CAR_Public/030509.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Friday, May 9, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 80

                            Headlines                            

ANTI-SPAM BILL: House Passes New Law To Block Unwanted E-Mail
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Filed Over Education For Low-Income Children
CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: NY Court Dismisses With Prejudice Stock Suit
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Grants Approval To Settlement
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Dealers' Lawsuit Dismissal Appealed

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Orders Discovery in Starband Suit
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court To Hold Hearing on Lawyers' Fees
ENTRUST INC.: No Appeals Filed V. TX Securities Suit Dismissal
GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $495M To Settle Suits Over Pick-up Trucks
IDAHO: School Districts Fight Against "Unconstitutional" New Law

IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Dismisses Investor Suit With Prejudice
NEXTEL INC.: Customers Launch Suit Over Service Fees in PA Court
PANAMSAT CORPORATION: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Lawsuit
PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in Part
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Stockholders Lodge Securities Suit in NV Court

SAFEWAY INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
WALL STREET PACT: Details Of Help For Investors Still Unresolved
STERICYCLE INC.: Faces Several Antitrust Lawsuits in AZ, CO & UT
STERICYCLE INC.: Faces Investor Lawsuit Over Role in Subsidiary
TERRORIST ATTACK: Judge Awards $104M to 2 9-11 Victims' Families

TEXTRON INC.: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC.: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VARI-L CO.: CO Court Grants Final Approval to Lawsuit Settlement

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sen. Hatch Foresees $108B Asbestos Fund  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tory Chief Participated in Asbestos Scandal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removal Implemented in KY District
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Court to Hear ABB Ltd. on Asbestos Pact
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Bankruptcy Payouts to Be Revised Down

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GP Chair Comments on Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Lockheed Martin Downplays Asbestos Related Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Atlas Copco Reveals Asbestos Related Liabilities
ASBESTOS ALERT: AES Subsidiary Faces Asbestos-Related Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Insurers to Pay Fuller-Austin's Asbestos Trust

ASBESTOS ALERT: Interstate Bakeries Faces Asbestos Related Suits

                  New Securities Fraud Cases  

ACCREDO HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Launches Securities Suit in TN
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
AVERY DENNISON: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in AL
IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in NY
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Files CA Securities Suit
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NY
SUPERGEN INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in NY


                         *********


ANTI-SPAM BILL: House Passes New Law To Block Unwanted E-Mail
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited e-mail messages with advertising for goods and
services would be illegal unless they were readily identifiable
as ads under a bill recently passed by the House, Associated
Press Newswires reports.  The bill's sponsor sees the class
action as an effective vehicle to discourage the senders of the
so-called spam messages.

The spam messages dealt with by the measure, were described by
Rep. Jeff Merkley, D.-Portland, as "not simply a public
nuisance, (but also) a major public hazard."  The bill was
passed unanimously in the House and now goes to the Senate.

The major public hazard, Rep. Merkley explained, was the fact
that children can be exposed to graphic ads for pornography, and
all manner of other things, by opening messages with misleading
subject lines.  The measure passed by the House would outlaw
subject lines with false or misleading information and generally
forbid unsolicited commercial e-mails unless they contained the
letters ADV, for advertising, in the subject line.

Rep. Merkley said e-mail filters available to computer users
could then be used to block such messages.  However, the measure
allows exceptions for e-mails from people with whom the
recipient has an established business relationship or messages
from an organization communicating with members.

Rep. Merkley seemed to see the bringing of class actions under
the new measure as a vehicle for compensating the e-mail
recipients, but another way of discouraging the sender of the
unwanted e-mails.  A person getting e-mails with misleading or
false information in the subject lines could sue for $500
damages, or for $10 damages for e-mails without the ADV
designations.

Under these provisions, large penalties against the e-mail
senders would be possible because when a class action is
brought, said the legislator, each offending message would count
as a separate violation.


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Filed Over Education For Low-Income Children
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers are suing the state on behalf of California's low-income
students to obtain the determination that all public school
students are entitled to the same quality of textbooks, teachers
and classrooms, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Lawyers bringing the class action have retained 14 experts from
around the country to argue that children who are denied modern
textbooks, qualified teachers and other basic resources suffer a
permanent disadvantage in life.

Lawyers for Governor Gray Davis have hired their experts, as
well; 13 of them, who say just the opposite:  that low-income
students are unlikely to do any better in school, even with the
same educational benefits as middle-class students.

The class action is Williams v. California, filed in San
Francisco Superior Court in May 2000, on behalf of about one
million students--one in six California students.  It is a case
the state has spent almost $18 million to defend so far.

The students' lawsuit says they no longer can put up with an
"epidemic" of poor textbooks, unqualified teachers and vermin-
infested schools.  The lawsuit wants Governor Davis to set
minimum standards of school quality as he has done for academic
progress.  Under the plan described in the students' lawsuit,
the state would do three things:  

     (1) track which schools lack "essential learning tools and
         conditions";

     (2) quickly provide those tools and repair poor conditions;
         and

     (3) "provide basic educational necessities" to all
         students

Anything less violates the California Constitution, the lawsuit
says.  The state consistently and strongly opposed the plan,
calling it too expensive and better suited for individual
districts to tackle.  So far, however, Governor Davis has paid
$13 million in public funds to the Los Angeles law firm
O'Melveny & Myers to fight the students' suit.  

In addition, the state attorney general's office has spent
almost $5 million defending the office of the state
superintendent of schools in the case.

Lawyers are representing the students for free, although the
public would pay their expenses and "reasonable fees" if they
win.  In Los Angeles, the American Civil Liberties Union
represents the students; and in San Francisco, Public Advocates
and the law firm Morrison & Forester.

The state has spent $305,808 on written reports by their
experts, while the students spent $127,651 on theirs.  
"Textbooks, curriculum materials and technology are
fundamentally important to students' education everywhere, and
the consequences of not having access to them are particularly
harsh in California's high-stakes, standards-based education
system," writes UCLA education Professor Jeanne Oakes, an author
of the state's education Master Plan.  Ms. Oakes said most
California students have such things, but thousands lack them.

However, the state has provided its experts to counter those of
the students on these issues of materials and tools, as well as
on issues relating to specially trained teachers for English
learner students; whether year-round schooling to ease
overcrowding is harmful; and whether relying on voters to
approve periodic bond measure best addresses school bonding
measures; and some other issues.

Deciding who is right may be what it all comes down to next year
when Judge Peter Busch, appointed by Governor Davis just after
the lawsuit was filed, makes a decision that could change the
course of state schooling for years to come, the Chronicle
opines.


CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: NY Court Dismisses With Prejudice Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities
class action filed against Capstead Mortgage, Inc. and certain
of its officers.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by publicly issuing false and
misleading statements and omitting disclosure of material
adverse information regarding the Company's business.

The amended complaint claims that as a result of alleged
improper actions, the market prices of the Company's equity
securities were artificially inflated during the period between
April 17, 1997 and June 26, 1998.  The amended complaint seeks
monetary damages in an undetermined amount.

In February 2001 the Company and the named officers responded to
this amended complaint with motions to dismiss all allegations
made by the plaintiffs.  In April 2001 the plaintiffs responded
to the motions to dismiss and in May 2001 the Company and the
named officers filed their reply to the plaintiffs' response.

By order dated March 31, 2003, the court granted the Company and
the named officers' motions to dismiss and entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs'
request to further amend their complaint.  The plaintiffs have
not yet indicated whether they intend to appeal the dismissal of
the amended complaint.  Management continues to believe the
final resolution of this suit will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position of the Company.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Grants Approval To Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Superior Court for Alameda County granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action filed against
Echostar Communications Corporation, relating to its late fees.  
The suit alleges unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business
practices in violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq., false and misleading advertising in
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17500, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement
during October 2002 and issued its final approval of the
settlement on March 7, 2003.  As a result, this matter was
concluded with no material impact on the Company's business.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Dealers' Lawsuit Dismissal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against Echostar Communications Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  Satellite
Dealers Supply, Inc. (SDS) filed the suit on behalf of itself
and a class of persons similarly situated.  

The plaintiff was attempting to certify a nationwide class on
behalf of sellers, installers, and servicers of satellite
equipment who contract with the Company and who allege that the
Company:

     (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class
         to professional installers in violation of contractual
         terms;

     (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny
         payments to class members; and

     (3) misrepresented, to class members, who owns certain
         equipment related to the provision of satellite
         television service.

During September 2001, the court granted the Company's Motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The plaintiff moved
for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing the case.  
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.  
The trial court denied the Company's motions for sanctions
against SDS.  Both parties have now perfected appeals before the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

It is not possible to make a firm assessment of the probable
outcome of the appeal or to determine the extent of any
potential liability or damages.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Orders Discovery in Starband Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered limited jurisdictional
discovery to proceed in the class action filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation, Echoband Corporation and four
EchoStar executives who sat on the Board of Directors for
Starband, a broadband Internet satellite venture that is
currently in bankruptcy.

A limited group of shareholders in StarBand filed the suit for
alleged breach of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith
and loyalty, and also against EchoStar and EchoBand Corporation
for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches.  Two of the
individual defendants, Charles W. Ergen and David K. Moskowitz,
are members of the Board of Directors of EchoStar.

The action stems from the defendants' involvement as directors,
and EchoBand's position as a shareholder, in StarBand.  
Plaintiffs seek an accounting of damages for their $25 million
investment in StarBand in addition to costs and disbursements.

During October 2002, the Company, along with the other
defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint.  The motions have
been briefed, argued, and submitted.  Defendants deny the
allegations in the complaint and intend to defend the litigation
vigorously.  It is too early to make an assessment of the
probable outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of
any potential liability or damage.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court To Hold Hearing on Lawyers' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Clark County, Nevada will
hold an evidentiary hearing on the award of attorneys' fees in
the shareholder derivative action filed against EchoStar
Communications Corporation and the current members of its Board
of Directors.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, corporate
waste and other unlawful acts relating to the Company's
agreement to:

     (1) pay Hughes Electronics Corporation a $600 million
         termination fee in certain circumstances and

     (2) acquire Hughes' shareholder interest in PanAmSat.

The agreements to pay the termination fee and acquire PanAmSat
were required in the event that the merger with DirecTV was not
completed by January 21, 2003.  No answer is due from the
defendants, and all parties have entered into a stipulation
allowing the defendants to answer only subject to 30-day notice
from the plaintiff.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to deny all
liability and to defend this action vigorously.  The plaintiff
has filed a motion for award of attorneys' fees and the court
has ruled that it will hold an evidentiary hearing on that
issue.  It is too early to make an assessment of the probable
outcome of the litigation or to determine the extent of any
potential liability or damages.


ENTRUST INC.: No Appeals Filed V. TX Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
No appeals have been filed relating to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas' dismissal of
the amended securities class action filed against Entrust, Inc.

The consolidated complaint purported to be a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Common stock of the Company during the period from
October 19, 1999 through July 3, 2000.  The consolidated
complaint alleged that the defendants misrepresented and failed
to disclose certain information about the Company's business and
prospects, as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
It did not specify the amount of damages sought.

In September 2001, the Company moved to dismiss an amended
complaint filed on August 30, 2001.  On September 30, 2002, the
court found that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
required dismissal of the case because of the lack of
specificity with which the amended complaint was pleaded.  The
case was dismissed with prejudice; however, the order is subject
to the possibility of an appeal.

As of the date of this filing, the Company had not learned of
any appeal being filed.  If an appeal is granted, an adverse
judgment or settlement in this lawsuit could have a significant
adverse impact on the Company's future financial condition or
results of operations.


GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $495M To Settle Suits Over Pick-up Trucks
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation paid at least $495 million to settle
a string of lawsuits related to a line of pickup trucks that
critics claim were prone to explosion, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

Citing a court document a federal judge late on Tuesday, the
newspaper said GM paid an average of $1.6 million to settle each
case.  The document, which General Motors fought to keep sealed,
refers to settlements reached before late 2000.

A representative of General Motors could not be reached early on
Wednesday, and the document did not turn up in an online search
of court records. The newspaper said the document was released
by US District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Montana.

The Los Angeles Times, however, quoted General Motors spokesman
Jay Cooney as saying the release of the document "set a
dangerous precedent" because it could encourage defendants to
fight cases in court rather than settle claims on product
liability.

General Motors made more than 9 million C/K pickup trucks, which
had fuel tanks mounted outside the truck's protective frame, the
newspaper said.  The vehicles were built from the 1973 through
1987 model years. (Reuters)


IDAHO: School Districts Fight Against "Unconstitutional" New Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining Idaho school still battling the state in their 12-
year-old legal battle has asked the state to declare
unconstitutional a new law designed to split their class action,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Schools attorney Robert Huntley filed the petition in 4th
District Court, asking Judge Deborah Bail to rule that the
Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act was too late to
affect the lawsuit and would certainly slow the process.

