NORTHWESTERN CORP: Scott + Scott Files Lawsuit in South Dakota
SUPERGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                          *********

ACCREDO HEALTH: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health faces several substantially similar putative
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division. The lawsuits
name the Company, David D. Stevens, Joel Kimbrough and in one
case John R. Grow, as defendants.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The putative class representatives seek to represent a
class of individuals and entities that purchased Company stock
during the period June 16, 2002 through April 7, 2003 and who
supposedly suffered damages from the alleged violations of the
securities laws.

At this time, the Company is aware of four such lawsuits, but
only two of the complaints have been served.  It is possible
that additional lawsuits may be filed.  The Company will seek to
consolidate these lawsuits and any additional putative class
action lawsuits that are filed.

Although the Company believes the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit, the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
predicted with certainty.  The Company is not in a position at
this time to quantify the amount or range of expenses or
possible losses related to these claims.


ACCREDO HEALTH: Investors Lodge Derivative Lawsuit in TN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health faces a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee for the Thirtieth
Judicial District at Memphis. The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (2) John R. Grow,

     (3) Kyle J. Callahan,

     (4) Kevin L. Roberg,

     (5) Kenneth R. Masterson,

     (6) Kenneth J. Melkus,

     (7) Dick R. Gourley,

     (8) Nancy Ann Deparle,

     (9) Joel R. Kimbrough,

    (10) Thomas W. Bell, Jr., and

    (11) Patrick J. Welsh


The derivative lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company by engaging in stock
manipulation and issuing fraudulent and misleading financial
statements.  On behalf of the Company, the derivative complaint
seeks compensatory damages from the defendants and the
disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation
received by the defendants.

Although the Company believes the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit, the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be
predicted with certainty.  The Company is not in a position at
this time to quantify the amount or range of expenses or
possible losses related to these claims.


ALASKA: Fisheries Official Says Firm Never Tried To Lower Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commissioner Marlene A.
Johnson testified in favor of Sealaska Corporation in the
Bristol Bay antitrust suit, saying that as long as the Company
owned the processor, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, it never tried to
artificially lower prices paid for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon,
the Anchorage Daily News reports.

"There was no motive to lower prices" to Bristol Bay permit
holders, Ms. Johnson said.  She is also a retired board chairman
of Sealaska Corporation, in Juneau.  Employees of Ocean Beauty,
which the regional Alaska Native corporation purchased in 1979,
'were dedicated to the company, dedicated to Sealaska, and I
think they were above playing around,' she said.  The Company
sold Ocean Beauty in 1990 to an Indonesian company.

Ms. Johnson testified in the class action being heard by Alaska
Superior Court, alleging that Japanese importers and Seattle-
based processors conspired to lower prices paid to fishermen
from 1989 to 1995.  The suit was filed on behalf of 4,500
Bristol Bay sockeye salmon permit holders.  The defendants in
the suit have countered that world economic conditions and a
glut on the salmon market were the real reasons behind the drop
in prices.

Ms. Johnson said Ocean Beauty board members set policy, leaving
daily management to employees.  Asked if she was aware that
Ocean Beauty managers made price verification calls to other
processors, Ms. Johnson said "if they didn't they should have.  
I called companies to find out what prices were."

Ms. Johnson said Sealaska had a policy that fishermen, a number
of whom were Sealaska shareholders, "should be treated fairly,
paid fairly," the Associated Press reports.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation faces a class action filed by five
African-American employees in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

The complaint alleges that the Company discriminated against
current and former African-American employees with respect to
compensation and promotions in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 USC. Section 1981.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the claims on behalf of two classes:

     (1) a class of all African-American hourly workers employed
         by the Company at any time since April 29, 1988, and

     (2) a class of all African-American salaried workers
         employed by BellSouth at any time since April 29, 1988
         in management positions at or below Job Grade 59/Level
         C

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of back pay,
benefits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.  At this early stage of the
litigation, the likely outcome of the case cannot be predicted,
nor can a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss, if any, be
made.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Investors Commence Stock Suits in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bellsouth Corporation and three of its senior officers face
substantially identical class actions alleging violations of the
federal securities laws, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs allege that during the period January 22, 2001
through July 19, 2002, the Company:

     (1) overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its     
         advertising and publishing subsidiary;

     (2) failed to disclose that a Florida competitive local
         exchange carrier (CLEC) had stopped paying money owed
         to the Company; and

    (3) understated its exposure to bad debt losses.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  At this early stage of the
litigation, the likely outcome of the case cannot be predicted,
nor can a reasonable estimate of loss, if any, be made.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces GA Lawsuits For ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bellsouth Corporation, its directors, three of its senior
officers and other individuals face three substantially
identical class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of BellSouth's 401(k) plan,
allege that the company and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA, among other
things, by:

     (1) failing to provide accurate information to the Plan
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plan's assets were invested
         properly;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plan's fiduciaries; and

     (4) failing to disregard Plan directives that the
         defendants knew or should have known were imprudent.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  Certain factual
allegations underlying these lawsuits are substantially similar
to those in the federal securities class actions in the same
court.  At this early stage of the litigation, the likely
outcome of the cases cannot be predicted, nor can a reasonable
estimate of loss, if any, be made.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in GA, FL
---------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation faces a number of antitrust class actions
filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia and Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.  The plaintiffs purport to represent
putative classes consisting of all BellSouth local telephone
service subscribers and/or all subscribers of competitive local
exchange carriers in nine southeastern states since 1996.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company engaged in unlawful
anticompetitive conduct in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws by, among other things:

