CAR_Public/030519.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, May 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 97

                           Headlines                            

ALASKA: Economist Asserts Market Forces Lowered Salmon Prices
APPLE COMPUTER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Consumer Suit
BIOTECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suits Consolidation

CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit
CIT GROUP: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
CONNECTICUT: Corrections Settles Officers' Sex Harassment Suit
EI DUPONT: Proceedings Start in Benlate Birth Defects Lawsuits

EI DUPONT: FL Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
EQUITY ONE: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Suits Over IRT Co. Merger
HANDSPRING INC.: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL
HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
NEXTEL PARTNERS: MDL Court Dismisses Mobile Phone Lawsuit

NEXTEL PARTNERS: Consumers File Suit Over Wireless Service Fees
NEXTEL PARTNERS: FL Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA High Court To Rule on Arbitration for Suit
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Managed Care Lawsuit
PAINT INDUSTRY: Firms To Add Lead Paint Warning Labels

PREMIUM TICKETS: Cubs Ticket Lawsuit Granted Class Certification
PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Satisfies Blue Line Farms Settlement Terms
REGISTER.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
REGISTER.COM: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Claims in Suit
REGISTER.COM: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in DE Court

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Silzoner Coated Products
TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: IL Court Asked to Hear Certification Issue
WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suits V. Fox Paine Merger

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANT ENERGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodged Securities Suit in NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR

                         *********

ALASKA: Economist Asserts Market Forces Lowered Salmon Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
A University of Alaska resource economist said world market
forces drove down the prices Bristol Bay fishermen received for
their sockeye salmon harvest, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

"I have never seen conspiracy" as a factor in lowering the
sockeye salmon prices, Gunnar Knapp, a University of Alaska
economist, told jurors hearing a class action alleging price
fixing in the world's largest red salmon fishery.

Mr. Knapp said salmon prices crashed because of rapid growth in
wild and farm salmon stocks and declining value of the Japanese
yen.  "Changes in the price of Bristol Bay salmon from 1989
to 1995, were fully consistent with market forces," said
Professor Knapp.

Professor Knapp was the latest economist called in the case
brought by 4,500 Bristol Bay fishermen against the Seattle-based
processors and the Japanese importers.  The fishermen's lawsuit
centers on whether the processors and importers conspired to
lower prices to fishermen to increase their own prices by using
shared price information.

Professor Knapp said he is no expert on what would constitute a
conspiracy, but that he was shocked by conclusions drawn by one
of plaintiffs' economists that there was a conspiracy.

"The market for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon is complicated," said
Professor Knapp.  "Plaintiffs have ridiculously simplified a
complex market."  The professor said he has concluded that the
sockeye salmon fishery is an industry subject to a lot of year-
to-year change, with many factors affecting the price, including
the growth of the farmed salmon industry.

Professor Knapp is recognized as an expert in Alaska, Russian,
Japanese and world salmon markets.  He has researched, written
and lectured extensively on the subject since 1991.

The trial in Superior Court, Anchorage, Alaska, before Judge
Peter A. Michalski, began February 3.  Judge Michalski has
ordered that the case go to the jury May 27.


APPLE COMPUTER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss three securities
class actions filed against the Company and its Chief Executive
Officer.  These lawsuits are substantially identical, and
purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000,
and September 28, 2000.

The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange
Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003,
and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  A hearing on the Company's motion is
currently scheduled for July 2003.


AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Avista Corporation and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material
fact pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In particular, the plaintiffs allege that
the Company failed to disclose certain business practices that
Avista Corporation was allegedly engaging in with EPMI and PGE.

The plaintiffs assert that such alleged misstatements and
omissions have occurred in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made
publicly available by the Company, including press releases.  
The suits assert claims on behalf of all persons who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13,
2002.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and vigorously defend against these lawsuits.


AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consumer class action filed against Avista
Corporation and other purchasers and sellers of wholesale
electricity and national gas in the western United States intend
to ask the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington to dismiss the suit.

The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of all persons and
businesses residing in Washington who were purchasers of
electric and/or natural gas energy from any period beginning in
January 2000 to the present.  The complaint alleges that due to
the deregulation of the California energy market, the defendants
were able to unlawfully manipulate the wholesale energy market
resulting in supply shortages and high energy prices across the
western United States, including Washington.