The bill was passed by the Idaho Legislature, signed by Governor
Dirk Kempthorne on April 28, and touted by Republicans as a way
to end the case between the states and the school districts,
which has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The lawsuit was filed in 1990, when 20 school districts joined a
lawsuit to claim it was the state's responsibility to provide
funding for all school functions.  The courts later narrowed the
focus of the lawsuit so as to apply the claim of state
responsibility only to unsafe school buildings.  

In 2001, Judge Bail declared Idaho's system for funding school
construction unconstitutional, and ordered the lawmakers to fix
it.  Several bills intended to remedy the problem were passed.  
Some of the school districts decided to use those options for
funding school construction, even though the recognition of
total state responsibility was not one of them, and they removed
themselves from the lawsuit.

On April 25, Judge Bail issued an order sending the entire case
for review before the Idaho Supreme Court.  That order preceded
the signing of the April 28 act which legislators and the
Governor say ends the case.  Judge Bail said in her order that
the only true remedy is for the Idaho Legislature to draft
legislation which will satisfy its duties under the Idaho
Constitution.

Since the judge's order is lodged with the Idaho Supreme Court
there is some likelihood that the Supreme Court will comment on
what those duties under the Idaho Constitution may be.


IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Dismisses Investor Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed without prejudice the consolidated
securities class action filed against Irvine Sensors
Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and an officer and director of its former subsidiary
Silicon Film Technologies, Inc.

The suit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during the period
January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.  The amended
complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks damages of an unspecified amount.   

Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint was September 2002, at which time the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  This motion was heard
on May 5, 2003, at which time the court dismissed the amended
complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to further amend their
complaint within 20 days.

There has been no discovery to date and no trial has yet been
scheduled.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to plaintiffs' allegations and intends to assert these
defenses vigorously if a further amended complaint is filed.  
Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of
claims set forth in any further amended complaint could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations and financial condition.


NEXTEL INC.: Customers Launch Suit Over Service Fees in PA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel, Inc.'s cellular phone customers filed a class action in
the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas today arising out of the
Company'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."

For more details, contact Richard D. Greenfield by Phone:
(410) 745-4149 or contact Anthony Bolognese by Phone:
(215) 814-6750 or by E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net.  


PANAMSAT CORPORATION: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PanAmSat Corporation's board of directors asked the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware to dismiss a class action
filed on behalf of certain holders of the Company's common stock
against them and Hughes Electronics.

The complaint alleged that Hughes Electronics and the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duty to the stockholders of
the Company in connection with a settlement between Hughes
Electronics, GM and EchoStar Communications Corporation
terminating agreements executed on October 26, 2001, which
contemplated the merger of the Hughes Electronics business with
EchoStar.

In such settlement, Hughes Electronics received $600 million and
EchoStar's contingent obligation to purchase the Company's
common stock terminated.  The class of plaintiffs on whose
behalf the lawsuit has been asserted is alleged to consist of
all holders of the Company's common stock excluding the
defendants and any who are related to or affiliated with any of
the defendants.

On January 31, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  
Pursuant to Delaware law and the Company's organizational
documents, the Company has an indemnification obligation to the
members of its Board of Directors from liability for certain
matters which may include this matter.  


PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Proton Energy Systems, Inc., several of its
officers and directors as well as against the underwriters who
handled the September 28, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) of
common stock.

The suit was filed allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges that the Company's
IPO registration statement and final prospectus contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part,
to excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly received by
the underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters
allegedly allocated shares of the IPO.

On July 15, 2002 the Company joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer defendants named in
similar actions which challenges the legal sufficiency of the
plaintiffs' claims, including those in the consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the court heard
oral argument on the motion in November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss
as to the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss without prejudice all of the individual
defendants from the consolidated complaint.  The court entered
an order to that effect in October 2002.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
made in the complaints and intends to contest the lawsuits
vigorously.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits
could have a material adverse effect on its financial position
and results of operation in the period in which the lawsuits are
resolved.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Stockholders Lodge Securities Suit in NV Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Holdings Corporation faces a class action filed in
Nevada State Court, on behalf of all public shareholders of the
Company's common stock.

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 suit seeks an order, which would require
the individual defendants to, among other things:

     (1) cooperate with any individual who makes a bona fide
         offer to acquire the Company,

     (2) take steps that are calculated to result in a buy-out
         or takeover of the Company at the highest price,  

     (3) comply with their fiduciary duties, and

      (4) reimburse the Plaintiff's class for damages, costs and
          disbursements related to the lawsuit

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.  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.


SAFEWAY INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois'
dismissal of a class action filed against Safeway, Inc.
subsidiary Dominick's Finer Foods, LLC, and Alberstons, Inc.
subsidiary Jewel Food Stores.

The suit alleges the defendants conspired to fix the price of
milk in their stores in the nine-county Chicago metropolitan
area from 1996-2000, in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act.  
The case was certified as a class action in July 2002.  Trial
began in late January 2003.

The judge, after hearing three weeks of testimony, dismissed the
action at the end of plaintiffs' case, without requiring
Dominick's and Jewel to present the defense case.  On March 27,
2003, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Illinois
Appellate Court, which is currently pending.


WALL STREET PACT: Details Of Help For Investors Still Unresolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The $1.4 billion settlement between 10 Wall Street firms and the
regulators, which settled allegations that the analysts duped
the investors by issuing biased research reports in order to win
investment banking business, is designed to help the investors
in two ways:  first, by setting up a compensation or restitution
fund, and, two, by giving volumes of compromising evidence to
investors involved in class actions or individual investors who
have filed arbitration cases against their brokers, according to
a report by the Times Union, of Albany, N.Y.

Under the terms of the settlement, $387.5 million of the money
paid by Wall Street's 10 largest firms will go into the
compensation fund.  In order to qualify, investors had to have
bought stock named in the regulators' complaints and to have
purchased the stock from one of the 10 firms that signed the
settlement.

A Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) spokesman said the
fund's administrator has not yet been selected but should be in
place within a month.  Other details, such as how to apply and
how much will be paid out, have not yet been decided.  The final
payment plan must be approved by the SEC and the courts.

The administrator could propose limiting payouts to investors in
only certain stocks, the SEC spokesman said.  The administrator
must also decide whether investors who lost money through 401(k)
plans or mutual funds will qualify for compensation from the
fund.  An earlier Class Action Reporter story dealt with the
place of the mutual funds in the settlement, and indicated that
there are some indications abroad of what the leanings may be as
to inclusion vs. exclusion of the funds in the restitution fund.  

SEC Chairman William Donaldson singled out "individual
customers" when describing potential recipients of the fund's
money.  New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said the
restitution fund was a way for small investors to get some money
back.

