CAR_Public/030514.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, May 14, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 94

                           Headlines                            

724 SOLUTIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
ARMSTRONG WORLD: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
AVANEX CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
BALI BOMBING: Survivors, Victim's Families Sue Financial Backers
BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Fraud Suit

CB BANCSHARES: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit V. CPF Merger in Hawaii
CITGO PETROLEUM: Named as Defendant in Various Suits Over MTBE
COLUMBIA ENERGY: KS Court Denies Certification To Royalties Suit
COLUMBIA GAS: Named in Suit Over Illegal Discounts To Shippers
COMBINED INSURANCE: Sex Harassment Persists, Complaints Increase

COMCAST CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits
COSI INC.: Expects NY Securities Fraud Suits To Be Consolidated
EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Lawsuit V. Ephedra Manufacturers Filed in IL
FAIRMARKET INC.: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Lawsuit
HENRY SCHEIN: TX Court Refuses Rehearing On Suit Certification

IRAQ: China Should Argue for Oil Concession, Litigation Possible
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Allowed To Launch Amended Suit
MAXWORLDWIDE INC.: Reaches $5M Agreement for CA Stock Lawsuits
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Attorneys Push Settlement For ERISA Lawsuit
NEW FOCUS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

NEW FOCUS: Named As Defendant in Securities Suit V. CSFB, Others
NEW JERSEY: Environmental Dept Retains Prominent, Clever Lawyer
NEVADA: Lawmakers Urge Compromise On State Bill on Home Defects
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Suit Consolidation in S.D. NY

NORTEL NETWORKS: Dismissal of TX Securities Lawsuit Deemed Final
PROGRESS ENERGY: Reaches Settlement for FL Right-of-Way Lawsuit
REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Named As Defendant in MO Borrowers' Lawsuit
SECURITIES LITIGATION: US Legal Action Offers Hope To Investors
SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Moves To Overturn IL Verdict
WASHINGTON: Special Master Named To Probe Sex Harassment Claims
WEST VIRGINIA: Distress Over Workers' Compensation Bill Likely
WH INTERMEDIATE: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Herbalife Marketing
WIRELESS FACILITIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Named As Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuit in DC


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
eUNIVERSE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
eUNIVERSE INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA

                           *********

724 SOLUTIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against 724 Solutions, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.

In general, the amended complaint alleges that the underwriter
defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the underwriter
         defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the after-market at certain pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants failed to disclose these facts and that
the Company and the individual defendants were aware of, or
disregarded, the underwriter defendants' conduct.

In July 2002, the Company joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss
the securities suit.  In October 2002, the court dismissed the
Company's officers and directors without prejudice.  In February
2003, the court dismissed several claims against the Company.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and the
individual defendants against these claims.  However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the IPO
Litigation is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the IPO Allocation
Litigation.


ARMSTRONG WORLD: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of
two class actions filed on behalf of 370 former Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. (AWI) employees that were separated in two
business divestitures in 2000.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) the Retirement Committee of AWI,

     (2) certain current and former members of the Retirement
         Committee,

     (3) the Retirement Savings and Stock Ownership Plan
         (RSSOP),

     (4) Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

     (5) the trustee bank of the RSSOP

The cases are pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Similar proofs of claim
have been filed against the Company in the Chapter 11 Case.  
Plaintiffs allege breach of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA
pertaining to losses in their RSSOP accounts, which were
invested in Armstrong common stock.

While the Company believes there are substantive defenses to the
allegations and while denying liability, the Company reached an
agreement to settle this matter.  The full amount of the
settlement will be allocated among the approximate 370 former
employees.

AWI's portion of the settlement is $1.0 million, which will be
treated as convenience claims in the Chapter 11 Case.  The
settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on March 31,
2003; final approval is required by the federal court.


AVANEX CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Avanex Corporation, certain of its officers
and directors, and various underwriters in its initial public
offering (IPO).

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the Company's IPO.  Plaintiffs have brought claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
against those underwriters, and also against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation"
securities class actions currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice.  The issuer
defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss on common
pleading issues, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part in an order dated February 19, 2003.  

The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against the Company.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the claims against it and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  Nevertheless, an unfavorable result
in litigation may result in substantial costs and may divert
management's attention and resources, which could seriously harm
its business, financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.


BALI BOMBING: Survivors, Victim's Families Sue Financial Backers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian families of victims and survivors of the Bali
bombings that claimed 88 Australian lives have joined a US-led
class action to sue the financial backers of terrorism, their
lawyers said recently, according to a report by Agence France-
Presse.  The civil action will mirror the similar suit brought
by the victims of the September 11 terror attacks and is being
coordinated by the US law firm of Suggs, Kelly and Middleton.

"I think it is very important as a first response by a legal
system to hold accountable the specific bombers and those
complicit in the bombing," a spokesman for the firm, Mike
Hourigan said.  Mr. Hourigan told Sky News his firm already had
gathered evidence linking Middle Eastern financiers to Jemaah
Islamiyah (JI), the group blamed for the Sari nightclub bombing
in October last year.

Mr. Hourigan said that "from what we can see there were
significant financial contributions from Middle Eastern sources
to JI and their representatives.  So we think that given the
right amount of time we shall be able to conclusively prove that
Middle Eastern backers helped JI and the October 12 attackers to
bring about that attack."

Mr. Hourigan invited any surviving Bali victims to join the
class action, which will be filed in the US District Court of
the District of Columbia.  Mr. Hourigan said the jury would be
asked to apply punitive damages to those financial backers,
which could mount to an award of millions or billions of
dollars.

"We would hope that a jury would provide a suitable amount that
will be large, so as to break the financial underpinnings of
these people," said Mr. Hourigan.


BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York dismissed in part the securities class action filed against
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and:

     (1) Chief Financial Officer, Stephen C. McCluski,

     (2) former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, William M.
         Carpenter, and

     (3) former President, Carl E. Sassano

The suit alleges that the value of the company's stock was
inflated artificially by alleged false and misleading statements
about expected financial results.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased company common
stock between January 27, 2000 and August 24, 2000.

On March 31, 2003, the District Court granted, in part, the
company's motion to dismiss and, as such, dismissed certain
claims asserted against the company in the consolidated action.  
In addition to dismissing certain claims against the company,
all direct claims against Mr. McCluski were dismissed and those
direct claims paralleling the claims dismissed against the
company were also dismissed as to Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Sassano.

The Company intends to continue defending itself vigorously
against these claims.  The Company cannot at this time estimate
with any certainty the impact of the remaining claims on its
financial position.


CB BANCSHARES: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit V. CPF Merger in Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------
CB Bancshares, Inc. and each of the members of its board of
directors face a class action filed in the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaii, on behalf of all Company
shareholders although no proceedings have taken place regarding
possible class certification.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Central Pacific
Financial Corporation's (CPF) proposed exchange offer is futile
without approval of the Company's directors because of the
Company's Rights Plan, and that the defendants have refused to
seriously consider the CPF offer.  The complaint seeks a
judgment:

     (1) directing the defendants to give due consideration to
         any proposed business combination;

     (2) directing the defendants to assure that no conflicts of
         interest exist between the directors and their duties
         to the corporation;

     (3) awarding the plaintiff the costs and attorneys' fees;
         and

     (4) granting such other relief as the court deems proper.