     (1) denying competitors access to certain essential
         facilities necessary for competitors to provide local
         telephone service;

     (2) using its monopoly power in the wholesale market for
         local telephone service as leverage to maintain a
         monopoly in the retail market; and

     (3) failing to provide the same quality of service, access
         and billing to competitors that it provides its own
         retail customers.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble
damages, injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  At this early stage of the litigation, the likely
outcome of the case cannot be predicted, nor can a reasonable
estimate of loss, if any, be made.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation faces a consumer class action alleging
antitrust violations of Section 1 filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants other telecommunications companies
Verizon, SBC and Qwest.  The complaint alleges that defendants
conspired to restrain competition by "agreeing not to compete
with one another and otherwise allocating customers and markets
to one another."

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble
damages and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
expenses. At this early stage of the litigation, the likely
outcome of the case cannot be predicted, nor can a reasonable
estimate of loss, if any, be made.


CALIFORNIA: CALA Says Healthcare Crisis Caused By Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups throughout California
united, along with state legislators, to launch a new statewide
campaign highlighting how frivolous litigation and unfounded
class action lawsuits have impacted the way healthcare is
delivered in America.

The campaign, "Lawsuit Abuse Makes Us Sick," was launched at a
rally on the West steps of the state Capitol. Its purpose is to
educate consumers on how healthcare litigation is raising their
costs for prescription drugs, health coverage and doctor visits,
while also jeopardizing access to medical products and
treatments. The flagship of the campaign is a new Web site,
http://www.sickoflawsuits.org.

"We're here today to tell the story of people like Titus
Simonini," said Maryann Maloney, executive director of Orange
County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. "Titus has hydrocephalus,
and needs a silicon brain shunt to survive. But because of junk
science lawsuits against silicon manufacturers, fewer companies
are willing to manufacture the shunts that keep him alive. Now,
Titus and his mother are very concerned about the future, and
their hope must rest in new technologies."

Titus' problem is not unique, Maloney adds. According to a study
by New York-based Arnoff Associates, each year over 7.5 million
lives in America are either saved by or improved through
implantable medical devices or products. Yet, due to the threat
of liability, 75% of suppliers of biomaterials used to make
medical implants banned sales to U.S. manufacturers. Although
the Biomaterials Assurance Assistance Act of 2000 aimed to
remedy this by providing important legal protections to
suppliers in liability lawsuits, numerous medical device
producers choose to remain overseas.

"Litigation is also a major threat to our access to care,"
Maloney says. "It's an accepted fact that litigation raises
costs. When litigation forces healthcare costs to rise, the
natural result is an increase in the cost of overage.
Unfortunately as the cost of coverage rises, so do the number of
uninsured."

According to a study published in the Journal of Health
Economics, every ten percent increase in the cost of insurance
creates a three to four percent decrease in the number of people
who choose to purchase coverage.

"You don't have to be an economist to know that when people
can't afford coverage, they can't afford care. When they can't
get care, they just get sicker," Maloney said. "Already more
than 40 million Americans have no health coverage, and that will
only get worse if healthcare litigation is not brought under
control.

Maloney says that form of control could come from legislative
reforms that would remove the "jackpot mentality" from the civil
justice system and ensure greater predictability, fairness and
balance.

According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, simply limiting "unreasonable" jury awards could
cut health care costs by five to nine percent, saving $70-126
billion each year and allowing an additional 2.4 - 4.3 million
Americans to obtain medical insurance.

"America is facing a health care crisis," Maloney said. "Lawsuit
abuse threatens our healthcare system and jeopardizes our
ability to access what should be the finest health care in the
world. Our legal system is in desperate need of fundamental
reform."

CALA is a nonprofit, grassroots organization dedicated to
educating consumers on the human and financial costs incurred
when the legal system is abused for greed, harassment or
publicity. More than 30,000 California consumers are CALA
supporters.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Archdiocese Fails To Protect People From Priest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ten people, including a judge, recently have joined a lawsuit
that charges the Roman Catholic Archdiocese with failing to
protect them, in their youth, from a priest who molested them as
students during the 1950s and 1960s, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The lawsuit charges that the Archdiocese failed to discipline
the priest, the Rev. Albert Deery, who died in 1972, and failed
as well to warn students, their parents and others about the
alleged molestations.  The lawsuit was filed originally in Clark
County Circuit Court, Indiana, by a woman identified in court
documents only by the pseudonym Jane Doe.  The now 11 plaintiffs
contend that Rev. Deery molested them while they attended St.
Augustine Catholic Elementary School in Jeffersonville, in the
1950s and 1960s.

They have asked the court to certify their lawsuit as a class
action, saying they want the lawsuit to represent a class who
attended the school and parish between 1942 and 1972, "and who
were subjected to tortuous and criminal actions by Father Albert
Deery.

One of the new plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Clark County
Superior Court Judge Steven Fleece.  Judge Fleece told The
Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, that, initially, he did
not intend to join the lawsuit.

"There was a bit of prayer involved," Judge Fleece said, in his
decision to come forward.  The judge said he finally decided
that "maybe me joining would keep other people from feeling
intimidated about coming forward."