The SEC has stipulated that the payouts have to be "meaningful,"
which could be an incentive for the fund administrator to limit
the number of claims.  Meanwhile, as also agreed to in the
settlement, regulators are making public the evidence they
unearthed while investigating the conflicts of interest at Wall
Street firms.  Plaintiffs' lawsuits are just beginning to sift
through embarrassing and possibly damaging e-mails, memos and
reports that could support their allegations that stock analysts
were not objective evaluators of the stock, but were steering
the desirability of the stock toward a pre-determined end.


STERICYCLE INC.: Faces Several Antitrust Lawsuits in AZ, CO & UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. faces several antitrust class actions in
various federal courts filed on behalf of all customers of the
Company in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.

The first suit was filed in January 2003 in federal court in
Arizona by a private plaintiff alleging anticompetitive conduct
in the three-state area during the period in question.  In
February and March 2003, three similar suits were filed in
federal court in Arizona, Colorado and Utah, and in April 2003,
a fifth similar suit was filed in federal court in New Mexico.   
In addition, in February 2003, a sixth suit, alleging
substantially the same anticompetitive conduct but not seeking
class action certification, was filed in federal court in Utah.  

The Company has moved to transfer and consolidate all six
lawsuits in the United States District Court in Utah.  The
Company believes that none of the lawsuits has any merit.


STERICYCLE INC.: Faces Investor Lawsuit Over Role in Subsidiary
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors are
parties to a lawsuit filed in July 2002 by a shareholder of its
majority-owned subsidiary, 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation
(3CI).

The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the minority
shareholders of 3CI and derivatively on behalf of 3CI itself,
alleges, among other things, that the Company and 3CI's
directors (who, in all but one case, are also officers or
directors of the Company) unjustly enriched the Company at the
expense of 3CI and its other shareholders.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other relief, damages and an order requiring the buyout of
3CI's minority shareholders.

The lawsuit is still at a very early stage.  The Company
believes that the plaintiff's claims are without merit.


TERRORIST ATTACK: Judge Awards $104M to 2 9-11 Victims' Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan Federal Judge Harold Bauer awarded the families of two
victims in the September 11 terrorist attacks $104 million in
damages, after finding that the plaintiffs provided some
evidence that Iraq provided support to Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaida, the Associated Press reports.

The ruling was for suits filed on behalf of the estate of George
Eric Smith, 38, a senior business analyst for SunGard Asset
Management and Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and
partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities.  The suit was based on
legal principles in a 1996 law that permitted lawsuits against
countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of
international terrorism.

Judge Baer heard evidence in March to help him determine the
damages against the said defendants.  In January, he had issued
a default order against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the
Republic of Iraq, the Associated Press states.  

Judge Baer granted the default judgment after public
announcements of the lawsuits failed to attract a response from
any of the defendants.  He outlined the damages against Osama
bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi
government in a written decision.  He said he had concluded that
lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that
Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida."

Lawyer for the plaintiffs James E. Easley told AP it was
difficult to determine the exact amount of frozen Iragi and Al-
Qaida assets that could be used to satisfy the judgment.  Still
he considered the ruling a "significant victory."  He said
lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence,
including reports that a September 11 hijacker met an Iraqi
consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to
the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism,
and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train
terrorists.

The case is being monitored by lawyers for plaintiffs in other
similar suits, because it was the first to reach the damages
phase.  Judge Baer said the opinions of the lawyers' experts was
sufficient to show that Iraq collaborated in or support bin
Laden's terrorist acts on September 11.

The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that
Iraq provided support to the terrorists, AP states.  However, he
said the experts "provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable
jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that
Iraq provided material support to al-Qaida."


TEXTRON INC.: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Textron, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Rhode
Island to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its present and former officers and Bell
Helicopter by Textron shareholders suing on their own behalf and
on behalf of a purported class of Company shareholders.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
failed to make certain accounting adjustments in response to
alleged problems with Bell Helicopter's V22 and H1 programs and
that the company failed to timely write down certain assets of
its OmniQuip unit.


TEXTRON INC.: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Textron, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Rhode
Island to dismiss the consolidated amended securities class
action filed on behalf of Textron benefit plans and participants
and beneficiaries of those plans during 2000 and 2001.  The suit
names as defendants the Company, the Textron Savings Plan and
the Plan's trustee.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges breach of certain
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities
Act (ERISA), based on the amount of Plan assets invested in
Company stock during 2000 and 2001.


VARI-L CO.: CO Court Grants Final Approval to Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Colorado granted final
approval to the securities class action filed against Vari-L
Co., Inc. and certain of its officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between December 17, 1997 and July 6, 2000, inclusive,
charges the Company and certain of its officers, with violations
of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading financial statements.

In November 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims against the Company in the consolidated suit.  The
Company's motion argued that the amended consolidated complaint
alleges wrongdoing by former corporate employees in furtherance
of their personal interests, as opposed to corporate interests,
which does not state a claim for securities fraud against the
Company.  The class action representatives have filed their
response to the Company's motion to dismiss and the Company has
filed a reply to that response but the court has not yet ruled
on the motion.

All parties involved later reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of suit.  On January 22, 2003, the Company
executed and filed a stipulation of settlement with the court.  
On January 29, 2003, the court issued its order preliminarily
approving the settlement of the private securities class action,
certification of the class, and the provision of notice to
members of the class.

On March 28, 2003, the court held a fairness hearing regarding
the settlement of the private securities class action.  At the
hearing, the Court approved the settlement of the private
securities class action as fair and reasonable to the members of
the class.  Following the hearing, the court entered its final
judgment and order of dismissal of the actions with prejudice.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sen. Hatch Foresees $108B Asbestos Fund  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Orrin Hatch said that the legislation proposing a trust
fund of $108,000,000,000 to pay asbestos injury claims is close
to introduction even without complete agreement from labor and
industry groups.

The Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would make
every effort in the coming days to get the parties to accept
that amount to compensate asbestos victims, cap liability for
companies and relieve US courts of thousands of lawsuits.  "I
think its' going to have to be around $108,000,000, that's what
I'd like to make it," the Utah Republican senator said.

Defendant companies, insurers and unions have been negotiating
with Sen. Hatch; the committee's ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy
of Vermont; and other lawmakers, to try to craft a legislative
solution to the soaring number of asbestos lawsuits that have
driven dozens of companies into bankruptcy.

Sen. Hatch said labor union would have to come down to his
$108,000,000,000 figure while asbestos companies would have to
raise their figure.  "It's a fair way to do it," he said.