On May 8, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction asking the court to:

     (i) enjoin indefinitely, until further order of the court,
         the special shareholders' meeting scheduled for May
         28, 2003;

    (ii) enjoin enforcement of the Bylaw amendment adopted May
         4, 2003 regarding adjournment of shareholders meetings;
         and

   (iii) enjoin any further amendment to the Company Bylaws
         prior to the special shareholders' meeting.

The Company believes the motion and the suit lack merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.


CITGO PETROLEUM: Named as Defendant in Various Suits Over MTBE
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITGO Petroleum is one of several refinery defendants to state
and federal lawsuits in New York and state actions in Illinois
and California alleging contamination of water supplies by
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a component of gasoline.

The plaintiffs claim that MTBE is a defective product and that
refiners failed to adequately warn customers and the public
about risks associated with the use of MTBE in gasoline.  These
actions allege that MTBE poses public health risks and seek
testing, damages and remediation of the alleged contamination.  
The plaintiffs filed putative class actions in federal courts in
Illinois, California, Florida and New York.  The Company was
named as a defendant in all but the California case.  The
federal cases were all consolidated in a Multidistrict
Litigation case in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (MDL).

In July 2002, the court in the MDL case denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The California plaintiffs in
the MDL action then dismissed their federal lawsuit and re-filed
in state court in California.  Subsequently, the remaining MDL
plaintiffs settled with the Company and its codefendants for an
amount that does not have a material impact on CITGO's financial
condition or results of operations.  The Company anticipates a
similar settlement of the California lawsuit.

In August 2002, a New York state court judge handling two
separate but related individual MTBE lawsuits dismissed
plaintiffs' product liability claims, leaving only traditional
nuisance and trespass claims for leakage from underground
storage tanks at gasoline stations near plaintiffs' water wells.  
Subsequently, a putative class action involving the same leaking
underground storage tanks has been filed.

The Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the product
liability claims and will also oppose class certification.  
Also, in late October 2002, The County of Suffolk, New York, and
the Suffolk County Water Authority filed suit in state court,
claiming MTBE contamination of that county's water supply.  The
Illinois state action has been brought on behalf of a class of
contaminated well owners in Illinois and a second class of all
well owners within a defined distance of leaking underground
storage tanks.  The judge in the Illinois state court action is
expected to hear plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
that case sometime within the next year.


COLUMBIA ENERGY: KS Court Denies Certification To Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stevens County State Court in Kansas refused to grant class
certification to a lawsuit filed against Columbia Energy Group,
thirteen of its affiliated entities and over 200 natural gas
measurers, mostly natural gas pipelines.

Plaintiff claimed that the defendants had submitted false
royalty reports to the government (or caused others to do so) by
mismeasuring the volume and heating content of natural gas
produced on federal land and Indian lands.  The suit's claims
also cover all oil and gas leases, and asserts:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) negligent or intentional misrepresentation,

     (3) civil conspiracy,

     (9) common carrier liability,

    (10) conversion,

    (11) violation of a variety of Kansas statutes and

    (12) other common law causes of action

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action filed on
behalf of all similarly situated gas producers, royalty owners,
overriding royalty owners, working interest owners and certain
state taxing authorities.

In June 2001, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed ten of the
fourteen Columbia entities.  Discovery relating to personal
jurisdiction has begun.  On September 12, 2001, the four
remaining Columbia defendants along with other defendants filed
a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  That motion is
currently pending before the court.

On April 10, 2003, the judge denied Plaintiffs motion for class
certification.  The court has issued an order giving the
plaintiffs until May 12, 2003 to file for leave to amend their
complaint.


COLUMBIA GAS: Named in Suit Over Illegal Discounts To Shippers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission faces a class action filed Triad
Energy Resources on behalf of Columbia's customers who were
damaged by the Company's alleged practice of illegally
discounting services to select shippers.  The named defendants
include NiSource Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and other
unrelated parties, including shippers who allegedly benefited
from the activities, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs claim that all defendants engaged in vertical
restraint of trade by conspiring to provide scarce
transportation/storage capacity to a select group of shippers
who in turn agreed to fix the price of gas.  The plaintiffs also
claim that the defendant shippers engaged in horizontal
restraint of trade by conspiring with each other to gain
preferential treatment from the pipeline defendants.  There is
also a separate count alleging tortuous interference against all
defendants.  The Company denies the allegations.  


COMBINED INSURANCE: Sex Harassment Persists, Complaints Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual harassment is persistent in all kinds of workplaces.  
Nationally, the number of sexual harassment complaints filed
with federal and state agencies increased nearly 17 percent from
1992 through 2002.

Elke Budreau was 19 years old.  She had been a sales agent at
Combined Insurance Co. of America when she attended her first
company-sponsored conference.  Ms. Budreau will always remember
the meeting, because at that meeting she was sexually assaulted
by her district manager and four other men employed by Combined,
which she reported in a sexual harassment claim filed against
the company.  Later, some of the men she charged with the
assault paid for an abortion she had, according to her
complaint, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Ms. Budreau declined to discuss the specifics, except to say she
was incapacitated and did not realize she had been assaulted
until some time later.  As a result, criminal charges were not
filed, she said.

Combined, a unit of Chicago-based Aon Corporation, faces
complaints from about 135 women alleging harassment and
discrimination.  Filings in US District Court in Chicago
describe women being assaulted, grabbed, propositioned and
frozen out of promotions.  They allege they were paid less than
their male counterparts, given lesser assignments and laughed at
when they told supervisors about inappropriate treatment.  
Attorneys for the women are asking the court to approve class
action claims for former and current workers at Combined.

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act nearly 40 years ago,
guaranteeing, among other things, that workers cannot be
discriminated against because of their sex.  For more than a
generation, women have steadily increased their representation
in all parts of the workplace.  Educational sessions on how to
avoid harassing are now common parts of workplace training.  
However, lawyers who represent people who claim harassment say
there is still plenty of work to keep them busy.

"We see absolutely outrageous allegations of sexual harassment,
from the highest offices of the biggest companies to the factory
floors," said John Hendrickson, an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission regional attorney.  He led the recent case against
Dial Corporation that alleged sexual harassment at its plant
near Aurora.

Dial admitted to no wrongdoing and agreed April 29 to pay $10
million and let monitors into its soap plant, where about 100
women filed complaints.  Dial was the largest settlement since
Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America paid $34 million in
1998 in a sexual harassment case that EEOC brought against the
carmaker's plant in Normal, Illinois.  Patricia Benassi, who
represented some of the women in the Mitsubishi case, five years
later represent some of those suing Combined.

After Mitsubishi, Ms. Benassi felt that after doing this for 20
years with the EEOC that they were finally making a difference.  
"But this company Combined just didn't get it.  Combined
completely ignored it," she said.

The EEOC has accused brokerage firm Morgan Stanley of
discriminating against more than 100 women.  Last week, the
commission told a federal judge that settlement talks collapsed.  
Supervisors resolve many harassment complaints.  However,
Combined Insurance employees claim there was no one they could
turn to.  

In 1998, a pair of US Supreme Court decisions clarified what
factors are necessary to prove sexual harassment.  After these
cases, all these law firms make all this money doing training,
saying, "This is what you have to do, employer, to cover
yourself," said Katharine Baker, a law professor at Chicago-Kent
College of Law.