The complaint further alleges that high energy prices have
resulted in profits for the defendants at the expense of rate-
paying consumers in Washington.  The complaint seeks treble
damages, attorney fees and costs, and an order that defendants
immediately remedy the alleged unlawful practices relating to
the purchase and sale of wholesale energy that affects rate-
paying consumers in Washington.  The complaint further seeks an
order enjoining the defendants from continuing any alleged
unlawful practices relating to the purchase and sale of
wholesale energy that affects rate-paying consumers in
Washington.

The defendants have moved to consolidate this case with similar
actions filed elsewhere and to seek transfer of these cases to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss
this complaint and vigorously defend against this lawsuit.  
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint on May 1, 2003 and indicated that it will present its
motion and proposed order of dismissal without prejudice to the
Court on May 23, 2003.


BIOTECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suits Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology General Corporation and three of its officers face
several securities class actions filed in the US District Court
for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff purports to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company
between April 19, 1999 and August 2, 2002, and seeks unspecified
money damages.

The complaint asserts that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading because the Company
restated its earnings and financial statements for the years
ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in the Company's Form 8-
K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002 and Form
10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002.

Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the actions and to appoint
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against all allegations
of wrongdoing asserted against it and understands that the
individual defendants intend to defend as well.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in one of the consumers' suits against Cingular
Wireless, Inc. appealed the granting of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants to the United States Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  

The suit alleges personal injuries, including brain cancer, from
wireless phone use.  In September 2002, the court in one such
case granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert
testimony and granted summary judgment for defendants.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit and believes
that these matters will not be material to its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of five class actions filed
against Cingular Wireless, Inc. and various affiliated entities
alleging adverse health effects caused by wireless phone use and
alleging fraudulent conduct, participation in conspiracies and
other wrongful conduct by wireless phone manufacturers, service
providers and others.  Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and/or injunctive
and equitable relief.

In March 2003, the court dismissed each of the suits on federal
preemption grounds.  The Company will defend vigorously against
the suit and does not believe that it will have a material
adverse effect on its financial position or business operations.


CIT GROUP: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer face several class actions asserting claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit contains allegations that the registration statement
and prospectus prepared and filed in connection with the IPO
were materially false and misleading, principally with respect
to the adequacy of the Company's telecommunications-related loan
loss reserves at the time.  The suits purport to be brought on
behalf of all those who purchased CIT common stock in or
traceable to the IPO, and seek, among other relief, unspecified
damages or rescission for those alleged class members who still
hold CIT stock and unspecified damages for other alleged class
members.  

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these
actions are without merit and that its disclosures were proper,
complete and accurate.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against these actions.


CONNECTICUT: Corrections Settles Officers' Sex Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
At a recent news conference, Commissioner Theresa Lantz of
Connecticut's Department of Corrections characterized the recent
settlement of a sexual harassment class action by female
corrections officers against their male coworkers as a landmark
move.

"This action (agreement) seeks to change the culture of sexual
harassment in the department," Ms. Lantz said.  "This
(agreement) goes a long way to re-establish the confidence of
the women who work for us."

Under the terms of the settlement, an independent outside
consultant will be hired to investigate the allegations of
sexual harassment.  The Permanent Commission on the Status of
Women will select the investigator.  The Correction Department
would mete out punishment to male correction officers found
guilty of harassment.

"This agreement will serve as a model for other states," said
state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped negotiate
the pact.  

The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities began
investigating the charges late last year, after a group of
female correction officers accused prison officials of routinely
mishandling or ignoring their complaints and retaliating, as
well, against women for filing the accusations.

New Haven attorney David Rosen, one of the women's lawyers, said
the next step in the lawsuit is to determine the scope of sexual
harassment in the state prisons.  As many as 2,000 women may
have been the targets of such abuse, he said.

"We are holding fire on the monetary damages we intend to seek
until we determine how widespread the problem is," Mr. Rosen
said.  "We believe that under the last (prison) administration,
it had become endemic.  If that is the case, the figure would be
substantial."

Attorney Antonio Ponvert of the Bridgeport law firm Koskoff,
Koskoff & Bieder, also declined to name a figure, but said he
believed it will top several million dollars.


EI DUPONT: Proceedings Start in Benlate Birth Defects Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
EI Dupont de Nemours and Company faces five cases pending
involving allegations that Benlate 50 DF Fungicide caused birth
defects to children exposed in utero.  