A week ago, Sen. Hatch said labor unions had suggested the fund
should be some $120,000,000,000, while the business community
favored a smaller fund of about $90,000,000,000.  Potential
asbestos liability costs are enormous.  Tillinghast-Towers
Perrin, an actuarial consulting firm, says cumulative liability
could reach $200,000,000,000.

Among companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection in
recent years because of asbestos liability claims are building
materials company Owens Corning and auto parts supplier Federal-
Mogul Corp. Others, such as oilfield services and construction
giant Halliburton Co. have crafted settlements with plaintiffs.

Sen. Hatch's proposal would send asbestos claims before a
special tribunal that would then allocate payments from the
proposed trust fund, which would be funded by asbestos companies
and insurers.  Payments into the asbestos fund would be tax
deductible, "if I have my way," Sen. Hatch said, adding that
payments from the fund to victims would not be taxable either.

Sen. Hatch said he did not want the federal government to act as
a backstop for the fund, despite demands by labor for such a
role in case the fund runs out of money.   He also indicated a
willingness to examine tax breaks for companies that have
already made their own settlement plans with plaintiffs.

"We'll have to look at that, but right now I'm worried about
getting a bill for the prospect of the future," Sen. Hatch said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tory Chief Participated in Asbestos Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Legg, new chief executive of the Conservative party,
allegedly played a key part in a scandal that saw homeless
families placed in asbestos-riddled tower blocks in London when
he was a senior member of Westminster council in the 1980s.  He
is alleged to have put more than 200 tenants in two high-rise
blocks, Hermes and Chantry Point, which were known to be full of
asbestos, for seven years.

Mr. Legg was also part of the trio, including Dame Shirley
Porter, behind the so-called "homes for votes scandal" at
Westminster, although he was later cleared of having to pay the
surcharge for the unlawful scam.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removal Implemented in KY District
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District and the
Kentucky Labor Cabinet are investigating what officials are
calling potentially major violations of asbestos-removal and
safety regulations at a South End shopping center.

The agencies suspect that dangerous asbestos fibers, which can
cause a deadly lung cancer, may have spread throughout much of
the 50,000-square-foot former JC Penney store at Southland
Terrace on Seventh Street Road near Dixie Highway, and that
workers demolishing the site may not have been provided proper
protection.

Art Williams, director of the air pollution district, added that
truckloads of unsecured asbestos may have been hauled through
Louisville before being dropped at one of two landfills,
potentially spreading fibers in the community.  "It is a very
serious asbestos incident," Mr. Williams said.  "It's one of the
larger ones . in recent years.  We want to know what happened,
who did it and what was involved."

Asbestos removal is tightly regulated.  Companies that do the
work must follow certain procedures and secure a permit.  
Workers who remove asbestos must be trained and equipped with
proper respiratory protection.

Violation of asbestos-removal regulations can result in steep
fines - tens of thousands of dollars or more - and criminal
prosecution.  Federal and local regulations require that an
owner or operator of a property obtain a permit before asbestos
removal, and that a licensed contractor remove the asbestos from
any structure other than a private residence.

Mr. Williams said that he did not know who owns Southland
Terrace, but that no one had a permit for asbestos removal
there.  The center is managed by The Hogan Group, which was
overseeing the demolition of the old Penney's site for a new
tenant, said Hogan leasing agent Kevin Schreiber.

Mr. Schreiber said The Hogan Group hired licensed contractor
Fred Radcliffe to remove the asbestos and was trying to assess
what happened and determine the magnitude of potential health
threats.  "We don't think workers or the public were put at
risk," he said. "We hope not."

Air pollution district and metro hazardous materials experts,
working with their own contractors, secured the site Friday by
sealing several bins of construction debris, covering openings
at the former Penney's with plastic and installing a fence to
keep people out, Mr. Williams said.

Eddie Jacobs, spokesman for the Kentucky Labor Cabinet's
Occupational Safety and Health Program, said yesterday that the
state opened an investigation Friday into Yana Elder Asbestos
Abatement Co., the company that Mr. Radcliffe said had employed
him.  He declined to comment further, saying cabinet rules
prohibit discussing active investigations.

Mr. Schreiber said he expects Mr. Radcliffe to complete the
work.  For his part, Mr. Radcliffe said public officials are
overreacting to the presence of a small amount of asbestos found
on some ductwork that was removed inadvertently by demolition
crews from another business, Elder Construction Co.  Mr.
Radcliffe said he contacted the air pollution district last week
to make sure that he was following proper procedures.

Mr. Williams described the situation differently.  He said one
of the district's inspectors "crossed paths" with Mr. Radcliffe
early last week after inspecting another business in the same
area. The district inspector invited Mr. Radcliffe to schedule a
meeting with district officials.

However, on Thursday, a district inspector drove by the Penney's
site again, saw a large amount of construction debris, and
conducted an unannounced inspection that involved taking samples
from waste containers and from areas inside the building, Mr.
Williams said.  When the results identified asbestos, district
officials returned to the construction site on Friday.

Elder Construction Co. owner David Elder said his firm and the
asbestos-removal company with a similar name are not connected.  
Mr. Elder said he was hired by Mr. Radcliffe to remove material
that contained no asbestos, and had been assured that the only
asbestos in the structure was what had been sprayed on
structural beams as a fire retardant, or in floor tile.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Court to Hear ABB Ltd. on Asbestos Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald, on May 2, ruled to extend the hearing
of ABB Ltd.'s $1,200,000,000 proposed settlement of its asbestos
claims to May 12 to allow more time for witnesses to testify,
quelling the moves of the giant engineering group to get back to
normal business.

The proposed settlement, involving ABB's Combustion Engineering
(CE) unit, is seen as the most important part of the effort of
Chief Executive and Chairman Juergen Dormann to restore the
company's financial health after it almost went to the dumps
last year.  The Company has been eager to close the deals in
order to allay lingering fears about possible spiraling
liabilities.

CE, which made industrial boilers insulated with asbestos, filed
for bankruptcy Feb. 17, along with a pre-negotiated
reorganization plan to deal with millions of dollars in
asbestos-related personal injury claims.  Asbestos was widely
used for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s, when
scientists concluded that inhaled fibers could be linked to
cancer and other diseases.

The examination of witnesses during the two days of testimony
was contentions, with lawyers representing insurance carriers
and cancer victims arguing over rules of order and the
appropriateness of calling certain witnesses.

ABB bought CE in 1990 during an acquisition spree that caused
many of its current debt problems.  The Company aims to cut its
debt to $6,500,000,000 and post a profit this year after soft
markets and provisions for the asbestos settlement led to a
$787,000,000 loss last year.