That legal advice has resulted in specific anti-harassment
policies. However, said Ms. Baker, the court has made clear that
a company can have a policy in place, but if the only person a
victim can report concerns to is the one causing problems, the
company could be in trouble.

Even a settlement is not a guarantee that the company's problems
are over.  The EEOC attorneys who brought the case against Dial
said they have been shocked by some of the company's comments
since the settlement was reached.  "Among high-profile cases, I
have not seen this kind of recalcitrance and arrogance," EEOC's
John Hendrickson said.

On the day the settlement was announced, company officials
continued to insist their plant was a welcoming place for women,
and said few changes were needed, and called the settlement a
"business decision."

Harassment and discrimination end only when a company embraces
the need for change, Mr. Hendrickson said.  "How you stop it is
an unequivocal message from the top, and I have yet to hear a
message from the president (of Dial) on this," he said.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has asked for the dismissal of litigation
filed against it as a result of its alleged conduct with respect
to its investment in and distribution relationship with At Home
Corporation.

At Home was a provider of high-speed Internet access and content
services which filed for bankruptcy protection in September
2001.  Filed actions are:

     (1) class actions against the Company, Brian L. Roberts
         (the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer
         and a director),  AT&T (the former controlling
         shareholder of At Home and also a former distributor of
         the At Home service) and other corporate and individual
         defendants in the Superior Court of San Mateo County,
         California, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty on the
         part of the Company and the other defendants in
         connection with transactions agreed to in March 2000
         among At Home, the Company, AT&T and Cox
         Communications, Inc. (Cox is also an investor in At
         Home and a former distributor of the At Home service);  

     (2) class action lawsuits against Comcast Cable
         Communications, Inc., AT&T and others in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of New
         York, alleging securities law violations and common law
         fraud in connection with disclosures made by At Home in
         2001; and

     (3) a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court
         for the District of Delaware in the name of At Home by
         certain At Home bondholders against the Company, Brian
         L. Roberts, Cox and others, alleging breaches of
         fiduciary duty relating to the March 2000 transactions
         and seeking recovery of alleged short- swing profits of
         at least $600 million pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 purported to have
         arisen in connection with certain transactions relating
         to At Home stock effected pursuant to the March 2000
         agreements.  

The actions in San Mateo County, California have been stayed by
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California, the court in which At Home filed for bankruptcy, as
violating the automatic bankruptcy stay.  In the Southern
District of New York actions, the court ordered the actions
consolidated into a single action.  An amended consolidated
class action was filed on November 8, 2002.


COSI INC.: Expects NY Securities Fraud Suits To Be Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cosi, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On February 5, 2003, a purported shareholder suit was filed,
alleging that the Company and various of its officers and
directors and the underwriter violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by misstating, and by failing
to disclose, certain financial and other business information.  
At least seven additional class action complaints with similar
allegations were later filed, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's stock allegedly traceable to its
November 22, 2002 initial public offering (IPO).  The complaints
in the Securities Act Litigation generally claim:

     (1) that at the time of the IPO, the Company's offering
         materials failed to disclose that the funds raised
         through the IPO would be insufficient to implement the
         Company's expansion plan;

     (2) that it was improbable that the Company would be able
         to open 53 to 59 new stores in 2003;

     (3) that at the time of the IPO, Cosi had negative working
         capital and therefore did not have available working
         capital to repay certain debts; and

     (3) that the principal purpose for going forward with the
         IPO was to repay certain existing shareholders and
         members of the Board of Directors for certain debts and
         to operate the Company's existing restaurants.

On February 21, 2003, a purported shareholder class action was
filed in the same court alleging that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10-b promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between November 22, 2002 and February 4, 2003.  
One additional class action with similar allegations was later
filed (collectively, the "Securities Exchange Act Litigation").

The emphasis of the allegations in the complaint in the
Securities Exchange Act Litigation is that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly caused misrepresentations and omissions
to be made regarding the Company's operating condition and
future business prospects.  Among other things, plaintiffs in
the Securities Exchange Act Litigation allege:

     (i) that defendants failed to disclose that the funds
         raised by the IPO would be insufficient to implement
         the Company's expansion plan;

    (ii) that at the time of the IPO, defendants should have
         known that the costs of expansion would be greater than
         the cash available to the Company, making it improbable
         that the Company would be able to successfully continue
         to open new stores at the pace announced by the
         Company; and

   (iii) that defendants failed to disclose that a reduction in
         the offering price of the IPO would result in the
         Company being forced to abandon its growth strategy.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation and the
Securities Exchange Act Litigation generally seek to recover
compensatory damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees, costs of
Court and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The underwriter is
seeking indemnification from the Company for any damages
assessed against it in the Securities Act Litigation.

The suits are at a preliminary stage, and the Company expects
that these related lawsuits will be consolidated into a single
action.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
against these claims, and intends to vigorously defend against
them.


EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Lawsuit V. Ephedra Manufacturers Filed in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of ephedra dietary products face the very first
nationwide class action lawsuit today in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Some of
the named defendants are:

     (1) Metabolife International,

     (2) Cytodyne Technologies,

     (3) MuscleTech,

     (4) NVE Pharmaceuticals,

     (5) Twin Laboratories and

     (6) EAS

The following are some of the popular ephedra dietary products
sought to be banned: Metabolife, MetaboLift, Hydroxycut,
Herbalife, Herbalite, Stackers, Ripped Fuel, Extreme Ripped
Force, Diet Fuel, GH Fuel, Herba Fuel, ThermiCare, ETA Stack,
Xenadrine RFA-1, Ultimate Orange, Thermogenic Power, and
BetaLean.

Numerous medical reports, studies, articles, and government
agencies have indicated that ephedra dietary products can cause
sudden cardiac complications, strokes and seizures which could
be fatal.  Several organizations have already banned ephedra
such as the NCAA, the Olympic Committee and the NFL.

On January 9, 2002, Canada banned all sales of ephedra.  On
March 5, 2003, Suffolk County in New York was the first county
to ban ephedra.  Many other municipalities and states around the
country are considering legislation to ban ephedra-containing
products.

On May 2, 2003, General Nutrition Centers (GNC), the nation's
largest retailer of nutritional supplements, announced that it
will discontinue the sale of all ephedra-containing products by
the end of June.  The FDA is currently taking action to require
manufacturers to place warning labels on the front of all
products containing ephedra about the risks of heart attack,
seizure, stroke and death.  On April 21, 2003, Public Citizen,
one of the nation's leading consumer advocacy groups, asked the
FDA to ban the sale of dietary supplements containing the herbal
stimulant ephedra.

The primary objectives of this class action are to:

     (i) obtain a court order forcing defendants to cease and
         desist from the manufacture and sale of ephedra dietary
         products and issue a recall;

    (ii) inform the public that consumers taking ephedra dietary
         products are at an increased risk of sudden cardiac
         complications, strokes, and seizures;

   (iii) provide compensation to all victims for death and
         personal injuries;

    (iv) provide a fund for all users of ephedra dietary
         products for medical monitoring; and

     (v) reimburse monies paid for the ephedra dietary products

According to Kenneth Moll, attorney for the plaintiffs, "Our
main goal is to inform consumers of the serious dangers
associated with ingesting ephedra and to have all products
containing ephedra removed from the market because the risks of
death and serious injury outweigh its minimal effectiveness."