One case was tried in Florida resulting in a verdict of $4
million against the Company.  The verdict was reversed at the
intermediate appellate level because the plaintiffs' scientific
support for causation was insufficient.  The plaintiffs have
appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.  

The federal court in West Virginia dismissed another case on the
same grounds of insufficient scientific support for causation.  
It has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

The remaining three cases are pending in Delaware.  Two of these
cases were dismissed for not being timely filed and were
appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.  In April of 2003, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissals and remanded
these two cases, involving six plaintiffs, to the trial court
for further proceedings.  The third case pending in Delaware has
been scheduled for trial in November of 2003.


EI DUPONT: FL Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Florida granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of a securities fraud class action
filed against EI Dupont de Nemours and Company and its then-
Chairman.  The plaintiffs in this case alleged that DuPont made
false and misleading statements and omissions about Benlate 50
DF, with the alleged effect of inflating the price of DuPont's
stock between June 19, 1993, and January 27,1995.  

The court certified the case as a class action.  In March 2003,
DuPont entered into an agreement to settle this case for $77.5
million.  On March 14, 2003, the court gave preliminary approval
to the settlement.  There will be a fairness hearing on May 30,
2003, during which the parties will seek final approval of the
settlement.  


EQUITY ONE: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Suits Over IRT Co. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity One, Inc. asked the Superior Court of Cobb County, State
of Georgia to dismiss the class actions and derivative suits
filed against it following the execution of the merger agreement
with IRT Property Company.  The suit also names as defendants
IRT and its board of directors.

The suits allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the
defendant directors, unjust enrichment and irreparable harm.  
The complaints sought declaratory relief, an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, and unspecified damages.

Although the Georgia court did not grant the plaintiffs the
equitable relief requested and permitted the completion of
the merger, two of these lawsuits are still pending and second
amended complaints have been filed in each such suit.  The third
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

On April 23, 2003, the Company filed motions to dismiss each of
the shareholders suits.  Although it believes that these suits
are without merit and intends to continue to defend them
vigorously, there can be no assurance that the pending
litigation will be resolved in its favor.



HANDSPRING INC.: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. was named as a defendant in a securities class
action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The suit also names as defendant 50 of CSFB's clients,
numerous officers of CSFB and its clients including one current
and one former Company officer.

The complaint asserts wrongdoing relating to various initial
public offerings in which Credit Suisse First Boston was
involved between 1999 and 2001.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the Company and/or its named current and
former officers, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Neither the Company nor its officers have responded to the
complaints.


HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted
final approval to the settlement of the class actions filed
against Huffy Corporation for alleged violations of labor
practices.

The settlement was negotiated after protracted negotiations and
was preliminarily approved by the court on January 28, 2003.  
The settlement was given final court approval, pending
compliance with the terms of the class settlement agreement, and
a Judgment of Dismissal was issued on April 7, 2003.  The Claims
Administrator will issue its report as to claims made and on the
amount of payments to be made in the second quarter, 2003, not
to exceed $7,700 for the Company.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: MDL Court Dismisses Mobile Phone Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation dismissed the
class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc. and several
other wireless carriers and manufacturers of wireless
telephones.  The complaint alleges that the defendants, among
other things, manufactured and distributed wireless telephones
that cause adverse health effects.

On March 5, 2003, the MDL court granted the defendants'
consolidated motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on
preemption grounds.  To the Company's knowledge, the plaintiffs
have not yet appealed the MDL court's order.

The Company disputes the allegations of the complaint, will
vigorously defend against the action, and intends to seek
indemnification from the manufacturers of the wireless
telephones if necessary.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Consumers File Suit Over Wireless Service Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners faces a class action filed in the District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas, alleging that the Company falsely and
deceptively increased its prices for wireless service.  The suit
also names as defendants Nextel Communications, and Nextel West
Corporation.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin such practices and seek a refund of
monies paid by the class based on the alleged deception.  
Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, expenses and, if
permitted, punitive damages.

The Company believes the allegations are groundless and will
vigorously defend against the action.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: FL Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit
Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County,
Florida.  The suit also names as defendants Nextel
Communications and Nextel South Corporation.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by
allegedly deceptively and misleadingly characterizing charges on
subscriber bills.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin such practices and
seek a refund of monies paid by the class based on the alleged
deception.  Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Company believes the allegations are unfounded and will
vigorously defend against the action.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA High Court To Rule on Arbitration for Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc.'s petition to review a lower
court's decision refusing arbitration for a class action filed
against the Company and its California subsidiary.