In response to written questions by archdiocese lawyers, Judge
Fleece described in court documents an incident in which Rev.
Deery fondled his genitals in 1959, when he was a nine-year-old
altar boy.  The answers Judge Fleece and the other 10 plaintiffs
provided to defense attorneys in February give the first details
of the alleged abuse.

Lawyers for both sides are due in court for a hearing on motion
by the Archdiocese to force the plaintiffs to provide more
information.


CERNER CORPORATION: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cerner Corporation faces several securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.  The suits also name as defendants certain of the
Company's officers and directors.

These lawsuits were filed following a decline in Company's stock
price following the Company's announcement on April 3, 2003 that
the Company would not meet revenue and earnings estimates for
the first quarter of 2003.  The Company has not yet been served
in connection with any of the lawsuits.

In general, the lawsuits allege that, during various class
periods commencing as early as July 17, 2002 and ending April 2,
2003, the Company and individual named defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege
impacted the Company's business and anticipated revenue and
earnings, all allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

Given that the lawsuits have only recently been filed, the
Company cannot currently predict the outcome of such litigation
or the amount of any potential loss if our defense is
unsuccessful; however, it believes that all the claims in the
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against such claims.


CHIRON CORPORATION: Average Wholesale Pricing Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several consumer suits filed against Chiron Corporation and 29
other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, in connection
with setting average wholesale prices for various products
including Depocyt, which are reimbursed by Medicare.

The first suit was filed in December 2001 by the Citizens for
Consumer Justice and 13 other named plaintiffs in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated federal antitrust
and racketeering laws by devising and implementing a fraudulent
pricing scheme against Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and
sought declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages.

In March 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
eliminated the antitrust allegations and changed the subject
drug from DepoCyt to Mitomycin, a generic oncology drug sold by
the Cetus-Ben Venue Therapeutics partnership.  In September
2002, plaintiffs filed a master consolidated class action, which
did not name Chiron as a defendant.

In February 2002, the State of Montana, through its Attorney
General, filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court
in Lewis and Clark County against 18 biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, including Chiron, in connection with
setting average wholesale prices for various products, including
DepoCyt, that are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.  The
Attorney General alleges that the defendants violated Montana
state and common laws on unfair trade practices and consumer
protection, deceptive trade practices, Medicaid fraud, breach of
contract and false claims, and seeks both compensatory and
punitive damages.

In March 2002, the State of Nevada, through its Attorney
General, filed a complaint in the Second Judicial District Court
in Washoe County against 10 biotechnology and pharmaceutical
companies, including Chiron, concerning setting average
wholesale prices for various products, including DepoCyt, that
are reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.  The Attorney General
alleges that defendants violated Nevada state and common laws on
unfair and deceptive trade practices and consumer protection,
Medicaid fraud, racketeering, and seeks both compensatory and
punitive damages.

Between July and September 2002, three separate class action
lawsuits were filed in two California Superior Courts against
Chiron, Cetus Oncology, and numerous other biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies.  Plaintiff's claims are based upon
alleged violations of the California Business and Professions
Codes.  These matters seek compensatory and punitive damages,
plus injunctive relief, against Chiron in connection with
setting the average wholesale prices for various oncology drugs,
including DepoCyt.

In October 2002 and February 2003, the Montana, Nevada and
certain California actions were coordinated and consolidated to
the In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation pre-trial proceedings.


CONNECTICUT: Officers Resign For Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
--------------------------------------------------------------
The assistant police chief and three other officers of the
Orange Police Department in Connecticut resigned due to an
internal allegations that the said officers engaged in
inappropriate sexual behavior on the job, the Connecticut Post
reports.  Two other officers are being investigated.  

The officers have been re-assigned to positions that involve no
contact with the public as the investigation continues, Police
Chief Joseph Dooley told the Post.  He continued that the case
specifically involves officers breaking department rules while
on duty.  No specifics were given, but the incidents are alleged
to have taken place on town property.

"The investigation is continuing. The amount of information that
we will provide is limited," the chief said at a press
conference Monday.  He added that more details will be released
as the probe concludes.

The resigning officers were:

     (1) Assistant Chief Robert Kenny, 40, of North Haven, who
         had 17 years on the Orange police force,

     (2) Officer Andrew D'Agostino, 42, of Madison, an 18-year
         veteran,

     (3) Officer John Regan, 39, of Wallingford, who served 10
         years, and

     (4) part-time Officer Andrew Gambardella, 36, of New Haven,
         who has 11 years of service

None of the accused officers were immediately available for
comment Monday.  Officials said that the incidents did not
involve a victim and that no laws were broken.

Residents and officials called the probe the most "shocking"
event in the history of the town's Police Department, which has
40 officers, the Post reports.  A small town that takes pride in
its volunteer spirit and quality of life, Orange is not the type
of place where a sex scandal particularly among police is
expected, they said.

Officials spoke favorably about the rest of the department,
emphasizing that the officers targeted in the investigation were
exceptions.  "The overwhelming majority of the men and women of
the Police Department are above reproach," Chief Dooley said.


CHICAGO PIZZA: Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit In CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc. faces a class action filed on
behalf of its former and current employees similarly situated
and working in California, in the Superior Court of California
for the County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated provisions of
the California Labor Code covering meal and rest breaks for
employees, along with associated acts of unfair competition, and
seeks payment of wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly
denied to the Company's California employees for the period from
October 1, 2000 to the present.  