For more details, contact Kenneth B. Moll or Shamina Taylor of
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., Chicago by Phone:
312/558-6444 by Fax: 312/558-1112 by E-mail: lawyers@kbmoll.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kbmoll.com


FAIRMARKET INC.: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against FairMarket, Inc. and:

     (1) Scott Randall (former President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board),

     (2) John Belchers (former Chief Financial Officer of
         FairMarket),

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The suit, filed by individual shareholders on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
alleges that certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
fees and commissions in connection with that offering.  The suit
further alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

In October 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the
claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated suit, including the claims against Mr. Randall and
Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or the
Company.  On February 19, 2003, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  As a result, the only claims that remain against the
Company are those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1934.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the remaining
claims asserted against it in the actions.


HENRY SCHEIN: TX Court Refuses Rehearing On Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Supreme Court denied the motion for a rehearing of its
earlier order reversing class certification for a lawsuit
against Henry Schein, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries.

The suit was initially filed in January 1998, in District Court
in Travis County, Texas, alleging, among other things,
negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and violations of certain
Texas commercial statutes involving the sale of certain practice
management software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy
Dental(R) name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows(R) sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that
5,000 Windows(R) customers and 10,000 DOS customers were covered
by the class action that was certified by the trial court.

In November of 1999, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal
of the trial court's determination to the Texas Court of Appeals
on the issue of whether this case was properly certified as a
class action.  On September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's certification order.

On January 5, 2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in
the Texas Supreme Court asking the court to find that it had
"conflicts jurisdiction" to permit review of the trial court's
certification order.  The Texas Supreme Court heard oral
argument on February 6, 2002.  On October 31, 2002, the Texas
Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case holding that it had
conflicts of jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals and finding that the trial court's certification of the
case as a class action was improper.  The Supreme Court further
held that the judgment of the court of appeals, which affirmed
the class certification order, must be reversed in its entirety.  
Upon reversal of the class certification order, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.  

On January 31, 2003, counsel for the class filed a Motion for
Rehearing with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a reversal for
the Supreme Court's earlier opinion reversing the class
certification order.  On May 8, 2003, the Supreme Court denied
the Motion for Rehearing, letting stand its opinion dated
October 31, 2002, which decertified both sub-classes in their
entirety.

At this time, it is not possible to determine whether the trial
court will certify a different class upon motion, if any, or the
possible range of damages or other relief sought by the
plaintiffs in the trial court.


IRAQ: China Should Argue for Oil Concession, Litigation Possible
----------------------------------------------------------------
China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) should argue its oil
concession in Iraq is valid, even though the signing of the
agreement contravened United Nations sanctions, according to
lawyer Peter Roberts, partner and head of the Asia energy
practice of international law firm Jones Day, South China
Morning Post reports.

Mr. Roberts said that given the Chinese oil company probably
would be excluded from the first wave of investment to be
allowed by the new Iraqi government, it still should maintain a
claim on the concession in order to improve its bargaining
position.

CNPC, China's largest oil company and the most active in
international investment, made an agreement with Iraq to develop
the Al-Ahdab oilfield in 1997, a venture which was against UN
sanctions and the introduction of oil-for-food program in 1996,
which allowed limited oil development investment by foreign
countries, but banned the signing of concessions.  Despite the
ban, Russia, France, India, Malaysia, Vietnam and China, among
others, negotiated with Iraq for concessions.

Only Russia's Lukoil and CNPC were granted concessions, while
some memoranda of understandings with the other countries named
above were signed.  Little or no development work was done for
fear of contravening further the UN sanctions.

What legal options do these countries have to protect and
implement their signed concessions for oil development?  Mr.
Roberts said Russia, China and other countries, which have
negotiated concessions in Iraq, could join forces in a class
action to claim the validity of their various forms of
investment agreements.

Mr. Roberts conceded a lawsuit at the International Court of
Justice would take years to settle, and by that time many new
concessions would have been granted, making more complicated the
settlement of all the claims.  Still another wrinkle in the
determination of the legal status of CNPC's concession is the
international situation after the recent war's end.  Russia and
France, said Mr. Roberts, were the most adamant in their
opposition to the United States-led war in Iraq, while China was
less vocal in its resistance.

Still, Mr. Roberts considered it likely that China would be
considered a member of the "coalition of the unwilling and
opposing" and concessions would be likely to be granted to the
United States and British firms as a "reward" for their
countries' war effort.

Mr. Roberts also brought forth for consideration some principles
of international law.  Mr. Roberts said CNPC could argue the
validity of its concession by claiming the continuity of Iraq as
a legal entity.

"The Republic of Iraq continues to exist," he said.  "The
sovereign entities (of Iraq and its Ministry of Oil) have a
perpetual existence and an independent legal personality, under
international law."

Meanwhile, as a preliminary step, the CNPC staff who left Iraq
after its office was closed due to the war, planned to return
soon, according to a CNPC spokeswoman.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Allowed To Launch Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California allowed plaintiffs to file a third amended class
action against Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and two of its
officers.  

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws related
to declines in the Company's stock price in connection with
various statements and alleged omissions to the public and to
the securities markets, and seeking damages therefore.

The Company successfully brought a motion to dismiss the first
consolidated complaint, and plaintiff was given leave to file a
second amended complaint.  The Company again successfully
brought a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and
plaintiff was given leave to file a third amended complaint.  At
present, plaintiff has the right to file his third amended
complaint by May 27, 2003, and the Company would have until June
24, 2003 in which to file a motion to dismiss.  

In October 2001 and May 2002, certain former shareholders of
Cytovia filed complaints in California Superior Court in San
Diego against the Company and two of its officers based on
similar facts and circumstances, alleging fraud and negligent
misrepresentation in connection with the Company's acquisition
of Cytovia.  The Superior Court subsequently issued an order
compelling the first lawsuit to a binding arbitration forum, and
the second lawsuit has been stayed pending the resolution of the
arbitration proceeding.  The binding arbitration proceeding with
the American Arbitration Association is currently underway.

No assurances can be made that the Company will be successful in
its defense of these claims.  If the Company is not successful
in our defense of such claims, the Company could be forced to
make significant payments to our stockholders, the plaintiffs
and defense lawyers, and such payments could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results
of operations.


MAXWORLDWIDE INC.: Reaches $5M Agreement for CA Stock Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
MaxWorldwide, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Several suits were filed since March 21, 2002, following the
announcement of the Commission's investigation and the internal
investigation conducted by of the Audit Committee of the Board
of Directors.  The complaints were filed on behalf of its
stockholders and generally allege that during 2000 and 2001 the
Company, and the other named defendants, made false or
misleading statements of material fact about the Company's
financial statements, including its revenue, revenue recognition
policies, business operations and prospects for the years 2000,
2001 and beyond.  The suits were later consolidated.

On March 18, 2003 the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which any
relief may be granted and the consolidated suit was dismissed
without prejudice.  Because the lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice, plaintiffs have an opportunity to amend the complaint
against the defendants.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the class action for $5.0 million.  Final
terms of the settlement are still under negotiation and are
subject to certain terms and conditions, including court
approval.