The suit was filed in November 1999 in San Francisco Superior
Court, relating to the period from November 2, 1995 to the
present and purporting to be on behalf of all enrollees in our
health care plans operating in California, other than Medicare
and Medicaid enrollees.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair
business acts in violation of California law, engaged in false,
deceptive and misleading advertising in violation of California
law and violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  It
also alleges that the Company received unjust payments as a
result of its conduct.

The amended complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
an order requiring the defendants to inform and warn all
California consumers regarding the Company's financial
compensation programs, unspecified monetary damages for
restitution of premiums and disgorgement of improper profits,
attorneys' fees and interest.

The Company moved to compel arbitration and the Superior Court
denied the motion.  The Company filed an appeal from this
denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's
decision. Thereafter, the Company filed a petition asking the
California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's
decision, and the California Supreme Court granted the petition.

Oral argument before the California Supreme Court occurred on
February 4, 2003.  The Company expects a ruling from the
California Supreme Court in May 2003.  The Company denies all
material allegations in the amended complaint and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Managed Care Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the
Managed Care multi-district litigation pending against it and
other managed care companies.

Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several
other health care providers, along with several medical
associations, including the California Medical Association,
later joined the proceeding as plaintiffs.

These health care providers sued several managed care companies,
including the Company, alleging that the companies have
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose
unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation
payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care
services provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,
Dr. Book's and other physicians' claims against it.  The court
granted the motion to compel arbitration against all of these
claims except for claims for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for their
RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that stem from
contractual relationships with other managed care companies.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the
District Court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct
RICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book, and the Company
believe that this ruling will apply to the Direct RICO Claims
brought by other providers who have contracts with us as well.

On September 26, 2002, the court certified the litigation as a
class action.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit granted the Company's petition to appeal the
certification, but no date for oral argument of the appeal has
been set.

The Company has filed a new motion to dismiss directed at the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  That motion remains
pending.  Discovery in this litigation has recently commenced.
The Company denies all material allegations and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


PAINT INDUSTRY: Firms To Add Lead Paint Warning Labels
------------------------------------------------------
An agreement was reached recently by the National Paint and
Coating Association and attorneys general from 46 states,
whereby, starting this fall, paint manufacturers across the
country will follow in the footsteps of the tobacco industry by
placing warning labels on their products. The labels will
caution consumers that scraping old paint can create toxic lead
dust, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The labels will be placed on the tops and sides of cans reading
in part: "WARNING!  If you scrape, sand or remove old paint you
may release lead dust.  LEAD IS TOXIC."  The use of these
warnings on the paint makers' products is aimed at combating
lead poisoning, widely cited as the biggest environmental threat
facing children in the United States.

Under the terms of the settlement, besides using the warning
labels, paint manufacturers will pay for hundreds of educational
seminars nationwide on safe renovation practices.  The free
seminars will be aimed at homeowners, contractors, landlords and
housing workers.  In addition, the paint industry has promised
to arrange discounts on safety equipment such as masks and
special vacuum cleaners that pick up small lead particles.

The paint industry and the lawmakers took five months to
negotiate the landmark $200 million plan.  Companies that years
ago participated in the manufacture of leaded paint are facing
numerous class-action lawsuits around the country.  In another
kind of legal action, states and cities are suing the
manufacturers for creating a public nuisance by continuing to
put lead in their products long after the dangers of the metal
were known.

Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox cited a Free Press series
on lead poisoning that ran in the newspaper in January, as he
made his recent announcement of the settlement.  Mr. Cox called
the new measure "a big step toward reducing the public health
risks associated with lead paint."

A major source of lead in the environment is dust from paint in
homes built before 1978, the year when paint manufacturers
stopped adding lead to paint, which had been done to make their
products last longer.


PREMIUM TICKETS: Cubs Ticket Lawsuit Granted Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sophia Hall of Cook County Circuit Court ruled, in a
significant setback for the Cubs and their controversial ticket-
selling policy, that the lawsuit brought by two fans who believe
the Cubs had scalped tickets to them, would have class action
status, according to a report by the Chicago Sun-Times.  The
trial date, not yet set , is expected to be in July, after Paul
Bauch, attorney for plaintiffs, has a chance to notify everyone
who has bought tickets at Premium of the class action.