Elizabeth Magner, an attorney for the Select Asbestos Claimants
Committee, a group of law firms specializing in cancer victims
litigation, said the testimony Friday laid the foundation for
her group's argument against the settlement.  "The testimony
establishes validity of the objections made by the Select
Asbestos Claimants Committee.  We feel confident that the U.S.
District Court will not confirm this plan," she said.

ABB's lawyers were not immediately available for comment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Bankruptcy Payouts to Be Revised Down
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World, Inc. attorney Debra A. Dandeneau said in US
Bankruptcy Court, May 2, that the amounts to be received by the
two of the biggest groups in the case will be "revised
downward."  "We expect it not to be immaterial," she said of the
revision.

Armstrong's unsecured creditors and asbestos personal-injury
claimants will get paid less than initially envisioned last
November, because the company's operating profits have weakened
since then, she said.  The exact number of creditors and
claimants to be affected is not known.  However, in earlier
public filings, Armstrong has indicated it has hundreds of
unsecured creditors and more than 170,000 personal-injury
claimants.

Court approval of a key document that will be sent to everybody
voting on Armstrong's proposed reorganization plan was delayed
again, to May 19, to allow for further revisions.  Despite the
postponement, Armstrong attorneys after the hearing expressed
confidence that the firm still would emerge from bankruptcy by
its stated deadline of September 30.

Attorneys for Armstrong and a committee representing the
asbestos property-damage claimants in the case said they are
"very close" to settling all remaining claims, which would
resolve one of the thorniest issues in the case.  An Armstrong
attorney suggested that the bankruptcy judge, Randall J.
Newsome, serve as a mediator between the two sides to help bring
a settlement to fruition.

Lancaster-based Armstrong was shoved into bankruptcy in December
2000 by a flood of lawsuits from people alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos insulation that was once sold and
installed by Armstrong.  Last November, Armstrong proposed a
plan for reorganizing and emerging from bankruptcy by dissolving
its current corporation and canceling its current stock.  It
then would form a new corporation with a new stock, two-thirds
of which would be owned by a new trust.

The trust, funded with $2,100,000,000 worth of new stock, cash
and notes, would pay all pending and future asbestos personal-
injury claims, forever relieving the new Armstrong of that
burden.  The other third of the new stock would help fund a $1.1
billion pool to pay the unsecured creditors (i.e., creditors
that lack collateral that would assure they get paid.)

Armstrong has yet to say how much the personal-injury claimants
would get out of that $2,100,000,000 trust; the company has said
that unsecured creditors would get 66.5 percent of what they're
owed.  However, Armstrong's declining operating profits have
triggered a chain reaction that will culminate in both groups
getting paid out of a smaller "pot," so to speak.  Armstrong's
current operating profits are the foundation for projections of
how the new, post-bankruptcy Armstrong will perform when it gets
launched later this year.  Those projections, in turn, go into
figuring the value of the new, post-bankruptcy Armstrong stock,
a key ingredient in the "pot" for paying the claims of the two
groups.  If the stock's value is less, there's less value to be
distributed to the members of the two groups.

Those initial financial projections for the new, post-bankruptcy
Armstrong were very upbeat, calling for sharp increases in sales
and profits through 2007.  However, since those projections were
prepared, Armstrong's performance has slipped, with operating
profits for 2002 dropping 12 percent (excluding the impact of an
asbestos charge and an accounting change).  Its first quarter
results have not yet been made public.

Most of the hearing was spent discussing further changes to a
key document called the "disclosure statement," which will go to
everybody voting on the Armstrong plan.  The disclosure
statement, required by law and subject to court approval, must
provide "adequate information" about the plan so that a
reasonable voter can make an informed decision about it.

Since filing its original version of the statement in December,
Armstrong has expanded the paper by 30 pages -- to 124 pages --
in response to various objections.  Most have come from two
insurers, Liberty Mutual and Travelers, which wanted more
specifics on the fate of their policies with Armstrong, and from
the committee representing the property-damage claimants, who
wanted more details on how those claims would be handled.

Newsome indicated several times that the insurance-section
changes made to date by Armstrong, including using text supplied
by the insurers, were "good enough," although more revisions are
forthcoming.

"The only people who care about this are Liberty and Travelers,
and they're going to vote no anyway . This is like trying to
write a book with a hundred authors," said the judge.  The other
major source of complications, the property-damage issues, "will
go away" if the committee and Armstrong can settle the remaining
claims, said committee attorney Joanne Wills.

Armstrong has 97 such claims remaining, following a $2 million
settlement of 360 other claims, alleging old Armstrong asbestos
floors damaged the value of the properties.  At a hearing last
month, Judge Newsome had urged Armstrong and the committee to
try to settle the remaining claims, imposing deadlines for them
to exchange offers and counter-offers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GP Chair Comments on Asbestos Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific Corporation Chairman and CEO A.D. "Pete" Correll
told shareholders at the company's annual meeting that the
market's fear of the unknown regarding the company's asbestos
liabilities has impacted the world's view of Georgia-Pacific and
penalized its shareholders like nothing else ever had.

"We are doing our best to manage and quantify these, but the
current legal system for handling asbestos claims is hopelessly
broken," Mr. Correll said.  "Over time, our company has paid
about $440,000,000 for its asbestos liabilities with most of
that coming from our insurance coverage.  Based on our
experience and that of other companies, we estimate that about
60 percent of that amount has been paid to attorneys, while
another 20 percent has been paid to people who were not sick.  
The remaining 20 percent actually was paid to sick people, but
we do not know how many of those were made sick because of our
products."

Beginning in the mid 1980s, lawsuits were filed against Georgia-
Pacific on behalf of plaintiffs alleging that they had suffered
lung and other diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products (principally joint-system products used with
gypsum wallboard).  As of December 31, 2002, the company was
defending the claims of approximately 69,000 such plaintiffs.
Nearly all of these unresolved claims are pending in state
courts across the United States, with the majority pending in
the states of Maryland, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Texas and
West Virginia.

Georgia-Pacific has settled, dismissed or is in the process of
settling approximately 270,000 asbestos claims.  The company
generally settles claims for amounts it considers reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Many of these
claimants are unable to show they have incurred any injuries, or
that any injuries they may have had were due to exposure to the
company's products.

The number of new claims filed against the company during 2002
was approximately 41,700 compared with 39,700 at the end of
2001.  In the first quarter of 2003, Mr. Correll said the
company's asbestos liabilities and defense costs through the
first quarter were consistent with company projections for all
of 2003, but claims were up.

"The number of new claims filed against us during the quarter
was about 10 percent higher than projected," he said in the
first quarter.  "While these additional filings are not expected
to affect our 2003 projections, asbestos litigation remains very
volatile, which could put upward pressure on our costs later in
2003.  However, there were no developments during the quarter
that changed our overall view of our asbestos liabilities."