Management intends to vigorously defend against all allegations
in the complaint.  Due to the recent filing of this action, this
matter is in the early discovery phase and management is not
currently able to estimate the range of possible liability, if
any.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cryolife, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Georgia
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending
against it and certain of its officers of the Company, alleging
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 purportedly materially false
and misleading statements to the market.  

The suit seeks class status on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's stock between April 2, 2001 and August 14, 2002.  The
principal allegations of the consolidated complaint are that the
Company failed to disclose its alleged lack of compliance with
certain FDA regulations regarding the handling and processing of
certain tissues and other product safety matters.

The motion to dismiss is pending before the court.  The Company
carries directors' and officers' liability insurance policies,
which the Company believes to be adequate to defend against this
action.  Nonetheless, an adverse judgment in excess of the
Company's insurance coverage could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cryolife, Inc. faces two purported shareholder derivative suits
in Georgia State Courts.

The first suit was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett
County, Georgia.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson,  

     (2) Albert E. Heacox,  

     (3) John W. Cook,  

     (4) Ronald C. Elkins,  

     (5) Virginia C. Lacy,  

     (6) Ronald D. McCall,  

     (7) Alexander C. Schwartz, and  

     (8) Bruce J. Van Dyne

The suit, which also names the Company as nominal defendant,
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by causing or allowing the Company to
engage in certain inappropriate practices that caused the
Company to suffer damages.  The complaint was preceded by one
day by a letter written on behalf of the lead plaintiff
demanding that the Company's Board of Directors take certain
actions in response to her allegations.  

On January 16, 2003 another purported derivative suit alleging
claims similar to those of the first suit was filed in the
Superior Court of Fulton County by complainant Robert F.
Frailey.  As in the first suit, the filing of the complaint in
the Frailey action was preceded by a purported demand letter
sent on Mr. Frailey's behalf to the Company's Board of
Directors.  

The Company's Board of Directors has established an independent
committee to investigate the allegations of the suit.  The
independent committee has engaged independent legal counsel to
assist in the investigation and that investigation is currently
proceeding.


EL PASO: Asks FERC For More Time To File Energy Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation asked the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for more time to file the tentative $1.7
billion settlement agreement it entered with several California
agencies and utilities, over allegations of manipulation of the
state's natural gas supplies during the state's power crisis in
2000 and 2001, Reuters reports.

The Company reached the settlement before the FERC was set to
issue a ruling in the suit.  The commission then deferred the
ruling for 45 days.  FERC would have to approve any deal which
the parties submit.

According to Reuters, attorneys for both sides asked FERC on
Friday for an additional 30 days, or until June 4, to file a
settlement because of "the substantial number of cases being
settled, the large number of parties involved . as well as the
scope, magnitude and nature of the issues and claims being
settled."  For El Paso, a consummated deal would eliminate the
risk that FERC would rule it had illegally withheld gas
supplies.

Last year, the FERC found that the Company "withheld extremely
large amounts of capacity" from California during its power
shortage, when it reeled from blackouts and soaring natural gas
and electricity prices, the Sacramento Business Journal reports.

The settlement includes payments of $100 million in cash, $125
million in El Paso common stock, and additional payments of $22
million annually over 20 years.  The company will also give
California $45 million worth of natural gas per year for 20
years, starting in 2004.  The deal, which is not signed and is
only an agreement in principle, has no admission of wrongdoing
by El Paso, the Business Journal details.


FLORIDA: Picher Board To Decide on Joining Environmental Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Picher school board will decide whether to join a class
action filed against mining companies and the federal government
over contamination in the Tar Creek Superfund site, the Miami
News-Record reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of the residents of the 40-square-
mile Tar Creek Superfund site.  The site was placed on the
priority list for cleanup more than 20 years ago after the mines
played out and were abandoned in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  
The suit names as defendants seven mining companies that once
operated in the now abandoned mining district that surrounds the
two northeastern Ottawa County cities.

In a meeting last night, Charlie Speer of the Kansas City law
firm Payne and Jones detailed a proposal that would have the
school district, the cities of Picher and Cardin and the Picher
Housing Authority joining the suit.  If the board votes to join
the suit, it would be the opening salvo in what should be a
large number of lawsuits being filed over the Superfund site in
the coming months.  Picher has a population of about 1,600 and
Cardin about 150.  The federal government, once involved in the
leasing of American Indian tribal and tribal member land to the
mining companies, could also be included in the suit, Mr. Speer
said, the Miami News-Record states.


NEXTEL: Customer Commences Class Action in PA Over Add-On Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nextel cellular phone customer has commenced a class action in
the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas arising out of Nextel's
practice of adding to customer bills a "Federal Programs Cost
Recovery" fee of $1.55 per month as well as other charges. The
other charges attacked in the Complaint are identified as a
"Federal TRS Charge" and "Federal Universal Service
Assessments."

The Class of Nextel customers is defined as "all persons who
sustained damages as a result of becoming subscribers to Nextel
Service Plans who were wrongfully charged [the above listed]
assessments."

The Nextel customer, Seth Lamb, a Pennsylvania resident, claims
that these charges "were not referred to by Nextel at the time
of purchase of [Nextel] Service Plans and are imposed
unilaterally by Nextel at its discretion." The Complaint goes on
to claim that these charges "breach the terms of the service
agreements" and the advertised prices for Nextel Service Plans.

Richard D. Greenfield, a Royal Oak, Maryland lawyer specializing
in the litigation of consumer class actions stated that: "Nextel
practices are part of a new trend in the wireless
telecommunications industry. Vendors are adding these surprise
``jack-in-the-box' charges to customer bills which add
substantial amounts over the life of the contracts." Anthony J.
Bolognese, Co-Counsel for the plaintiff, said, "This is an
outrage. These companies advertise fixed prices for bundles of
minutes then add charges that appear to be taxes to unsuspecting
customers."

Copies of the Complaint can be obtained by email request at
whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.

For more information, contact Richard D. Greenfield at
(410) 745-4149 or Anthony J. Bolognese at (215) 814-6750


NOKIA INC.: Consumers File Amended Lawsuit Over Defective Phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Inc. faces an amended consumer class action filed in
California Superior Court charging it with "deceptive and
misleading" advertising and knowingly selling mobile phones with
defective displays, silicon.com reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of California resident Henry La and
others similarly situated, alleged that some of the Company's
most popular mobile phones including the 32xx, 51xx, 61xx, 82xx
and 88xx series carried a common design defect.  Mr. La further
alleged that the alleged defect caused the phones' displays to
fade or disappear with "substantial regularity" and that Nokia
has been aware of the defect's existence since at least 1998.

The suit was originally filed in May 2002, alleging that the
Company violated Californian competition and consumer laws,
breached its warranty and asked the court to compensate
consumers under the Song-Beverley Consumer Warranty Act.

The Company allegedly deceived consumers by stating in their
advertising that the phones in question were capable of carrying
out their functions.  The Company also allegedly violated the
phones' express warranty terms as they allege the phones were
not sold free of defects, silicon.com reports.

Earlier, the court partially dismissed the original suit,
dismissing the breach of warranty claim, but upholding
plaintiffs' request to have the court test whether the terms of
warranty were unconscionable. The court granted plaintiffs leave
to amend the suit.

The amended suit was filed May last year.  Mr. La's counsel
claims the problem associated with the alleged design defects
were so pervasive that Nokia conducted focus groups and a study
to compare the cost of fixing it at the factory and dealing with
resulting display failures on an after-sales basis, silicon.com
reports.  "Unfortunately for mobile consumers, Nokia chose to
deny the existence of and otherwise conceal the defect from
consumers," wrote the counsel for La in their list of
allegations.

If the class action is successful the court may order Nokia to
hand over millions of dollars worth of profits to compensate
consumers and stop selling some of its mobile phone range.  
Craig Hilliwig of legal firm Kohn Swift Graf said counsel
representing La has requested Nokia's files on Australia's Fair
Trading investigation.  However, according to Hilliwig, Nokia is
resisting the request to disclose the documents.  Nokia claims
the defective component affecting 8210s sold in Australia was
not installed in the 8290s sold in the US, silicon.com reports.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEC Solutions, Inc. faces several securities class actions,
along with certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired PEC Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PECS) securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects.  The Complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among
others:

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

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

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

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


PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Commences Rights Lawsuit Over Homeless Sweeps
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the
city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania over its practice of seizing
and destroying the property of Pittsburgh's homeless during
sweeps of public encampments, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
reports.

The ACLU Greater Pittsburgh chapter filed the suit in Pittsburgh
District Court on behalf of four homeless men and others
similarly situated, after it learned that the city planned
another clearing out of homeless property under bridges, in
parks and other public areas.

Witold Walczak, legal director for the Pittsburgh office of the
ACLU, argued that no notification is given to the homeless
before employees of the Department of Public Works clear out the
areas, confiscating and destroying personal items, the Tribune-
Review states.  

The suit asserts that the policy violates due process rights and
protections from unreasonable searches guaranteed under the
Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments.  "The city has a right to
clean its property," Mr. Walczak said.  "But they can't do so in
a way that runs roughshod over homeless people's constitutional
rights."

Mr. Walczak further asserted that cities such as Atlanta, Miami,
Chicago and Los Angeles conducted similar sweeps but provided
advance notice to the homeless, and provide information where
seized items can be collected.  "Pittsburgh needs to learn from
other cities how to conduct sweeps constitutionally," Mr.
Walczak told the Tribune-Review.

The suit further alleged that the homeless, who were absent
during the sweeps, lost clothing, blankets, medication, and
personal effects.  "These relatively few, and meager,
possessions have particular value to the plaintiffs simply
because it is all they have," the lawsuit said.

The suit seeks that the city's policy be declared
unconstitutional, that a preliminary injunction be issued and
later be made permanent, and that the plaintiffs receive
reasonable damages.  Chief US District Judge Donetta Ambrose
will hear testimony Thursday related to the lawsuit.

Craig Kwiecinski, spokesman for Mayor Tom Murphy, told the
Tribune-Review, "We cannot comment on pending litigation."


PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Another "Light Cigarettes" Suit in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA faces another lawsuit filed in Madison County
Court in Illinois, alleging it misled smokers into believing
that "light" cigarettes are safer than full-flavored brands, the
Associated Press reports.  The suit seeks class action status
and covers more than 20 of the Company's brands, including
Marlboro Medium, Benson & Hedges Lights, Virginia Slims Lights
and Parliament Lights.

Earlier, Philip Morris had figured in another similar suit in
the same court.  On March 21, the court ruled that the Company
should pay $10.1 billion in damages for consumer fraud.  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.

Later, Judge Nicholas 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.

John Mulderig, an attorney for Altria Group Inc., parent company
of Philip Morris, called the new lawsuit "a carbon copy" of the
first one, the Associated Press reports.  He said the only
difference between the two lawsuits is the cigarette brands
named.  "This is why the plaintiff class-action bar in Madison
County finds that word processing is their favorite activity,"
he said.


READERS' DIGEST: Shareholder Suits V. Directors, Funds Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Readers' Digest Association, Inc. settled the class actions
filed against it, its directors, the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's
Digest Fund, Inc. and the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund,
Inc., challenging the original recapitalization transaction
announced in April 2002.  Three of the four actions are
purported class actions; the fourth action was brought by
individual stockholders.  

The parties in two of the three class actions, which were
brought on behalf of holders of Class B Stock, have entered into
a memorandum of understanding setting forth agreements in
principle with respect to the settlement of those actions.  The
third class action, which was brought on behalf of holders of
Class A Stock, was dismissed with prejudice by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to a comprehensive
settlement agreement that was approved by the Court of Chancery
on February 12, 2003.  The fourth action was voluntarily
dismissed.


REALNETWORKS INC.: Suit For Consumer Act Violations Filed in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realnetworks, Inc. faces a class action filed in Washington
state court, alleging causes of action based on the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment with regard to the
Company's marketing of free products and services.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's practices with regard
to the marketing of free products and services is false and
deceptive, and seeks compensatory damages for the class as well
as equitable relief, treble damages and other relief.  

Although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this
lawsuit, the Company believes that the allegations in this
action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.  The Company believes the ultimate outcome
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.  If the plaintiffs prevail in
their claims, the Company could be required to pay damages or
other penalties in addition to complying with injunctive relief,
which could harm the Company's business and its operating
results.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Shareholder Files Suit over Failed Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2003, shareholder Brian Placzek filed a class
action complaint in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada
(No.A466204) against Riviera Holdings Corporation and four of
its directors namely William L. Westerman, Robert R. Barengo,
Jeffrey A. Silver and Paul A. Harvey.  

This action in Nevada state court which was served on the
Company on April 28, 2003, seeks an order which would require
the individual Defendants to, among other things, cooperate with
any individual who makes a bona fide offer to acquire the
Company, take steps that are calculated to result in a buy-out
or takeover of the Company at the highest price, comply with
their fiduciary duties, and reimburse the Plaintiff's class for
damages, costs and disbursements related to the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff seeks to have all public shareholders of the
Company's common stock, excluding Defendants, certified as a
class for purposes of a class action suit and seeks to be the
representative of the class.

The Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that the Defendants
violated their fiduciary duties because they did not take
affirmative steps in furtherance of an offer by a third party to
purchase all of the Company's outstanding common stock at a
premium price which was contingent upon, among other things, a
waiver of the call provisions by the holders of the Company's
bond indebtedness.  The Company believes the Plaintiff's claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

The Company is a party to several routine lawsuits, either as
plaintiff or as defendant, arising from the normal operations of
a hotel/casino. The Company does not believe that the outcome of
such litigation, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse
effect on its financial position or results of its operations.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Lawyers' Group To Lodge 30,000 Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of lawyers expect to file as many as 30,000 investor
complaints against investment firms and various companies within
the next 12 months, after several Wall Street firms agreed to
settle for $1.4 billion claims of biased research and stock
manipulation, Reuters reports.

Attorney Robert Weiss of New York law firm Weiss & Hopper Weiss,
of law firm Hooper & Weiss, in Jericho, N.Y., told Reuters he is
part of a loose network of 50-to-75 member firms, most of which
have little or no experience in securities arbitration.  
However, many of these firms are recognized for dealing with
other class action claims involving makers of fen-phen, asbestos
and cigarettes, for example.

"There are more arbitration claims right now being processed in
my office and the office of my associates than were filed all
year last year," Mr. Weiss, who made headlines in January when
he filed 100 arbitration claims against Salomon Smith Barney in
one day, told Reuters.

The lawyers group came together after the settlement agreement
between the government and investment firms was announced.  
Under the agreement, the firms will pay $1.4 billion to settle
allegations that stock analysts deceived investors with research
that was skewed to win investment banking business.  New York
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer spearheaded the probe.

The National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) said that
if these claims were filed, it would amount to more than triple
record 7,704 claims received in 2002.  The NASD said it expects
claims to jump by more than 3,000 this year.

Mr. Weiss told Reuters claims he is processing so far range from
$2,000 to $22 million.  Mike Papantonio, of Levin Papantonio
Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor in Pensacola, Fla., said the
network lawyers would sue in Montana, California, and other
state courts, alleging the brokerage houses themselves, not just
the brokers, established a structure of alleged fraud.  "In the
next three months, we'll probably have 50 filed in various state
courts, under various theories," he said.  He continued that
said traditional arbitration attorneys have created a "good old
boys club" that is too quick to settle cases for too little
money.


SUPERIOR FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle AR Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Financial Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern Division of Arkansas alleging two claims under the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act and claims for common law
fraud, constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit in its entirety.  
On December 19, 2002, the court entered an order staying the
action until March 20, 2003, to provide parties time to discuss
a possible settlement of the suit.  A mediation was held on
January 29, 2003 and another mediation took place in late March.

On April 24, 2003, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the suit.  The settlement agreements are subject to
final court approval and call for the Company and its insurance
carrier to pay sums well within the Company's policy limits and
materially less than the Company's estimate of the costs of
litigation.  The Company's contribution to the settlement is
approximately $475,000 pretax, or $0.04 diluted earnings per
share, which amount has been expensed in the first quarter of
2003.  


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: GA Court Keeps Intact Desecration Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton County Court in Georgia refused to separate several
class actions filed against five funeral homes and a Georgia
crematory where hundreds of neglected corpses were found, the
Associated Press reports.

The Tri-State Crematory was named in several lawsuits, after
more than 330 corpses were recovered on its grounds since
February 2002.  Operator Brent Marsh, 29, faces multiple charges
of abuse of a body and theft by deception for taking money for
cremations he never performed.  Families whose relatives'
remains were found at Tri-State have filed lawsuits seeking
damages from the crematory and some funeral homes.

Attorneys representing the families told AP Circuit Judge Neil
Thomas had no choice in his decision Monday, because an appeal
is pending in a federal court in Georgia on the status of
another class action against Tri-State and several funeral
homes.  Judge Thomas also delayed a ruling on whether to
consolidate all Tennessee civil suits into one class-action
suit.  He said he would ask the state Supreme Court to make that
decision.

Attorney Allen Murphy, who represents some of the families, told
AP he favors consolidating the Tennessee lawsuits.  "If the
(state) Supreme Court will put all of these cases in the
courtroom, we will settle these cases," he said.

The next hearing on the lawsuits was set for June 2.


ZAPATA CORPORATION: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zapata Corporation asked the District Court of Clark County,
Nevada to dismiss a class action filed against it and Omega
Protein by Omega Protein shareholder Robert Strougo, on behalf
of all Omega Protein stockholders.  No class period has been
identified.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Avram A. Glazer, Chairman, President and CEO of Zapata
          and

     (2) Darcie Glazer, a director of Zapata

Plaintiff claims that the individual defendants and Zapata
breached their fiduciary duties to Omega Protein's stockholders
by not properly considering a so-called offer sent via e-mail to
Zapata by Hollingsworth, Rothwell & Roxford, a Florida
partnership.  News reports have identified a Hollingsworth,
Rothwell & Roxford partner, Theodore Roxford, as the former
Lawrence Niren.  Mr.Roxford is the subject of a March 18, 2003
New York Times article entitled "A Financial Big Shot With an
Unusual Past" and a June19, 1995 Forbes article entitled "Stop
Me Before I Steal Again."

The complaint alleges that the "offer" was to acquire all of
Zapata's shares for $45.00 per share.  It also alleges that the
offer was to acquire all of Omega's shares for $45.00 per share.  
Plaintiff claims that Zapata and the individual defendants
breached their duties to Omega's stockholders by rejecting the
purported offer and that Omega Protein's stockholders have been
damaged by being prevented from receiving a fair price for their
stock.  

Plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendants to carry out
their fiduciary duties to Omega Protein's stockholders, to
refrain from breaching them, and awarding plaintiff unspecified
compensatory damages and his costs and expenses incurred in the
action.

The Company is not aware of any e-mail sent by Hollingsworth,
Rothwell & Roxford to Omega Protein or any offer for the
purchase of Omega Protein shares.  The Company believes that the
claims are without merit.

The Company has moved to dismiss the action.  Omega Protein has
answered the complaint denying all allegations and has moved for
summary judgment.  On April 17, 2003, plaintiff's counsel filed
papers in opposition to Zapata's motion to dismiss and Omega's
motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff's counsel also filed a
cross motion to amend the complaint and a proposed amended
complaint.

The amended complaint seeks to add new plaintiffs, both of whom
are alleged to be Zapata and Omega stockholders and add Zapata's
other directors as additional defendants.  The proposed amended
complaint makes additional factual allegations and alleges
breach of fiduciary duties owed by the defendants to Omega and
Zapata stockholders by not considering the so-called offer
referred to in the original complaint and a second so-called
offer sent via e-mail by Hollingsworth, Rothwell & Roxford on
March 9, 2003.  The proposed amended complaint alleges that
initial offer was raised to $50.00 per share contingent on
Zapata and certain of the named defendants meeting with
Hollingsworth, Rothwell, and Roxford.

The Company has filed responsive papers in support of its motion
to dismiss and in opposition to the proposed amendment.  Motion
argument is scheduled for May 12, 2003.

While the results of any ultimate resolution cannot be
predicted, in the opinion of Zapata's management, based upon
discussions with counsel, any losses resulting from these
matters will not have a material adverse effect on its results
of operations, cash flow or financial position.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division, located at
167 North Main Street, Memphis, TN 38103, on behalf of
purchasers of Accredo Health, Inc. (Nasdaq:ACDO) publicly traded
securities during the period 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:

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

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

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

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

On April 8, 2002, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo
shocked the market by announcing that it was reducing its
previously issued earning guidance and that it was examining the
adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables that it acquired
in a recent acquisition. In response to this announcement, the
price of Accredo Health common stock declined precipitously
falling from $25.40 per share to as low as $13.76 per share, on
extremely heavy volume. During the Class Period, Accredo
insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their personally-
held Accredo stock while in possession of the true facts about
the Company.

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson, Esq. by Mail: 100
Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN  55401; by
Phone: (612) 339-6900; or by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com


AVERY DENNISON: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP
initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE: AVY) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 24, 2001 to
April 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Avery and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Avery failed
to disclose that its financial results during the Class Period
were a product of a tacit and illegal anti-competitive scheme
with its leading competitor, UPM-Kymmene, OYJ ("UPM"), whereby
the Company and UPM manipulated the labelstock supply market.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Avery's
shares. The statements disseminated by the defendants during the
Class Period failed to disclose and indicate

   (1) that Avery was engaged in an illegal anti-competitive
       scheme with UPM to drive a more stable price environment
       within the labelstock industry;

   (2) that the Company's financial results were a product of
       its anti-competitive behavior;

   (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive behavior
       could possibly subject the Company to regulatory scrutiny
       in the future if such anti- competitive behavior was
       discovered; and

   (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
       if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive
       behavior.

On April 14, 2003, the United States Department of Justice
("DOJ") issued a press release wherein it announced that it
intended to file a civil antitrust lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago
to block UPM from acquiring Morgan Adhesives Company ("MACtac").
Among the reasons given for filing the suit, the DOJ stated that
its investigation had revealed that the merger between UPM and
MACtac was one in which Avery and UPM sought to coordinate.
Additionally, on April 14, 2003, Avery announced that the DOJ
had started a criminal investigation into competitive prices in
the labelstock industry and would shortly issue a subpoena to
the Company in connection with that investigation. On April 15,
2003, the DOJ filed its complaint against UPM. Therein, the DOJ
alleged that UPM and Avery were in "positions of marketplace
dominance and had significant incentives to engage in explicit
competitive coordination." The DOJ also alleged that evidence of
competitive coordination was enhanced by a "longstanding
strategic paper supply relationship" between UPM and Avery. The
DOJ further alleged that "the supply relationship provided UPM
and Avery with the motivations, opportunities, and means to
coordinate on price, monitor adherence, punish cheating, and
engage in side payments that could be hidden in label paper
transactions."

News of Avery's anti-competitive behavior shocked the market. On
April 15, 2003, Avery's stock fell $4.19 on unusually high
trading volume to close at $55.94.

For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438; by Phone: 1-888-551-9944; by Fax: 1-501-312-8505; by E-
mail: info@cauleygeller.com; or visit the Firm's Web site:
http://www.cauleygeller.com  


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Launches Lawsuit in N.D. AL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against HealthSouth Corporation (NYSE: HRC) and certain of its
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of all persons or
entities, other than defendants, who purchased HealthSouth
securities between March 31, 1998 and March 18, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that HealthSouth and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
issuing false and misleading financial statements during the
Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that shortly 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.
Between 1999 and the second quarter of 2002, HealthSouth
intentionally overstated its earnings by at least $1.4 billion.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Laurence D.
King, Esq., or Hae Sung Nam, Esq. at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
by Mail: 555 Montgomery Street, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor San
Francisco, CA 94111, New York, NY 10022; by Phone:
(415) 772-4700 or (800) 290-1952; by Fax: (415) 772-4707 or
(212) 687-1980; by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com; or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


NORTHWESTERN CORP: Scott + Scott Files Lawsuit in South Dakota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut-based law firm Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a
securities class action 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:

   (i) 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;

  (ii) 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;

(iii) 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

  (iv) 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 queries, contact Neil Rothstein, Esq. by Mail: Scott +
Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415;
by Phone: 800/404-7770; by Fax: 860/537-4432; by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com; or visit the firm's Web Site:
http://www.scott-scott.com.


SUPERGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 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.

The complaint charges SuperGen and its chairman, president and
chief executive officer with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. SuperGen is a pharmaceutical company
dedicated to the development and commercialization of products
intended to treat life-threatening diseases, particularly cancer
and blood cell disorders, as well as other serious conditions
such as obesity and diabetes. The complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, one of the Company's leading drug candidates
was Mitozytrex, a proprietary reformulation of the approved
anticancer drug Mitomycin C, which is used primarily to treat
gastric and pancreatic cancers. SuperGen's reformulation is
based on technology designed to improve the handling
characteristics and safety profile of mitomycin and other
anticancer drugs by enhancing the drug's stability in solution
form and "shielding" it at the injection site. SuperGen sold
millions of shares and notes for $25 million in proceeds so as
to provide it with ample monies to fund its operations. However,
this all took place prior to revelations concerning the veracity
of the Company's statements regarding Mitozytrex. The Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA authority to
disseminate information to the public regarding drugs and other
products within the FDA's jurisdiction to address imminent
health dangers or gross deception. To protect the public health
due to the improper statements by the Company, the FDA notified
the public that SuperGen's product, Mitozytrex, has not been
found by the agency to have benefits that the Company claimed.

The truth, actually known by each defendant:

   (a) That Mitozytrex caused adverse reactions such as fever,
       anorexia, nausea and vomiting, together with
       myelosuppression and hemolytic uremic syndrome;

   (b) That Mitozytrex was merely a bioequivalent to the
       innovator mitomycin. It differed from the innovator
       formulation only in that the Company's product contained
       hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin ("HPCD"). No evidence
       exists to support the Company's claims that Mitoyztrex is
       superior to the existing formulations of mitomycin;

   (c) That there is no existing evidence that the addition of
       HPCD yields any clinical advantage over the original
       formulation of mitomycin;

   (d) That SuperGen's "Extra" technology did not shield the
       drug at the injection site.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Michael
Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke at Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
York 10016; by Phone: (800) 575-0735; by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com (re: SuperGen); or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.whafh.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  * * *