Therefore, the case no longer is about just the two fans who
filed the lawsuit alleging the Cubs scalped tickets or committed
consumer fraud, but instead could include anyone who has bought
tickets from Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, Inc., a brokerage
firm set up by the Cubs.

Judge Hall ruled that the following legal questions potentially
more than just Peter Cavoto and Gerald Carr, who filed the
lawsuit:

     (1) Whether the Cubs had scalped tickets;

     (2) whether Premium was a qualified broker;

     (3) whether the Cubs were involved in Premium's business
         practices; and

     (4) whether people who had bought tickets at Premium
         suffered financial damage.

James Klenk, an attorney representing the Cubs, said he did not
think the case called for class action status, because there was
such a small number of tickets involved, as well as different
interests.

The case revolves around the Illinois Ticket Scalping Act, which
prohibits people who are putting on sporting events or
entertainment acts from selling tickets above face value.  
Premium Tickets, Inc. does sell tickets above face value, as
high as $1,500 on a $45 ticket to a Cubs-Yankees game in June.

The Cubs argue that they are not the ones selling tickets at
that price but that Premium is.  They have set up Premium as a
separate company to compete with other ticket brokers.  If the
Cubs lose this case, then anyone who bought a ticket at Premium,
for less than $100, could be in line for $100 under scalping
laws.  Anyone who bought a ticket at Premium for more than
$100 could get the difference between what they paid and the
face value, under consumer fraud laws.


PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Satisfies Blue Line Farms Settlement Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-fac Cooperative, Inc. successfully satisfied the terms of
the settlement of a class action filed against it, Birds Eye
Foods, Mr. Mike Shelby and "Does" 1-50" in the Multnomah County
Court in Oregon by Blue Line Farms.  "Does" 1-50 represents
directors, officers and agents of the corporate defendants,
alleging various claims related to the operation of PF
Acquisition II, Inc., a former subsidiary of Pro-Fac that
conducted business under the name AgriFrozen Foods.  The
complaint was subsequently amended to eliminate "Does" 1- 50 as
parties.  

The relief sought included a demand for damages of $50.0
million.  On December 23, 2002, the Company, Birds Eye Foods,
and the other defendants reached an agreement in principle as to
the terms of a settlement of the Blue Line Farms litigation, as
well as of related claims under Oregon's grower lien statute
pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Oregon, known as the Seifer Trust litigation.  The Seifer
Trust litigation also named the Company and Birds Eye among its
named defendants.  

The parties in the Blue Line Farms litigation negotiated a
settlement agreement, approved by the court.  Other settlement
conditions were satisfied on or before April 14, 2003.  


REGISTER.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Register.com, Inc. and:

     (1) Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer Richard D.
         Forman,

     (2) former Vice President of Finance and Accounting, Alan
         G. Breitman,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co. and

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc

The suit seeks unspecified damages as a result of various
alleged securities law violations arising from activities
purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in connection with
the Company's initial public offering.  Plaintiffs allege that
the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual
defendants from the case without prejudice based on stipulations
of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the individual
defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion
to dismiss the complaint against the Company.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies
before one judge in the Southern District of New York.


REGISTER.COM: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Claims in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs will appeal the dismissal of two counts of a class
action filed against Register.com, Inc. in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, alleging that the Company's SafeRenew
program violates New York law.

The Company's SafeRenew program was implemented in January 2001
on an "opt-out basis" to.com, .net and .org registrations
registered through the www.register.com website, and was
subsequently expanded to cover certain ccTLDs registered through
this website.

Under the terms of the Company's services agreement, at the time
a covered registration comes up for renewal, the Company
attempts to charge a registrant's on-file credit card a one year
renewal fee and, if the charge is successful, to renew the
registration for that additional one-year period.  The Company
believes that the SafeRenew program was properly adopted as an
effort to protect its customers' online identities.  

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the SafeRenew
program violates New York General Obligations Law Section5-903,
and also claimed breach of contract, money had and received, and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff further sought to enjoin the
Company from automatically renewing domain name registrations,
an award of compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of
profits (plus interest), cost and expenses, attorneys' fees, and
punitive damages.

The Company later filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.  On April 17, 2003, the motion was granted as to two
counts (declaratory judgment and breach of contract), but denied
as to two other counts (unjust enrichment and money had and
received). On April 28, 2003, Register.com filed an answer
denying the material allegations of the complaint.  On May 2,
2003, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate
Division, First Department of the two counts that were
dismissed.



REGISTER.COM: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. faces several class actions filed by
individual stockholders of the Company in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  The suit also names as defendants each of the
individual members of the Company's board of directors.

The suits allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty
by the directors in connection with certain publicly disclosed
indications of interest in the acquisition of Company.  The
complaints further allege that the directors are not fulfilling
their fiduciary duties in connection with their review and
response to such indications of interest and seek an order
requiring the defendants to, among other things, undertake an
appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a merger or
acquisition candidate and to take all appropriate steps to
effectively sell of the Company.

Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the members
of the Board from continuing their purported breaches of
fiduciary duty and unspecified damages from the defendants.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Silzoner Coated Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces several suits filed patients
alleging defects in the Company's mechanical heart valves and
valve repair products with Silzoner coating.  Some of these
cases are seeking monitoring of patients implanted with Silzoner
coated valves and repair products who allege no injury to date.

Some of these cases have been settled, some have been dismissed,
and others are ongoing.  Some of these cases, both in the United
States and Canada, are seeking class action status.  The Company
voluntarily recalled products with Silzoner coating on January
21, 2000, and sent a Recall Notice and Advisory concerning the
recall to physicians and others.

In 2001, the US Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that certain lawsuits filed in US federal district court
involving products with Silzoner coating should be part of
Multi-District Litigation proceedings under the supervision of
US District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota.  As a result,
actions in federal court involving products with Silzoner
coating have been and will likely continue to be transferred to
Judge Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases
to proceed as class actions.  Judge Tunheim issued a ruling on
plaintiffs' motions for class certification on March 27, 2003.
In his ruling, Judge Tunheim conditionally certified one class
of plaintiffs (US persons who have a Silzone heart valve which
is still implanted) and conditionally certified a second class
of plaintiffs (US persons who received a Silzone heart valve and
who have sustained physical injuries due to the valve).

The Company believes that the ruling is inconsistent with the
applicable laws and precedents, and is pursuing its appellate
remedies.

In the meantime, cases involving Silzoner products not seeking
class action status which are consolidated before Judge Tunheim
are proceeding in accordance with the scheduling orders he has
rendered.  There are other actions involving products with
Silzoner coating in various state courts that may or may not be
coordinated with the matters presently before Judge Tunheim.  
The lawsuits in Canada are proceeding in accordance with
separate schedules issued by the applicable provincial courts.  
A hearing concerning the certification of a class action in
Ontario, Canada, is currently scheduled for June 2003.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the various
cases involving Silzoner products, the Company believes that it
has adequate product liability insurance to cover the costs
associated with them.  The Company further believes that any
costs not covered by product liability insurance will not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position or liquidity, but may be material to the consolidated
results of operations of a future period.


TENFOLD 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 Tenfold Corporation, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering and the Company's officers
and directors violated the securities laws by failing to
disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement and by engaging in
manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock in the after-market subsequent to the initial
public offering.  

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.  
The Company is vigorously defending this action and expects that
the costs of defense and/or resolution exceeding its self-
insured retention of $250,000 will be covered by insurance.  
Although no assurance can be given that this matter will be
resolved in the Company's favor, it believes that the resolution
of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: IL Court Asked to Hear Certification Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette maker Philip Morris USA has petitioned the Illinois
Supreme Court to bypass a lower appeal court and hear its appeal
of an adverse verdict in a class action. Philip Morris contests
the merits of 'light' cigarettes, arguing that the suit should
never have been allowed to proceed as a class action in the
first place, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The case received a bench trial before Madison County Judge
Nicholas Byron, who ordered Philip Morris to pay 1.1 million
Illinois smokers $10.1 billion for deceiving plaintiff smokers
into believing light cigarettes are less harmful than regular
brands.

Philip Morris's appeal strategy -- challenging the class
certification of the light cigarettes case -- to a certain
extent goes to the core of Madison County's reputation as
being overly friendly to class actions.  Madison County
developed this reputation over the years as some of its locally
elected judges, said the critics, certified classes that judges
in other jurisdictions would have rejected.  Certifying a class
means, in short, allowing a class action to proceed after the
court has made a determination that all plaintiffs in the
lawsuit suffered from the same wrongdoing in the same way.

Philip Morris attorneys said they will try to convince the
Illinois Supreme Court that the light cigarette smokers never
should have been lumped together as a class, because studies
have shown that smokers inhale varying amounts of tar and
nicotine.  In addition, each plaintiff must have spent differing
amounts of money on cigarettes, depending on their habits.

"The vast majority of federal and state courts in the United
States have ruled that the law does not permit tobacco cases to
be tried as class actions," said William Ohlemeyer, a vice
president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris.  If
the petition filed by Philip Morris is approved by Illinois'
High Court, company will be able to bypass the 5th District
Appellate Court in Mount Vernon and appeal Judge Byron's verdict
directly to the Supreme Court.

Stephen Tillery, lead attorney for the Illinois smokers said he
had not decided whether to challenge the petition.


WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suits V. Fox Paine Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuits against WJ Communications,
Inc. and its directors after Fox Paine LLC withdrew its offer to
acquire the Company in March 2003.

Four lawsuits, three of which are purported class actions, were
filed in connection with Fox Paine's proposal to purchase all of
the shares of the Company's common stock not held by Fox Paine
and their affiliates.  Fox Paine was also named as a defendant
in these lawsuits.  One of the actions, which is not a purported
class action, was filed by the Company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer, Malcolm J. Caraballo.  Among other
things, these lawsuits sought an injunction against the
consummation of the proposed transaction and an award of
unspecified compensatory damages.

On March 27, 2003, Fox Paine withdrew their Acquisition
Proposal.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County filed a notice and order of dismissal stating that
the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed this action without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs in the suits filed in the Superior
Court of the also stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of each of
these lawsuits without prejudice.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANT ENERGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE:LNT)
common stock from January 29, 2002 through July 18, 2002,
inclusive.  The case is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, against
defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint brings claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Alliant Energy Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors charging them with issuing false and
misleading statement concerning Alliant's business and financial
condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
numerous press releases in which they falsely touted the
performance of Allaint's non-regulated businesses and
represented that those businesses would compensate for expected
2002 weakness in its utilities operations.

The complaint further alleges that the Company also represented
that its unregulated businesses were integral to the Company's
operations and were key to the Company's expected annual growth
rate of 7%-10%.  

Such statements were materially false and misleading when made,
the complaint alleges, because defendants knew, or were reckless
in not knowing, that the unregulated businesses were suffering
from serious problems, that such businesses were a material
drain on the Company overall and could not compensate for any
weaknesses in the regulated businesses and that the Company
could not meet its 2002 earnings targets by the results of its
utilities businesses alone.

On July 18, 2002, Alliant Energy shocked the market by
announcing that it was cutting its 2002 earnings expectations by
over 35%.  The market reacted swiftly to this news, pushing the
price of Alliant Energy down from a close of $23.78 per share on
July 18, 2002, to $18.22 per share on July 19, a drop of over
23%, on unusually heavy trading volume.  A few months after the
end of the Class Period, the Company announced that it would
sell many of its non-utility assets as part of an effort to
refocus its business around the Company's utilities operations.

For more details, contact David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Allou
Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX:ALU) between June 22, 1998 and April 9,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

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

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


CORE LABORATORIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodged Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
purchasers of the stock of Core Laboratories NV (NYSE:CLB)
during the period May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003, inclusive.  
Excluded from the class are defendants and its affiliates.
The named defendants are the Company, David M. Demshur and
Richard L. Bergmark.

The complaint charges Defendants with violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company provides products to the petroleum industry.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the financial
results of the Company which caused the Company's stock to trade
at artificially high prices.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that between May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003,
inclusive, defendants issued press releases and filed documents
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that reported
financial results with overstated sales figures, understated
cost of net income and earnings overstated its ability to
collect accounts receivable and otherwise violated generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park
Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
(212) 907-0700 by E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.glrslaw.com


CORE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for Southern District of New York
(03 CV 3354) on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE:CLB) from May 6, 2002 through
March 31, 2003, inclusive.  The complaint names as defendants
the Company, David M. Demshur, and Richard L. Bergmark.

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
statements to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Core securities.

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; and

     (4) 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.  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.

For more details, contact Damon Williams or Nancy Kaboolian Esq.
By Phone: LLP at 800-889-3701 or (212) 889-3700 or by E-mail:
dwilliams@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ESIOE) between September 17, 2002 and
April 15, 2003 inclusive.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company, David Bolender, James T. Dooley and Joseph Reinhart.

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 during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Electro securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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