At its annual meeting, Mr. Correll was hopeful about a plan that
could clear up the asbestos issue.  "Recently, news has emerged
from Washington (D.C.) that there may be hope for an agreement
to end all asbestos lawsuits and instead pay people who actually
have asbestos-related diseases from a national, privately
financed trust," he said.  "Such an agreement, if ultimately
passed into law, would go a long way toward removing the
uncertainty that clouds this issue.  We are doing everything we
can to encourage much-needed reform."

GP has been combating asbestos claims for nearly two decades and
the claims and costs have grown.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Lockheed Martin Downplays Asbestos Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed says that like many other industrial companies in
recent years, it has become a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated
into its premises and certain historical products.

The Company denies having mined or produced asbestos and says it
no longer incorporates asbestos in any currently manufactured
products.  Lockheed asserts that it has been successful in
having a substantial number of claims dismissed without payment.
The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are
not material individually or in the aggregate.  A substantial
majority of Lockheed's asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity.

Based on the information available to them as of the date of
filing of their latest annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Lockheed does not believe that
resolution of any or all of these matters will have a
material adverse effect on them.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Atlas Copco Reveals Asbestos Related Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Copco reports that as of December 31, 2002, a total number
of 84 asbestos cases have been filed against them with a total
of 16,556 individual claimants in the United States.  The
average number of defendants was 163 companies per case.  None
of these cases identifies a specific Atlas Copco product.

In 2002 there was one case involving an identified Atlas Copco
product, as one among many other products.  This case was
settled in the fourth quarter at an immaterial cost,
substantially lower than the deductible cost used in Atlas
Copco's insurances.

Hans Ola Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of Atlas Copco
Group, said, "We expected that the new law in Mississippi would
have sort of curtailed a lot of the cases.  But I think for
other industries, as well as ourselves, this has not been the
case."

He added that, "one positive sign is that we have in cases where
not a product of our(s) had been identified, we were the only
one left, we did not want to settle.  And then the case was
dropped since there was no product identified."

The Group has not deemed it necessary to book any provisions
related to these pending cases.


COMPANY PROFILE

Atlas Copco AB (OTC: ATLKY)
SE-105
23 Stockholm, Sweden      
Phone: +46-8-743-8000
Fax: +46-8-644-9045
http://www.atlascopco-group.com
  
Revenue      : $4,837,700,000
Net Income   : $290,100,000
Assets       : $6,088,200,000  
Liabilities  : $3,459,300,000
(As of December 31, 2001)
  
Description: Atlas Copco has construction, mining, and equipment
rental industries.  The company divides its operations into
compressor (air dryers and air and gas compressors); industrial
(pneumatic and electric power tools); rental service; and
construction and mining (drilling rigs and equipment) segments.  
It makes products for the compression and treatment of air and
gases, industrial tools and motion-control products for the
manufacturing and construction industries, and drilling
equipment for mining and construction markets.  Atlas Copco
rents equipment and offers aftermarket services.


ASBESTOS ALERT: AES Subsidiary Faces Asbestos-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
AES Subsidiary CILCO has been named, along with numerous other
parties, in several lawsuits, which have been filed by people
claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.  The
cases have been filed in the Circuit Courts of Madison, Cook and
Peoria Counties in Illinois and one case has been filed in
Indiana.  The number of total defendants named in each case is
significant with as many as 87 parties named in a case to as few
as 10.

The claims filed against CILCO allege injury from asbestos
exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at the Company's
electric generating plants.  In each lawsuit, the plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000, which typically
would be shared among the named defendants.  A total of thirteen
such lawsuits have been filed against CILCO, of which eleven are
pending, one has been settled and one has been dismissed.


COMPANY PROFILE

CILCO, a subsidiary of AES
The AES Corporation (NYSE: AES)
1001 N. 19th St.
Arlington, VA 22209    
Phone: 703-522-1315
Fax: 703-528-4510
http://www.aesc.com

Employees  :  36,000
Revenue    :  $8,632,000,000
Net Income :  $(3,509,000,000)
Assets     :  $33,776,000,000
Liabilities:  $34,117,000,000
(As of December 31, 2002 of AES)

Description: AES is one of the world's leading independent power
producers.  The company has interests in generation facilities
(some of which are under construction) in the Americas, Europe,
Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean that have a combined generating
capacity of about 53,000 MW (primarily fossil-fueled).  AES
sells electricity to utilities and other energy marketers
through wholesale contracts or on the spot market.  AES also
sells power directly to 12 million customers worldwide through
its interests in distribution utilities, mainly in Latin
America.  


ASBESTOS ALERT: Insurers to Pay Fuller-Austin's Asbestos Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court ruling ordered a group of Lloyd's of London
underwriters, London market insurers and US insurers to pay the
Fuller-Austin Trust nearly $189,000,000 to cover a portion of
the facility's estimated future asbestos claims, May 5.

The Los Angeles County Court jury verdict came 14 months after
the trial judge in the case ruled that commercial general
liability policies cover estimated damages for future claims and
that insurers must immediately pay policyholders for such
damages.

Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. filed for bankruptcy in 1998 when
it was unable to pay its rapidly increasing asbestos
liabilities.  The jury determined that those liabilities total
nearly $966,200,000, according to policyholder attorney Robert
M. Horkovich, a partner with Anderson Kill & Olick P.C. in New
York.

The jury found that Fuller-Austin's future asbestos claims could
be reasonably estimated at $750,000,000.  It then determined
that Lloyd's underwriters, a group of London-based insurers and
Stonewall Insurance Co. of Cambridge, Mass., and Highlands
Insurance Co. of Lawrenceville, N.J., breached their policies
before Fuller-Austin's bankruptcy and must pay the trust
$188,700,000.

The jury rejected the defense's arguments, including collusion
and that plaintiffs failed to cooperate with insurers and
mitigate losses, Mr. Horkovich said.

The award is about $5,000,000 short of Fuller-Austin's total
policy limits, but the trust likely will be able to recover
those remaining limits from Stonewall and Lloyd's underwriters
when future claims are filed, according to Mr. Horkovich.

The trust already has recovered nearly $108,200,000 of insurance
proceeds to cover paid claims, and the jury determined that the
pending claims amount to $108,000,000.  The insurers plan to
appeal the jury's verdict and earlier rulings in the case by
California Superior Court Judge Judith Chirlin, according to
insurer defense attorney Patrick Cathcart, a partner with
Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft L.L.P. in Los Angeles.  Mr.
Cathcart, who represented the Lloyd's underwriters and London
market companies, said the judge's earlier rulings were
"erroneous and highly prejudicial and dictated the results" at
trial.