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Attorneys Push Settlement For ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers on both sides of a class action against McDonnell
Douglas Corporation urged the federal judge to accept a partial
$36 million settlement of the case, while a few plaintiffs
argued against the pact, Tulsa World reports.

US District Court Judge Sven Erik Holmes ordered the lawyers to
file documents by May 14 regarding whether the proposed
settlement is fair.  The judge said he would make a final ruling
later.

Judge Holmes found McDonnell Douglas liable September 5, 2001,
for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when
the company said in December 1993 that it was closing its Tulsa
plant.  Judge Holmes gave his preliminary approval February 7 to
the partial settlement which would resolve all claims in the
nine-year-old case except the issue of any back pay that may be
due the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Joseph Farris told the court that the $36
million figure was reached after two days of "knock-down, drag-
out" private mediation in San Francisco on January 20, 21.  Mr.
Farris said 281 of the 1,074 plaintiffs are older than 65.  
Their average age is 59, and about 50 have died while the case
has been pending, he said.

With that in mind, Mr. Farris said the certainty of $36 million
is preferable to the unpredictability of taking all matters to
trial, where he said a number of issues might not have been
decided in plaintiffs' favor.

However, some plaintiffs spoke against the proposed settlement
during the hearing before Judge Holmes.  Fred D. Davis Sr. of
Tulsa said the $36 million is a "fantasy" because it does not
take into account the attorneys' costs and fees that will be
deducted.

According to the proposal, $1 million will be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel as reimbursement for the costs and expenses
of the litigation.  The plaintiffs' lawyers have asked the court
for 25 percent of the remainder of the settlement fund, about
$8.75 million in fees.

Mr. Davis and plaintiff Clarence Colberg of Claremore also said
the settlement does not allow for plaintiffs' insurance needs
that came as a result of the closure.  Mr. Farris, their
attorney, replied that the money each plaintiff would be
receiving is meant, in part, to reimburse them for insurance
benefits they last as a result of the closing.  The plaintiffs
will receive from $5,000 to about $150,000 under the partial
settlement, he said.

Mr. Colberg also said he thinks the company is not being held
accountable in light of Judge Holmes' September 2001 finding
that the company "embarked upon a remarkable course of
obstruction, inconsistent representations and outright
falsehoods" in the case.  Mr. Farris said the federal retirement
law on which the plaintiffs prevailed does not allow for
punitive damages, unlimited damages or other categories such as
emotional distress.

Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a document claiming that the small
number of objections is a "strong endorsement" that, as a class,
the plaintiffs are pleased.  However, some of Mr. Davis's
objections and observations received applause in the packed
courtroom during the recent hearing.

Mr. Colberg attributed the small number of written objections to
a feeling among the plaintiffs that court approval of the
partial settlement is inevitable.  However, Mr. Farris did not
think anyone "articulated any cogent objections."


NEW FOCUS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action filed against New Focus, Inc., several of its officers
and directors and:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Chase Securities, Inc.,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and

     (4) CIBC World Markets Corporation

The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants related to the Initial Public
Offering and the Secondary Offering, violations of Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Act of 1934 against the Individual Defendants, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and violations
of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, of the Securities
Act of 1934 against the Underwriter Defendants.  The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May
18, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions in the same court
asserting virtually identical allegations concerning the
offerings of more than 300 other issuers.  These cases have all
been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin for coordination
and decisions on pretrial motions, discovery, and related
matters other than trial.

In July 2002, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss in
the coordinated proceedings on common pleadings issues.  The
court later entered as an order a stipulation dismissing the
Individual Defendants from the litigation without prejudice.


NEW FOCUS: Named As Defendant in Securities Suit V. CSFB, Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Focus, Inc. was named as a defendant in a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, approximately 50 issuers and various individuals of
the issuer defendants, including William L. Potts, Jr., the
Company's Chief Financial Officer.

As against the Company, the complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 as well as claims for common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law
arising out of the initial public offering of the Company's
common stock.

As against Mr. Potts, the complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 as well as claims for common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law,
also arising out of the initial public offering of the Company's
common stock.

An unfavorable resolution of any of the suit could have a
material adverse effect on the business, results of operations
or financial condition of the Company.


NEW JERSEY: Environmental Dept Retains Prominent, Clever Lawyer
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection and the
state's Attorney General's Office have retained Allan Kanner,
Harvard law graduate -- for free so far -- to pursue some of the
scofflaws responsible for the thousands of toxic waste sites
that "taint" the New Jersey landscape, The Star-Ledger (Newark,
N.J.) reports.

Allan Kanner, "a long-haired New Orleans lawyer and New Jersey
native; he of the cowboy boots, an off-and-on Southern accent
and audacious lawsuits against corporations," is coming after
the New Jersey polluters and can be found at the law offices of
Lynch Martin Kroll, the law firm of Democratic power broker John
Lynch, where Mr. Kanner is scouring state files for possible
"natural resource damage" claims.

Such claims, little used in the state's past, require polluters
to go far beyond simple cleanups, by making them pay the public
for things such as lost fishing time, lost tap water, injured
wildlife and soiled scenery.

Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley
Campbell said New Jersey's notorious pollution problems,
combined with Mr. Kanner's expertise, could mean a windfall for
the state in natural resource damage claims.

"There are literally more than 5,000 potential claims out
there," Mr. Campbell said.  "Probably no state has as many of
these claims an New Jersey has."

By most counts New Jersey leads the nation in the number of
toxic waste sites.  Few other states have pursued natural
resource damage claims as aggressively as New Jersey is
considering, experts say.  Authority to press the claims comes
from various federal and state laws, in addition to common law
Public Trust Doctrine, which holds that the government is
responsible for keeping public land and water clean on behalf of
the citizenry.

Although Mr. Kanner is working for free so far, the state would
consider selecting him to press some of the lawsuits that are
likely to result from the claims, Mr. Campbell said.  Mr. Kanner
and Mr. Lynch would likely take home a percentage of the
winnings, though that percentage is yet to be determined.

Lynch Martin Kroll was Mr. Kanner's New Jersey partner in the
massive Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. class action over defective
tires, in which they won more than $1 billion from Cooper.  The
case was heard in state Superior Court in Mr. Lynch's hometown
of New Brunswick.


NEVADA: Lawmakers Urge Compromise On State Bill on Home Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers are urging lawyers to work out a compromise with
builders on legislation requiring Nevada homeowners to file
notice and wait several months before suing over leaky roofs or
cracked walls, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Over 100 homeowners recently packed the four-hour hearing of the
Assembly's Judiciary Committee on the bill SB241.  The bill
provides that homeowners with crooked doors and windows or other
problems would be required to issue a formal complaint to a
builder.  The homeowner could only file a lawsuit if the builder
did not fix the problem within five months or did not respond to
the complaint within three months.

The legislation is being sought by builders and contractors who
said it would reduce the number of home defects lawsuits and
eventually lower their construction liability insurance rates.  
The bill won 17 to 3 approval in the Republican-controlled
Senate last month.

Both builders and lawyers say the provisions of the bill will
likely be narrowed by the Democrat-controlled Assembly
Committee.  These two groups are negotiating to determine
whether they can agree on compromise language.  The key sticking
point is a provision that requires all homeowners involved in a
class action to follow all the bill's requirements before
proactively joining in a defect claim.

Homeowners say home defect class actions are increasingly common
in southern Nevada, where sprawling developments are built
quickly to accommodate the region's tremendous growth.  Over 100
such suits are now clogging Las Vegas courts.  Lawyers and some
homeowner groups say that is because of shoddy workmanship;
while builders, contractors and some other Las Vegas residents
blame lawyers who prey on easily manipulated homeowner
associations.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a securities class action
filed against Nortel Networks Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who acquired the securities of JDS Uniphase
Corporation (JDS) between January 18, 2001 and February 15,
2001.  The suit alleges violations of the United States federal
securities laws.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit
on the grounds that they failed to state a cause of action under
United States federal securities laws.  The Company also moved
to dismiss on the separate basis that JDS shareholders lacked
standing to sue it.  On January 3, 2003, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss the suit.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Suit Consolidation in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ask securities suits against Nortel Networks
Corporation to be consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Three securities suits were initially filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  The first
suit was filed in December 2001, on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Nortel Networks Long-Term Investment Plan
(the Plan) at any time during the period of March 7, 2000
through the filing date and who made or maintained Plan
investments in the Company's common shares, under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for Plan-wide relief and
alleging, among other things, material misrepresentations and
omissions to induce Plan participants to continue to invest in
and maintain investments in NNC common shares in the Plan.

A second lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan and Plan participants
for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased the Company's
common shares during the period from October 27, 2000 to
February 15, 2001, and making similar allegations was filed in
the same court.   A third purported lawsuit, on behalf of
persons who are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at
any time since March 1, 1999 to the filing date, and making
similar allegations, was filed in the same court.   The first
and second purported class action lawsuits were consolidated by
a new purported class action, filed on May 15, 2002 in the same
court and making similar allegations, on behalf of Plan
participants and beneficiaries who directed the Plan to purchase
or hold shares of certain funds, which held primarily Company
common shares, during the period of March 7, 2000 through
December 21, 2000.

On September 24, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a motion to consolidate all the actions and to transfer
them to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to
withdraw the pending motion to consolidate and transfer.  The
withdrawal was granted by the District Court on December 30,
2002.

A fourth purported class action, on behalf of the Plan and Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan held Company
common shares during the period from March 7, 2000 through
March 31, 2001, and making similar allegations, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on March 12, 2003.  On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the
fourth purported class action filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all the actions to
the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Dismissal of TX Securities Lawsuit Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
against Nortel Networks, Inc. is deemed final, after plaintiffs
did not file an appeal.

The suit was commenced in February 2001 against Entrust
Technologies Inc. and two of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division.  The Company was later added as a defendant.

The first suit alleges that Entrust, two officers of Entrust,
and the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to certain statements made by Entrust.  The Company
is alleged to be a controlling person of Entrust.

On April 6, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which the court granted without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
then filed an amended suit against the same defendants asserting
claims substantively similar to those in the first suit.  On
September 21, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second suit, which was granted without leave to amend.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Reaches Settlement for FL Right-of-Way Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy Florida, Inc. reached a settlement for a class
action seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for
the alleged improper use of electric transmission easements, in
Florida Trial Court.  

The plaintiffs contend that the licensing of fiber-optic
telecommunications lines to third parties or telecommunications
companies for other than the Company's internal use along the
electric transmission line right-of-way exceeds the authority
granted in the easements.  In June 1999, plaintiffs amended
their complaint to add Progress Telecom as a defendant and
adding counts for unjust enrichment and constructive trust.  

In January 2000, the court conditionally certified the class
statewide.  In mediation held in March 2000, the parties reached
a tentative settlement of this claim.  In January 2001, the
trial court preliminarily approved the amended settlement
agreement, certified the settlement class and approved the class
notice.  On November 16, 2001, the trial court issued a final
order approving the settlement.  

Several objectors to the settlement appealed the order to the
First District Court of Appeal.  On February 12, 2003, the
appellate court issued an opinion upholding the trial court's
subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but reversing the
trial court's order approving the mandatory settlement class for
purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief.  The appellate
court remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  

The Company filed a motion to seek discretionary review before
the Florida Supreme Court.  Other parties filed similar motions
as well as motions for rehearing before the First District Court
of Appeal.  

Subsequent to filing these motions, the Company and the
appellants reached a settlement resolving the appellants'
dispute.  The settlement is ultimately contingent upon the trial
court approving a mandatory class settlement consistent with the
First District Court of Appeal's February 12, 2003 opinion.  The
First District Court of Appeal thereafter granted the parties
joint motion to relinquish jurisdiction of the case to the trial
court.


REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Named As Defendant in MO Borrowers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Bancshares, Inc. was named as one of 35 investor
defendants in a class action filed on behalf of several Missouri
residential real estate owners or borrowers.  The plaintiffs
obtained second mortgage High LTV Loans from Century Financial,
Inc., during the 1997-1998 timeframe.  During this period, the
Company purchased 112 loans from Century totaling approximately
$5.4 million.

The plaintiffs allege that Century charged illegal loan
origination fees and closing costs in violation of the Missouri
Second Mortgage Loans Act.  Under the purchase agreement with
Century, all fees and costs collected by Century were retained
by them.  The plaintiffs are seeking both actual and punitive
damages.

At this time, all proceedings have been stayed by the Missouri
Supreme Court pending the resolution of appeals on statute of
limitations issues filed by other parties involved in the
lawsuit.  The Company has not at this point reached any
conclusion regarding the validity of such lawsuit or the outcome
of the appeals process.

The Company intends to respond appropriately to the suit and
vigorously protect its interests.  However, at this time, it
cannot conclude whether or not it will prevail in such
litigation.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: US Legal Action Offers Hope To Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The investors in the United Kingdom, like their American
counterparts, see little to cheer about even though the FTSE
crept above 4,000 this week.  These people of little cheer are
the investors who put money into US technology shares that are
now close to worthless.  Some hold their shares directly, but
the vast majority invested through much-hyped technology funds
that have lost 80 percent of their value, The Times of London
(London Times) writes.

Amid all this gloom, however, there is a glimmer; there is one
ray of hope for the aggrieved investors:  the "barrage" of legal
action being mounted in the United States against the powerful
Wall Street investment banks.  This "zoom" of legal activity
follows upon Eliot Spitzer's inquiry into the stock market
flotations of technology companies of dubious value masterminded
by Wall Street investment banks towards the end of the Nineties.

In public, as that same public has read over and over, the
research analysts at the banks extolled the prospects for these
businesses; in private e-mails, however, they called the
businesses "dogs" or "duds."  Investors were duped, and the
banks raked in lucrative fees.  Now, the US law firms, acting on
behalf of the investors, are preparing billions of dollars worth
of lawsuits against the banks.  

Additionally, shareholders who were misled can stake a claim to
part of Mr. Spitzer's $1.4 billion settlement with the
investment banks, some of which has been put aside as a
restitution fund.  However, according to the London Times, the
US lawyers are seeking bigger rewards.  Nearly, 1,000 lawsuits
have been launched relating to 200 technology company flotations
between 1998 and 2000, including such start-ups as VA Linux
Systems, Double Click Inc and Priceline.com.

The US lawyers say that UK investors can benefit from the class
action lawsuits against the Wall Street banks.  However, only
those who retain their fund and share holdings stand to qualify
for any payments.

Melvin Weiss, senior partner at the US law firm Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which describes itself as the "world's
leading class-action firm," told Times Money, "Our class actions
cover anybody in the world who has invested in US markets.  If
you are a UK investor, you can share in the recovery."  Mr.
Weiss has already filed more than 300 class-action claims
and expects to win "multiple billions of dollars" for his
clients.

Anyone who bought the shares himself will benefit if the class
action is successful.  Where investors bought into a fund, the
situation is more complicated, according to the London Times
report.  Mr. Weiss says that they would have to rely on their
fund managers to take action on their behalf.  Any litigation
winnings would then be added to the funds, benefiting investors.

So far, the fund managers have indicated an unwillingness to
claim compensation from the Wall Street banks.  Some groups
claim that their exposure to flotations in the US was small and
that any compensation will be minimal.  They also wish to
demonstrate that their research is independent, although, in the
case of the US dot-com stocks, this research was based on highly
misleading data about the prospects for these businesses.

The Investment Management Association says, "It is a matter for
individual fund managers (to determine) because only they will
know how much they relied on the biased research."

John Pullar-Strecker, who headed the Aberdeen fund in the UK,
now owned by New Star, said, "We were not influenced by the
research.  Flotations did present an opportunity for us to buy
shares, but we treated them like any other company stock we look
at buying."

Elaine Crichton, head of US retail funds at Aegon said, "We
don't actively start class-action lawsuits.  There are a lot of
big players in the United States who could do this for us."

However, the reluctance of the UK groups to take a lead role in
the fight for justice does not wash well with Mr. Weiss.  "The
fund managers have a fiduciary duty to act on the investors'
behalf," he said.  "They may have done their own research, but
they relied on the integrity of the information.  If the
information was false, they were defrauded."

One of the UK firms that have been contacted by Milberg Weiss is
Class Law, run by Stephen Alexander.  Mr. Alexander said he
already has had talks with interested parties in the UK.  Like
Mr. Weiss, he believes that the asset management companies need
to be actively involved.  Mr. Alexander said, "If the fund
manager chooses not to investigate the possibility of joining
the action, is he being negligent toward his client?  Investment
banks are reluctant to sue one another, but they have an
obligation to their customers and a duty to investigate."


SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain officers and
directors and a former officer.

The suit makes claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 11, 2000 and January 16,
2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The suit alleged
that the Company made false and misleading statements about its
products and business.

On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on various grounds.  The
plaintiffs' opposition to the motion is due on June 6, 2003.

The Company believes the claims in the suit are without merit
and that it has substantial legal and factual defenses, which it
intends to pursue vigorously.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Moves To Overturn IL Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA asked the Illinois Supreme Court to expedite
Philip Morris USA's effort to overturn the $10.1 billion verdict
handed down in March by a Madison County Circuit Court in the
Price class action "lights" lawsuit.

In Illinois, the Supreme Court may consider an appeal without
initial review by an intermediate appellate court if the matter
involves both important legal issues and a practical need for a
prompt and final decision.

"Philip Morris USA believes this verdict clearly meets those
criteria.  It is in the best interest of everyone, including the
plaintiffs and the courts, to have this matter resolved without
delay," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice
president and associate general counsel.

"The vast majority of federal and state courts in the United
States have ruled that the law doesn't permit tobacco cases to
be tried as class actions.  The judgment in the Price case
should be tested against these legal principles as soon as
possible in order to avoid further disruption of the company's
business," he said in a statement.

On March 21, Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron ordered the
company to pay $7.1 billion to an estimated 1.1 million smokers
whom the court found to have been misled about the health risks
of Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights cigarettes based upon
the proofs of just two class representatives.  From that amount,
he awarded plaintiffs' attorneys $1.77 billion in fees.   Judge
Byron also awarded punitive damages of $3 billion be paid to the
state.

In order for Philip Morris USA to stay enforcement of the
judgment pending appeal, the company has posted a bond secured
by a pre-existing $6 billion note owed to Philip Morris USA.  It
also must deposit the annual $420 million in interest that note
generates plus an additional $800 million in cash in an escrow
account with the Clerk of the Court.

"The uncertainty created by the judgment and the burdens flowing
from the bonding requirements make it especially appropriate for
the Illinois Supreme Court to initiate a prompt and definitive
resolution of the many important issues that will be raised in
the company's appeal," said Mr. Ohlemeyer.  "Judge Byron
apparently agrees with that assessment. At a hearing last
Thursday, he said 'my concern is that there be an appeal . I
want an appellate court to provide guidance' on the issues
raised during the case and as a result of his verdict."

At Friday's hearing, Judge Byron reiterated his concerns: "I
want to get some decision on each of the very important issues
that have been generated in this class.  This class, in my
opinion, will be a landmark decision certainly in the state of
Illinois for class actions," he said, and later added, "So I
want this matter to proceed certainly to the Supreme Court."  He
also said he believed it is possible the case may ultimately
receive review by the US Supreme Court.

Mr. Ohlemeyer said "there are several other 'lights' class
action cases pending in Illinois and an opinion by the Illinois
Supreme Court will determine whether the novel theories
plaintiffs are pursuing are legitimate or, as we believe,
inconsistent with the facts and state and federal law."  He also
said the state Supreme Court already has recognized the need for
prompt appellate review of class action cases by implementing a
rule effective this year that permits pre-trial appellate
challenges to class certification decisions.

Philip Morris USA was unable to challenge Judge Byron's decision
to try the case as a class action because it already was pending
at the time the rule was changed.

"The same considerations that prompted the state Supreme Court
to change its rule are at issue here.  It is critical for the
Court to address the legal issues raised in the Price case and
give immediate and much-needed guidance to state courts as to
what fundamental requirements must be met in order for a case to
be tried as a class action . This is critically important, not
just for Philip Morris USA but for two other tobacco companies
that are facing trial in 'lights' cases in Madison County and
the fifty states who receive monies under settlements with the
Attorneys General," Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

Under normal circumstances, the company would appeal the Madison
County decision to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals.  
"In this case, the company believes that this matter ultimately
will end up in the Illinois Supreme Court regardless of how the
intermediate appellate court rules . Therefore, the company
believes the most expedient and wisest course of action is to go
directly to the state's highest court.  We are optimistic the
Supreme Court will agree and hear the appeal without the need
for intermediate appellate review," Mr. Ohlemeyer said.


WASHINGTON: Special Master Named To Probe Sex Harassment Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Vicki Hogan appointed Seattle litigator
Michael Reiss as special master to oversee the Department of
Social and Health Services' investigation of sexual harassment
allegations at Seattle's Western State Hospital, The News
Tribune (Tacoma, WA) reports.

Mr. Reiss, among other things, will look at regular reports by a
sexual harassment consultant investigating the allegations of
harassment, violence and retaliation at the hospital.  The
issues of who will pay for Mr. Reiss's work, and what the
parameters of that work will be, will be decided in another
hearing later this month.

Mr Reiss is a partner in the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine and
specializes in litigation, employment law and mediation.  Mr.
Reiss has worked on state- and nationwide race discrimination,
sex discrimination and wage-and-hour class actions, among other
related things.

The appointment arose from the case of Kathleen Lizee, a
hospital administrator who sued Western State Hospital for
sexual harassment.  The state agreed to pay Ms. Lizee $896,000
to settle her lawsuit, in which she said a fellow employee and
union leader sexually harassed for three years with no
intervention by hospital management.  Ms. Lizee's accused
harasser, risk manager and union local president Barrette Green,
is on paid home assignment.


WEST VIRGINIA: Distress Over Workers' Compensation Bill Likely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Failed legislation to cut off workers' compensation benefits at
age 70 would have left nearly one-third of the state's most
injured without benefits, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Workers' Compensation Division's Executive Director Gregory
Burton said it would be difficult to cut off current permanent
total disability recipients on the basis of age, saying it
almost certainly would result in a class action against the
state.  Mr. Burton said a better proposal would be to have
permanent total disability cases reviewed on an annual or
biannual basis for eligibility.

The workers compensation system needs $225 million to remain
solvent through July 2006, division official estimate.  Long-
term unfounded deficits are nearing $4 billion.

The re-vamped bill, as proposed by a House-Senate conference
committee, and likely to be included in the legislation to be
taken up in special session this summer, the age-70 cutoff would
apply only to those who file permanent total disability claims
after the new law goes into effect.

Critics say, however, that such a provision would be unfair to
those who suffer disabling workplace injuries at a young age,
leaving them with limited Social Security benefits and little or
no pension.  

Other legislative changes may be the source of class actions
against the state.  They certainly are the cause of possible
violence.  Cost-saving changes in pharmaceutical benefits
enacted this past week drew the anger of some claimants.  The
changes are part of a revamping of pharmacy benefits projected
to reduce division costs by $4 million a year.  "Anytime you cut
that, or scale down the amount, that upsets people," Mr. Burton
said.

The threats of violence were large enough to result in calls for
off-duty State Police officers to provide security at the
division's Kanawha City offices in Charleston.  In one instance,
an irate workers' compensation recipient told a claims manager
he was going to "take care of all of them."  The State Police
were able to intercept the man en route to Charleston after
receiving a telephone call from his frantic wife, who said her
husband was on the way to Charleston.


WH INTERMEDIATE: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Herbalife Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against WH Intermediate
Holdings, Ltd., certain of its distributors and Herbalife
International, Inc. in the US District Court for the Central
District of California.

The amended complaint alleges that specified marketing plans
employed by the distributor defendants are illegal, attempts to
challenge the legality of Herbalife's marketing system, and
seeks to state causes of action under federal securities laws
and various other laws.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations contained in the lawsuit.  However, an adverse
result in this litigation could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition and operating
results.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Wireless Facilities, Inc. and certain of
its directors and officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons and entities who acquired
the Company's common stock at various times on or after November
4, 1999, alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
issued by the Company in connection with the public offering of
its common stock contained untrue statements of material fact or
omissions of material fact in violation of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, these claims allege that the Company failed to
disclose that the offering's underwriters had:

     (1) solicited and received additional and excessive
         compensation and benefits from their customers beyond
         what was listed in the registration statement and
         prospectus; and

     (2) entered into tie-in or other arrangements with certain
         of their customers which were allegedly designed to
         maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of
         the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

This case is among the over 300 class actions pending in the
same court that have come to be known as the IPO laddering
cases.  On October 9, 2002, the court signed Stipulations and
Orders of Dismissal, which dismissed the Company's named
individual officers and directors from the action, without
prejudice, but the Company remained a defendant in the case.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its decision on the joint
motion to dismiss the IPO laddering cases.  The decision:

     (1) allowed the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against
         the Company based on its alleged issuance of a
         registration statement and prospectus that failed to
         disclose a fraudulent scheme by the offering's
         underwriters; and

     (2) dismissed, with leave to amend, the plaintiffs' claim
         against the Company based on its alleged knowledge and
         intent to defraud investors so as to benefit from an
         inflated price for the Company's common stock in the
         aftermarket.

The Company believes this litigation is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against it.  It is
impossible at this time to assess whether or not the outcome of
these proceedings will or will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company.


VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Named As Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuit in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric & Power Co. was named as a defendant in an
antitrust class action filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The suit, filed in March 2003 by
Triad Energy Resources Corporation and other parties, also names
as one of the defendants Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, an
affiliate of CNG.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged violations
of the Sherman Act and tortious interference with contractual
and business relationships as a result of activities involving
the storage and transportation of natural gas.  No trial date
has been set.  The outcome of the proceeding, including an
estimate as to any potential loss, cannot be predicted at this
time.



                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

May 17, 2003
LEGENDS OF LITIGATION: THE ART OF EXAMINATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sacramento, CA
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Allou Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX:ALU) securities 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 Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by
E-mail: ALU@bernlieb.com.


CORE LABORATORIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit 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 Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE:CLB) securities between
May 6, 2002 and March 31, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between May 6, 2002, and March
31, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Core
common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect
         on certain accounts receivable;

     (3) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of
         expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from
         certain field locations;

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

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

On March 31, 2003, after the markets had closed trading for the
day, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it would
be restating its financial results for prior 2002 quarterly
operating results because of:

     (i) the issuance of duplicate invoices in the Company's
         Mexico operations;

    (ii) the need for higher provisions for doubtful accounts
         receivables;

   (iii) the need for timely booking of expenses and foreign
         exchange translation losses from certain field
         locations;

    (iv) changes in the estimated life of certain assets; and

     (v) consolidation costs of two Nigerian offices

Following this announcement, shares of Core common stock fell
$1.31 per share, or more than 12.5%, to close at $9.09 per
share, on volume of 515,300 shares traded, or almost four times
the average daily volume.

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


eUNIVERSE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 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
eUniverse Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) from July 30, 2002 through May 5,
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 July 30, 2002 and May
5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of eUniverse
common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

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

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

On May 6, 2003, before the opening of trading, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that it "intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters of the
year ended March 31, 2003" and possibly also for the first
quarter of fiscal 2003.  The Company also told investors not to
rely on its reported financial results for the first three
quarters of fiscal 2003.  The Company attributed the need for
the restatement to the "incorrect processing of certain
transactions within the Company's accounting system."  The
Company further said that the restated financial results will
differ materially from the previously-reported results.

Following this announcement, the NASDAQ halted trading in
eUniverse shares and stated that the shares will remain halted
until the company has supplied additional information.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706


eUNIVERSE INC.: 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 eUniverse Inc.
(Nasdaq: EUNI) common stock during the period between July 30,
2002 and May 5, 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 July 30, 2002 and May
5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of eUniverse
common stock.  

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

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

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

On May 6, 2003, before the opening of trading, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that it "intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters of the
year ended March 31, 2003" and possibly also for the first
quarter of fiscal 2003.  The Company also told investors not to
rely on its reported financial results for the first three
quarters of fiscal 2003.  The Company attributed the need for
the restatement to the "incorrect processing of certain
transactions within the Company's accounting system."

The Company further said that the restated financial results
will differ materially from the previously-reported results.  
Following this announcement, the NASDAQ halted trading in
eUniverse shares and stated that the shares will remain halted
until the company has supplied additional information.

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


                              *********


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  * * *