COMPANY PROFILE

Fuller-Austin Trust
12836 146 St.
Edmonton, Alberta T5L 2H7, Canada   
Phone: 780-454-3667
Fax: 780-454-8741
http://www.churchillcorporation.com
  
  
Revenue      : $184,400,000
Net Income   : $3,300,000
Assets       : $65,300,000
Liabilities  : $46,000,000
(As of December 31, 2001)

Description: Churchill has built a sturdy reputation as one of
Western Canada's largest construction companies. Through
subsidiaries, including Triton Projects, Fuller Austin
Insulation, and Stuart Olson Construction, the group offers a
range of construction services, including commercial building,
industrial construction, industrial insulation, and plant
maintenance. It also provides construction management.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Interstate Bakeries Faces Asbestos Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Bakeries discloses in its annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, that on July 17, 2002,
the Company was served with a state court asbestos-related
complaint which is now pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed by one
employee and one former employee.  The complaint arises, in
part, from the Company's removal of insulation of their bakeries
in January 1998, which was alleged to have contained asbestos.

Interstate Bakeries has also been a defendant in other civil
actions arising out of the same circumstances.  These civil
actions seek unspecified monetary damages, funds for medical
monitoring and, in one case, damages under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In addition, in 1998 the US Department of Labor cited us for
alleged violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and
the office of the US Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois in a joint investigation with Illinois officials began
investigating the possibility of criminal violations of the
Clean Air Act (The government closed the joint investigation
without returning any indictments).

In addition, the State of Illinois filed a civil complaint
against the Company alleging the insulation removal violated
various provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
This case was voluntarily dismissed.  However, the State has
recently sought to refile it pending settlement negotiations.  
In none of the foregoing cases has any court or governmental
body made any factual finding of liability or violation of
environmental regulations.

Based upon the own investigation of Interstate Bakeries,
including assistance from third party consultants, the Company
believes that all of these matters are without merit.  No amount
is currently reserved in the unaudited consolidated financial
statements related to these matters.


COMPANY PROFILE

Interstate Bakeries Corporation (NYSE: IBC)
12 E. Armour Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64111    
Phone: 816-502-4000
Fax: 816-502-4155

Description: It's no Wonder that a Hostess would show her Home
Pride by serving breads and sweet treats made by Interstate
Bakeries. As the nation's largest wholesale baker, it operates
more than 60 bakeries throughout the US and delivers baked goods
to supermarkets and convenience stores. Its national and
regional bread brands include Wonder (#1 bread in the US),
Merita, and Home Pride. Its snack cake, doughnut, and sweet-good
brands include Hostess, Dolly Madison, and Drake's. Interstate
Bakeries also produces croutons and stuffing under the Mrs.
Cubbison's and Marie Callender's brands. Unsold products pulled
from grocery store shelves are sold through its nearly 1,400
bakery thrift stores.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases  


ACCREDO HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Launches Securities Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Memphis Division, 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:

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

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

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

     (4) 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 by Mail: 100
Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by
Phone: (612) 339-6900 or by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Allou
Healthcare, Inc. (Amex: ALU) publicly traded securities during
the period between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 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 28, 1998 and April
9, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Allou
securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results.  In particular, the complaint
alleges:

     (1) that Allou was materially overstating its accounts
         receivables by at least $78 million, thereby
         overstating its revenues and earnings;

     (2) that Allou was materially overstating its inventory,
         thereby overstating its net worth; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 9, 2003, Allou announced that "its lenders have filed
an involuntary petition for bankruptcy in the Eastern District
of New York under the provisions of chapter 11, title 11, of the
United States Code."  Following this news, on April 9, 2003,
AMEX suspended trading in Allou's common stock.  Thereafter,
press reports revealed that an outside restructuring expert that
had been retained to run Allou discovered, among other things,
that "only $30 million of $108 million in accounts receivable
reported by Allou to its banks seemed to be valid."

Furthermore, on April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it
"believes that the levels of assets collateralizing loans were
substantially overstated in recent reports submitted by the
Company to its senior lenders.  The preliminary results of the
Company's investigation indicate that inventory was overstated
by approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000.  The Company has
retained a forensic accounting firm to assist with the
continuing investigation of this matter."

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     


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Allou
Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX: ALU) between June 22, 1998 and April 9,
2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

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


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


AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE: AVY) from July 24,
2001 through 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 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      


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in 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.  This suit is brought 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 details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Laurence D. King or
Hae Sung Nam by Mail: 555 Montgomery Street, 805 Third Avenue,
22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111, New York, NY 10022
(415) 772-4700 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 by Fax: (415) 772-4707
by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


IMPERIAL CHEMICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Imperial Chemical Industries PLC (NYSE: ICI) securities
between August 1, 2002 and March 24, 2003, inclusive.

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

Defendants further stated that the Company was on track to
report strong financial results, that the Company had cleared
its backlog of customer orders and that the Company had not lost
any customers as a result of its production problems.  The
complaint alleges that these statements were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: ICI@bernlieb.com.  


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf
of the Carpenters Pension Trust For Southern California and
Oppenheim Investment Management, LLC, both institutional
investors, in the United States District Court for the District
of South Dakota.  The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of
NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NOR) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 7, 2002 and March 31, 2003.

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

Both prior to and throughout the class period, management of the
Company consistently represented that its subsidiaries,
including Expanets and Blue Dot, were achieving and would
continue to achieve these results.  In fact, however, investors
would ultimately learn at the close of the class period, which
defendants had managed to conceal throughout the class period,
that:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415 by
Phone: 800/404-7770 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail:
drscott@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@scott-scott.com  


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGN) between March 28, 2000 and
March 30, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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


SUPERGEN INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files 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
entitled, Taormina vs. SuperGen, et al. 03 cv 2094, was filed in
the Northern District of California.

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, known by each
defendant:

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

     (2) 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;

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

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

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) in exchange
for securities of Telxon Corporation on or about November 30,
2000 pursuant to the merger of Telxon and Symbol against the
Company and nine of its current and former directors and
officers:

     (1) Tomo Razmilovic,

     (2) Kenneth V. Jaeggi,

     (3) Robert W. Korkuc,

     (4) Jerome Swartz,

     (5) Harvey P. Mallement,

     (6) George Bugliarello,

     (7) Leo A. Guthart,

     (8) Charles B. Wang, and

     (9) James H. Simons

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983,
or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, by Fax: 212/490-2022, by Mail: 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *