CAR_Public/030520.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, May 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 98

                           Headlines                            

ALASKA: Bristol Bay Attorneys Win Passage of Fee Payments Law
AVERY DENNISON: Shareholders Commence Fraud Lawsuits in C.D. CA
AVERY DENNISON: Consumers File Two Antitrust Lawsuits in N.D. IL
CALIFORNIA: Court Says Mandatory Arbitration "Grossly One-Sided"
CANADA: Court Hears Suit on Right To Direct Health-Care Spending

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Overtime Wage Suit Remanded to CA State Court
COMMERCE INSURANCE: Arguments For Diminished Value Suits Heard
DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Seeking Settlement For Securities Lawsuit
DECODE GENETICS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
DUANE READE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY

H&R BLOCK: Settles Customers' Claims Of Hidden Tax Bill Charges
FLORIDA: Judge Delays Issuing State Warrants To Cut Citrus Trees
FRANKLIN BANK: TN Court Dismisses With Prejudice Consumer Suit
HALLWOOD REALTY: Unitholders File DE Suit Over High River Offer
HSBC USA: PA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit With Prejudice

INLAND PAPERBOARD: Enters Agreement in Linerboard Antitrust Suit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Dismisses Stock Fraud Suit With Prejudice
JDS UNIPHASE: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: OCLI Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in CA

MASSACHUSETTS: Court Won't Bar Passing Exam As Grad Requirement
MISSISSIPPI: Attorney Wants State Held In Contempt Over Prisons
NEVADA: Homeowners, Builders Agree On Construction Defects Law
OKLAHOMA: Consumer Advocates Ask For Veto of Payday Loans Bill
OSTEOTECH INC.: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Suits in CA Court

PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits to Be Consolidated in MA
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Parties Submit Orders For Suit Certification
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal PA Consumer Suit Dismissal
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Requests Interlocutory Appeal for OR Lawsuit

SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Opposes Certification For Securities Suit
SAWTEK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in M.D. FL
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Consumer Lending Suit in FL Court
TEXAS: Senate Approves Bill To Limit Suit Protections In Texas
TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Settles Growers' Antitrust Suit Over Auction

UBS WARBURG: Ruling Makes E-Mail Evidence More Widely Accessible
VERISIGN INC.: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in Part
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: NC Residents Sue For Injuries In Explosion
WILD OATS: Plaintiffs Move For Certification of Hepatitis A Suit
WYETH: Reveals 90,000 People Opting Out Of Fen-Phen Settlement

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TN
eUNIVERSE INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Suit in MA Court
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in NY


                           *********


ALASKA: Bristol Bay Attorneys Win Passage of Fee Payments Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defense attorneys for companies accused of price fixing in the
Bristol Bay sockeye salmon trial taking place in Superior Court
in Anchorage, have won passage of a bill to make the defense
lawyers eligible to collect court-awarded fees and costs in the
event the fishermen plaintiffs do not win their case, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Recently, Governor Frank Murkowski signed House Bill 249,
sponsored by Rep. Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage.  Previously, state
law said only attorneys for plaintiffs that win an antitrust
case could get court-awarded fees and costs from the losing
side, said Jeff Feldman, defense attorney for seafood processor
Trident Seafoods Corporation in the Bristol Bay class action
brought by 4,500 commercial fishermen.

Lawyers for the thousands of Bristol Bay commercial fishermen in
the class action civil trial, under way since February 3, in
Superior Court, are seeking more than $1 billion in damages from
the sockeye salmon processors and the Japanese importers.  The
companies are accused of conspiring to set artificially low
prices for the fishermen's catches, an allegation denied by the
processors and importers.

As the trial progressed, defense attorney Jeff Feldman,
suggested a bill to Rep. McGuire, chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, that would award defense attorneys court-
awarded fees in the event the fishermen lose their case.  Mr.
Feldman went to Juneau to testify in support of the bill.

Some defendants already have exited the Bristol Bay case, paying
a total of $40 million to settle the lawsuit.  That money is in
an escrow account and plaintiff attorneys expect to get part of
their fees from that account.  The existence of the new law now
means that the defense lawyers will probably be able to make a
claim at collecting part of their fees and expenses from that
same escrow account if plaintiffs lose their case, thus giving
the defense a so-called "win."

Chuck Bundrant, Trident president, said it was only fair that
defense attorneys, if they "win," be able to recoup some of
their fees and expenses from the fishermen's settlement fund,
which, he said, was "extorted" from the seafood processors and
importers.

Some lawmakers in Juneau criticized the propriety of the
Legislature passing the bill relating to the defense attorneys
in the middle of a high-profile trial.


AVERY DENNISON: Shareholders Commence Fraud Lawsuits in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corporation faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Company securities between July 24, 2001 and April 14,
2003, inclusive.  The suits also name as defendants certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.

The Company has not yet been served with the suits.   


AVERY DENNISON: Consumers File Two Antitrust Lawsuits in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corporation faces two class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged
unlawful competitive practices against the Company, UPM-Kymmene,
Bemis Company, Inc. and certain of their subsidiaries.

The Company denies the allegations in the suits and intends to
defend these matters vigorously, it asserted in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.   


CALIFORNIA: Court Says Mandatory Arbitration "Grossly One-Sided"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employee advocates made inroads recently against mandatory
arbitration, the system that requires hundreds of thousands of
Californian workers to take their workplace grievances to a
private panel instead of a jury, The San Francisco Chronicle
reports.

The Ninth US Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared that
arbitration imposed only by an employer is "generally
unbalanced," since it restricts only the worker.  Therefore,
ruled the Court, arbitration imposed only by the employer must
prove that its system applies equally to grievances by both
sides, and must defend the fairness of other provisions.

The appeals court ruled that a San Diego woman, Catherine Ingle,
could go to court in her lawsuit against her employer, Circuit
City Stores, for sexual harassment and discrimination based on
sex and disability, even though, when hired, she had signed an
agreement to arbitrate disputes.

Ms. Ingle's lawyer, Michael Crosby, said Ms. Ingle was hired as
a saleswoman, but injured her back unloading a truck; then was
assigned extra lifting by a male supervisor who was angry at her
for refusing to date him.  She suffered further injuries, needed
surgery and has been disabled for five years, Mr. Crosby said.

The court found the company's arbitration system unfair for many
reasons:  It limits potential damages, requires employees to pay
a filing fee and part of the costs, prohibits class actions and
applies only to the types of claims that employees were likely
to make, leaving the company free to take an employer to court.

Ms. Ingle's lawsuit has been tied up in court over the company's
attempt to bind her to the arbitration agreement she signed when
hired.  The appeals court ruling upheld a federal judge's
decision allowing Ms. Ingle's case to proceed in court.

Michael Rubin, a San Francisco attorney who represents
employees, said Judge Harry Pregerson's ruling in the Ingle case
"is an important clarification of the law." Judge Pregerson
declared a general principle:  that mandatory arbitration,
imposed by the employer, will be presumed to be one-sided and
illegal, giving the employer the burden of proving that the
scope of its system is balanced.

The instant ruling is one of several by federal and California
courts that have limited arbitration despite the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in March 2001, in another Circuit City case,
that employers could require all job applicants to sign
arbitration agreements.  California's Supreme Court has ruled
that one-sided arbitration clauses will not be enforced, and the
federal appeals court is preparing to decide whether all
discrimination claims are exempt from arbitration.


CANADA: Court Hears Suit on Right To Direct Health-Care Spending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a landmark case
concerning the right of judges to direct legislators regarding
how health care money should be spent, The Globe and Mail
reports.

The appeal comes to the High Court from a British Columbia Court
of Appeal judgment, which ordered the province to provide
intensive treatment for autistic children.  The provincial court
sided with four sets of parents whose children had been denied
expensive therapy for their respective autistic conditions.

A 2 to 1 court majority said that when constitutional rights and
children's welfare are at stake, the legislatures lose their
monopoly over budgetary decision-making.  The court rooted its
ruling in equality guarantees enshrined in the Charter of Rights
as well as in the inherent duty of courts to look after the
interests of children.

The British Columbia ruling specified that the province must
supply funds for Lovaas autism treatment, an intensive and time-
consuming technique that is considered the most effective
therapy available.  The court stressed that it was prepared to
enforce its order if the province failed to come through with
proper therapy.  Timeliness is critical in autism treatment.

Autism is a neurobehavioral syndrome that affects 10 to 15 out
of every 10,000 children.  Symptoms, which include disordered
thinking and erratic behavior, typically appear at around ages
two or three.  Left untreated during a window of opportunity
that lasts just a few years, most autistic children are doomed
to a lifetime of social dysfunction and isolation.

The ruling of the British Columbia appeals court angered critics
of judicial activism, but gave hope to supporters who believe
activist judges can prevent penny-pinching legislators from
forcing minorities to absorb the brunt of legislative budget-
cutting.

"This case obviously is of great importance to the parents and
their children," constitutional lawyer David Stratas said
recently.  "But governments who face competing demands from many
groups are looking closely at it (the decision) too.  This is
about the right to health care.  It is a significant step
forward."

David Corbett, a Toronto lawyer battling the Ontario government
for state-sponsored autism treatment in an unresolved class
action, expressed hopes recently that the British Columbia
decision will induce other provinces to cease putting money
ahead of children's health.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Overtime Wage Suit Remanded to CA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California remanded to state court the class action filed
against CEC Entertainment, Inc., dba Chuck E. Cheese's, on
behalf of restaurant managers of the Company in California from
1996 to the present.

The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California in the County of Los Angeles, alleging violations
of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime wages
and seeking an unspecified amount in damages.  On July 31, 2001,
the federal court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The federal court subsequently granted
plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint by adding a second
party to the lawsuit.  

On June 5, 2002, the federal court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification based upon the amended complaint.  On
June 25, 2002, the federal court granted plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of its two orders denying class certification.  
On August 15, 2002, the federal court denied plaintiff's motion
to reconsider the two prior orders denying class certification.  

On September 24, 2002, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the state court.  The federal court later granted
the motion to remand.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations. It added
that, based on currently available information, the lawsuit is
not likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company's
financial position.


COMMERCE INSURANCE: Arguments For Diminished Value Suits Heard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts heard oral arguments
for a class action filed against The Commerce Insurance Company
alleging damages as a result of the alleged inherent diminished
value to vehicles that are involved in accidents.

In April 2002, the trial judge in that case entered partial
summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of whether the
Massachusetts automobile policy covers her claim, ruling that
the plaintiff would be entitled to reimbursement under the
policy if the plaintiff were able both to prove that her vehicle
suffered "inherent diminished value" in the accident and to
quantify the amount of such diminution in value.

Subsequently the Massachusetts Division of Insurance issued an
Advisory ruling in which it stated, among other things, its
position that the policy does not cover claims for "inherent
diminished value."

In July of 2002, the trial judge stayed the trial and granted
the Company's motion to have the appellate court review the
issue of whether the Massachusetts automobile policy provides
coverage for inherent diminished value.  During the third
quarter of 2002, the Company applied for direct appellate review
of this issue by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
(SJC), and this application was granted.

Another Superior Court judge in Massachusetts ruled, in a
similar case brought by the same plaintiff counsel against
another insurer, that claims for diminution of value are not
covered by the Massachusetts automobile insurance policy.

The Company's and the other insurer's cases were paired and oral
arguments were heard at the SJC on March 4, 2003.  A decision is
expected within 120 days of the oral argument.  

If the SJC agrees with the Given trial judge's interpretation of
the Massachusetts personal automobile insurance policy, then the
case will be remanded to the trial court, where the Company
would vigorously oppose class certification.  

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure of this
purported lawsuit.  However, if there is a final decision
certifying that a relatively large class of the Company's
policyholders is entitled to recover damages based upon the
inherent diminished value theory, the Company may have to
increase materially its loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves as a result.  Other insurance companies face similar
suits in cases outside of Massachusetts.


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Seeking Settlement For Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daleen Technologies, Inc. is working on a settlement for a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
persons purchasing the Company's common stock between September
20, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (4) James Daleen,

     (5) David B. Corey and

     (6) Richard A. Schell

The complaint includes allegations of violations of:

     (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named
         defendants,

    (ii) Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
         individual defendants and

   (iii) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
         underwriter defendants.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that, in
connection with the IPO, the defendants failed to disclose
"excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to the
underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the
Company's common stock in the IPO to the underwriter defendants'
preferred customers.

Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriter defendants had
agreements with preferred customers tying the allocation of
shares sold in the IPO to the preferred customers' agreements to
make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices.  

Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriters used their
analysts to issue favorable reports about the Company to further
inflate the Company's share price following the IPO.  Plaintiffs
claim that the defendants knew or should have known of the
underwriters' actions and that the failure to disclose these
alleged arrangements rendered the prospectus included in the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC
in September 1999 materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The individual defendants, Mr. Corey, Mr. Schell and Mr. Daleen,
have entered into tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
resulting in their dismissal from the case without prejudice.  
The remaining defendants include the Company and certain of the
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO).


More than 300 similar class actions filed in the Southern
District of New York against numerous companies and their
underwriters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before
one judge under the caption "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  The joint Motion to Dismiss filed by
the defendants was denied as to the underwriters and certain
issuers, including the Company.

The Company is continuing to monitor the progress of a proposed
settlement involving the plaintiffs, the insurance companies and
numerous issuers that includes a waiver by the insurance
companies of any retention amounts under the policies.

In the event that the settlement is unsuccessful, the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the plaintiffs'
claims.


DECODE GENETICS: 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 on behalf of certain purchasers of deCODE
Genetics, Inc. common stock.  The complaint names the Company,
two of its current executive officers and the two lead
underwriters for its initial public offering in July 2000 as
defendants.

In the amended pleading, the plaintiff alleges violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) against the Company, the
Individual Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants.

In addition, the amended complaint alleges violations of Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Individual
Defendants.  Generally, the amended complaint alleges that the
Underwriter Defendants:

     (1) solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of our stock
         sold in the IPO;

     (2) entered into agreements with customers whereby the
         Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the IPO to those customers in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional shares of the Company's stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices; and

     (3) improperly used their analysts, who purportedly
         suffered from conflicts of interest, to manipulate the
         market.

The amended complaint further alleges that the prospectus
incorporated into the registration statement for the IPO was
materially false and misleading in that it failed to disclose
these arrangements.  The amended complaint also alleges that the
Company and the Individual Defendants had numerous interactions
and contacts with the Underwriters from which it and the
Individual Defendants either knew of, or recklessly disregarded,
the Underwriters' purported wrongful acts.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary and recissionary damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from July 17,
2000 to December 6, 2000.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
hundreds of other lawsuits filed (many by some of the same
plaintiff law firms) against numerous underwriter defendants and
issuer companies (and certain of their current and former
officers) in connection with various public offerings conducted
in recent years.

All of the lawsuits that have been filed in the Southern
District of New York have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Pursuant
to the underwriting agreement executed in connection with its
IPO, the Company has demanded indemnification from the
Underwriter Defendants.  The Underwriter Defendants have
asserted that its request for indemnification is premature.

Pursuant to an agreement the Individual Defendants have been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Along with numerous
other issuers, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  On February 19, 2003, Judge
Scheindlin granted the Company's motion with respect to the
Section 10(b) claims and denied the motion with respect to the
Section 11 claims.

The Company believes that the allegations against it and its
officers are without merit and intends to contest them
vigorously.  Because the litigation is, however, still in the
preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict its outcome and
the ultimate effect, if any, on its financial condition.


DUANE READE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
stock from April 1,2002 and July 24,2002, inclusive.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Anthony J. Cuti, its Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer,

     (2) John K. Henry, its Chief Financial Officer and

     (3) Gary Charboneau, its Senior Vice President of Sales and
         Marketing.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the class period.  The Company believes that
these actions are completely baseless and wholly without merit.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend these actions.


H&R BLOCK: Settles Customers' Claims Of Hidden Tax Bill Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block is paying $3.3 million to settle charges that it
padded customers' tax preparation bills by automatically adding
a $22 "Peace of Mind" guarantee.  Under the "Peace" plan, Block
would pay up to $5,000 in back taxes if its preparers make a
mistake, Newsweek reports.

Some of the 163,000 customers paid for this "insurance" without
knowing it had been added to their bills.  They didn't want it
and they never used it.  About a third of Block's settlement
will be used to repaying these customers.

Meanwhile, Block is going back to court in at least six states,
defending itself against class actions claiming Block had
profiteered on very high-interest refund-anticipation loans to
customers.  Block thought it had settled these cases for $25
million, but a federal judge, last month, refused to give
preliminary approval to the settlement.

H&R Block still offers both products -- the Peace of Mind
Guarantee and the refund-anticipation loan -- and said they
still consider them worthwhile for consumers.


FLORIDA: Judge Delays Issuing State Warrants To Cut Citrus Trees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey has refused, for now,
to give the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services warrants to cut down citrus trees that are within 1,900
feet of known canker-infected citrus trees, according to a
report by The Miami Herald.

Judge Bailey cited as the reason for her refusal to grant the
warrants her concern for the constitutional protection against
'unreasonable searches."  Judge Bailey told the Department's
lawyers to resubmit the requests for warrants with more specific
information about the properties to be searched.  That is
necessary, said Judge Bailey, to prevent the cutting crews from
mistakenly going onto the wrong property.

"I am trying to envision how to do this so that we can afford
the citizens due process," Judge Bailey said.  The judge also
said she is concerned about the state's limited financial
resources as well as the urgency to rid the area of canker.  The
judge has set other conditions the Department must meet before
she will grant the warrants that the state must have in hand, as
it were, before it can destroy citrus trees on the grounds of
residents who have not given the state permission to cut.

For example, the state wanted a 60-day window after the warrants
are issued within which to do the cutting.  Judge Bailey wants
the trees covered by the warrants cut within 10 days.  The judge
also wants the state to give residents written notice that there
is a class action they can join regarding the value of the trees
being taken down.

Further, said Judge Bailey, cutting crews must try to contact
the property owner before going onto the homeowner's property;
the cutting crews cannot cut locks or fences without specific
approval of the court.

The recent hearing before Judge Bailey, concerning the
conditions that must be met before warrants will be issued,
because lawyers for opponents of the canker eradication program
have presented challenges to the court regarding the requests
for warrants.

The Agriculture Department is awaiting a judge's signature on
more than 200 search warrants in Broward County.  Lawyers are
planning to appear before a Palm Beach County judge to obtain
warrants to cut citrus trees there.


FRANKLIN BANK: TN Court Dismisses With Prejudice Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee's Sumner County Circuit Court, Chancellory Division
dismissed without prejudice the class action filed against
Franklin Bank, NA, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, negligence and violation of the Consumer Protection
Act.  The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
Franklin Bank, NA.  

On September 28, 2001, Franklin Bank, N.A. filed its
Third-Party Complaint against MAVRICC Management Systems, Inc.
for indemnification, alleging that MAVRICC breached the
agreement, whereby MAVRICC agreed to maintain records for
individual IRAs and Keogh Plans and to perform certain
activities (specifically described in the contract) necessary to
assist the Company in serving as a custodian for specific IRAs.  

On February 27, 2003, the parties to this action filed an agreed
order of dismissal without prejudice, which the court entered on
March 10, 2003.  The order dismisses both the complaint against
Franklin Bank and Franklin Bank's Third Party Complaint against
MAVRICC.  

However, as the complaints are dismissed without prejudice, it
is possible for such parties to later reassert such claims. The
Company believes that if such claims were reasserted, it would
have meritorious defenses and would vigorously defend any such
claims made against it in this matter.


HALLWOOD REALTY: Unitholders File DE Suit Over High River Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hallwood Realty, LLC, its directors and Hallwood Realty Partners
LP (HRP, as a nominal defendant) faces a class action filed by
by three purported unitholders of HRP in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.

The action asserts that in allegedly refusing to consider the
High River tender offer, the defendants are not acting in good
faith and are deriving an improper personal benefit in impeding
a potential removal of Hallwood Realty, LLC or a sale of control
of HRP, in breach of their fiduciary duties under the
partnership agreement.  The complaint seeks as relief an order
requiring the Company to consider the High River tender offer,
an order preventing the Company or its affiliates from acquiring
units or otherwise improperly entrenching the Company or
impeding a transaction that would maximize value for the public
unitholders, an order directing the defendants to use the Rights
Plan fairly, and damages.

    
HSBC USA: PA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed with prejudice the class action filed
against HSBC USA, Inc. and Republic New York Corporation.  The
suit was filed on behalf of former shareholders of Republic New
York Corporation (Republic) who acquired common stock between
May 10, 1999 (when the signing of the merger agreement between
Republic and the Company was announced) and September 15, 1999.  

On January 16, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification and also denied a motion by the plaintiff to
provide notice to the proposed class that the named plaintiff
wished to withdraw from the case.  The court required
plaintiff's counsel to provide a substitute plaintiff by
February 15, 2003.  

When plaintiff's counsel failed to do so, the Company moved to
dismiss for this and other reasons.  Plaintiff's counsel then
agreed to stipulate to dismiss the action with prejudice; and
the Court entered an order to that effect on April 7, 2003.


INLAND PAPERBOARD: Enters Agreement in Linerboard Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc. and Gaylord Chemical
Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against them, alleging a civil violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The suit, captioned Winoff Industries, Inc. v. Stone Container
Corporation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.), names Inland, Gaylord, and
eight other linerboard manufacturers as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants, during the period from
October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit
the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the
alleged conspiracy was artificially to increase prices of
corrugated containers.  The plaintiffs moved to certify a class
of all persons in the United States who purchased corrugated
containers directly from any defendant during the above period,
and seek treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
purported class.

The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion on September 4, 2001,
but modified the proposed class to exclude those purchasers
whose prices were "not tied to the price of linerboard."  The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit accepted
review of the decision to certify the class and upheld the trial
court's ruling.  Defendants appealed this decision to the United
States Supreme Court, which denied their petition for a writ of
certiorari.  The case is currently set for trial in April 2004.

The Company and Gaylord executed a settlement agreement on April
11, 2003 with the class' representatives.  On April 14,
2003, the trial court entered an order preliminarily approving
the terms of the settlement.  The Company and Gaylord paid a
total of $8 million into escrow on April 17, 2003, to fulfill
the terms of the settlement, which amount was within the amount
previously accrued by the Company in connection with this
matter.  Notice of the settlement has been mailed to all members
of the classes and will be published in the Wall Street Journal
and trade publications.  Objections to the settlement, if any,
must be filed with the court no later than June 9, 2003.  A
final hearing on the fairness of the settlement to the classes
will be held on August 11, 2003.  The settlement will not become
final until appeals, if any, to a final order approving the
settlement terms have been exhausted.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Enterprises, Inc. asked the United States District
Court, District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated class
action filed against it and certain of its officers:

     (1) Eric J. Crown, the Chairman of its Board of Directors;

     (2) Timothy A. Crown, its Chief Executive Officer and a
         director; and

     (3) Stanley Laybourne, a director and its Executive Vice
         President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The suit action
alleges the Company and certain of its officers made false and
misleading statements pertaining to our business, operations and
management in an effort to inflate the price of our common
stock.  The plaintiff seeks class action status to represent all
buyers of the Company's common stock from September 3, 2001
through July 17, 2002.

In February 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which
it expects will be argued in the Summer of 2003.


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Dismisses Stock Fraud Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the consolidated
securities class action filed against JDS Uniphase Corporation
and several of its current and former officers and directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of those who
acquired the Company's common stock from July 27, 1999 through
July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses consisting of
those who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant to its
acquisitions of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK
Dynamics, Inc. (E-TEK) and SDL, Inc. (SDL).

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  In addition, it named one of the Company's stockholders
as a defendant.

On December 13, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, which the court granted with leave to
amend.  The Court has set a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint, but no trial date has been set.


JDS UNIPHASE: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California appointed Company stockholder Shirley Zelman lead
plaintiff in the class action filed against JDS Uniphase
Corporation on behalf of purchasers of certain GOALS debt
securities issued by an investment bank during the period from
March 6, 2001 through September 26, 2001.  The suit also names
as defendants several of the Company's current and former
officers and directors as defendants.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. In addition, it named one of the
Company's stockholders as a defendant.  

On October 31, 2002, the district court related the action to
"In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," but
did not consolidate the two actions.

The plaintiff has agreed that the Company need not respond to
the complaint at this time.  No trial date has been set.


JDS UNIPHASE: OCLI Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corporation faces a class action filed in February
2003 in the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.  

The complaint was brought by a stockholder who purports to
represent a class of former shareholders of Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI) who exchanged their OCLI common stock
for the Company's common stock upon the Company's acquisition of
OCLI in February 2000.

The complaint named the former directors of OCLI as defendants
and asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and
breach of the duty of candor.  The action seeks unspecified
damages, and no trial date has been scheduled.


MASSACHUSETTS: Court Won't Bar Passing Exam As Grad Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Michael A. Posner denied a request by
lawyers for 10 students to temporarily bar the state of
Massachusetts from using the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System) exam as a requirement for high school
graduation, clearing the way next month for graduation of the
first class required to pass the controversial exam, The Boston
Globe reports.  The 5,000 students in Massachusetts who failed
the exam will also be the first not to receive their diplomas
because they failed the exam.

Despite evidence that some students had not been prepared well
enough to successfully take the exam, Judge Ponsor said the
lawyers for the ten students had failed to convince him that the
courts should intervene in a policy matter that was decided by
the Legislature.  It is a painful decision, said Judge Ponsor,
but in my opinion, not even a close call.

Lawyers for the students said they had not yet decided whether
they would proceed in federal court with a full trial or appeal
Judge Ponsor's rejection of their request to temporarily bar use
of the exam as a condition for graduation.

The MCAS test was created out of the 1993 Education Reform Act
to identify poorly performing school districts and ensure that
billions of state education dollars were being well spent at the
local level.  About eight percent of this year's seniors have
not yet passed the exam, which accounts for the flurry of legal
action aimed at lifting the MCAS graduation requirement, at
least temporarily.

The students' lawyers had argued before Judge Ponsor that the
state is to blame for failing to prepare the students for the
test.  They cited children with dreams -- one who had been
recruited to play basketball at a college and wants to study
business, another who wanted to join the Air Force.  Neither
were sluggards or slackers, said one of the lawyers, Roger Rice.  
They would graduate but for failing the MCAS, said Mr. Rice;
"what about their dreams?"

Pierce Cray, an assistant attorney general, said the MCAS
graduation requirement had fundamentally changed the state's
education philosophy by ensuring that a good education is more
important than graduating students on time.  Students who fail
the test can get help for the test in summer school or in
community college courses, Mr. Cray said.

One legal analyst said that if the MCAS challengers proceed to
trial, the process of discovery could reveal problems in the
testing program that plaintiffs might use to their advantage.  
Al Kauffman, a lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged the testing
system in Texas, said testing weaknesses sometimes emerge when
lawyers have a chance to thoroughly question state officials and
review documents.

"I don't think it's the end of the line at all," said Mr.
Kauffman.


MISSISSIPPI: Attorney Wants State Held In Contempt Over Prisons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Welch, a Mississippi prisoner rights attorney, represents
all prisoners in the Mississippi Department of Corrections
system, dating from a class action, Gates v. Collins, brought in
the 1970s.  More recently, Mr. Welch has asked that the state be
held in contempt and fined $10,000 per day the US District Court
for exceeding the population limits of two prisons, the
Associated Press reports.

Mr. Welch's motion is based on the orders issued by the court in
Gates v. Collins, laying out the prison improvements sought, as
well as the scheduling of their achievement as goals over set
time period.  "The purpose of the fine is not to pay the fine;
it's to force compliance," said Mr. Welch.

According to Mr. Welch's motion, the state penitentiary at
Parchman was 643 inmates over capacity and the Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County was 376
prisoners over capacity, both as of May 12.

In February, US Magistrate Jerry Davis signed an order allowing
the prison to use American Corrections Association standards in
determining prison capacity.  The court-imposed standard has
been one prisoner for 50 square feet of living space. The ACA
standard is one prisoner for 35 square feet of unencumbered
space.

Mr. Welch's recent motion is based on the original standard for
capacity laid down by the US District Court under the class
action, Gates versus Collier.  Corrections Commissioner Chris
Epps said last month that beds were being added to the two
facilities according to the ACA standards.

"In no way are they complying with (even) the ACA standards,"
Mr. Welch said.  "They have their own idea of what ACA is."  Mr.
Welch had conducted an inspection of changes at the two
facilities.  This had included toilets as well.  He said ACA
standards are 12 inmates to one toilet, for example.  In the
unit he inspected, the ration was 48 inmates to one toilet.

"The truth of the matter is the Legislature didn't do its job,"
Mr. Welch said.  "We have a great corrections team, but they
can't do it without the tools."  This usually means
appropriations by the Legislature.  At present, the Department
of Corrections is expected to run a deficit the next fiscal year
of about $60 million.  Magistrate Davis will hold a hearing on
the motion on May 27.


NEVADA: Homeowners, Builders Agree On Construction Defects Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners and homebuilders reached a compromise through their
lawyers on how to restructure Nevada's laws governing home
construction defects, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The two sides have agreed to amend SB241, establishing pre-
litigation relief for builders and giving them the right to
repair any problems arising in homes they have built.  At the
same time, such a pre-litigation right shall not impede or
impair the homeowners' right to sue the builder in civil court
if they are not satisfied with the repairs made.

Further, the two sides have agreed to an amendment to SB241
requiring both sides to accept the services of a mediator to
help settle disputes and disagreements about repairs before a
lawsuit can be filed.  The amendment provides, under the terms
of the agreement, that if a homeowner claims a construction
defect against a contractor and claims the problem or defect is
common among homes in a community, the contractor must
investigate and, if the claim is accurate, the contractor must
send out a letter to the other homeowners.  The builder
would maintain the right to repair all the problems.  Class
actions could be started if contractors do not send out the
letters, follow the required procedures or do not start the
repairs.

The Assembly's Judiciary Committee unanimously adopted the
proposal's concepts, and legislative staffers will now draft the
actual language of the amendment.

Clark County District Judge Nancy M. Saitta, who handles
construction defect lawsuits, said she advised in the
conceptualization of the bill and believes it will help.  
Judiciary Chairman Bernard Anderson, D-Sparks, said he thinks
the agreement addresses the main concern that people get their
homes fixed.


OKLAHOMA: Consumer Advocates Ask For Veto of Payday Loans Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer advocates are asking Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry to
veto the Payday Loans bill, which recently passed the House and
has been sent to Governor Henry for his signature, saying that
this legislation brings back the "payday" loans with terms of
less than two weeks and annual percentage rates around 400
percent, the Associated Press Newswire reports.

"This is one of the worst practices that currently exists in
consumer lending," said Steven Dow, executive director of the
Community Action Project of Tulsa County.  "Out-of-state
financial companies are driving a bill that only threatens the
most financially vulnerable residents in the state with more
ruinous debt."

Donald Hardin, administrator of the Department of Consumer
Credit, said the measure undermines small loan regulation,
allowing pawn and small loan shops to be unregulated when it
comes to issuing postdated check loans.

"All this bill does is gather a group of Oklahoma consumers into
a "market" and target them for abusive credit/debt products,"
Mr. Hardin said.

Senator Angela Monson, D-Oklahoma City, defended the intent of
the bill she authored.  "There is a realization out there in the
real world," said Senator Monson, "that not everyone has plus
credit, not everyone when they are in need of some financial
assistance can wander to their bank or credit union and say I
need a line of credit or I need a short-term loan."

The bill sent to Governor Henry would cause all postdated-check,
payday-lending companies to jump back into the state, offering
$100 loans with an annual percentage rate of more than 400
percent.  The 1997 reforms had capped small loans at 240 percent
annually.  Still, Senator Monson said her bill was a good one.

"It is a tight bill that can be implemented if it is regulated
appropriately, if it is regulated fairly." Ms. Monson said,  "I
think it will work."

Current Oklahoma law covering short-term lenders has "no
prohibitions in terms of the number of loans, how long one can
have them, how frequently they can be renewed and rolled over.  
Therein lies a very bad situation," Ms. Monson said.

Regulations created in her bill, she said, eventually could be
expanded to cover the payday lenders.


OSTEOTECH INC.: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Suits in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Osteotech is a defendant with several other defendants in four
actions pending in the Superior Court for the State of
California, Los Angeles County.

One of the suits seeks class action status and initially alleged
causes of action based on a violation of the California Business
and Professional Code Section 17200, as well as a number of
common law causes of action, including negligence, deceit, and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Through dismissals, either by the court or voluntarily by
plaintiffs, only the California Business and Professional Code
claims, which are based on the allegation that defendants are
engaging in the activity of buying or selling organs or tissue
for valuable consideration or profit, and certain negligence
claims remain with respect to the actions.

It appears that plaintiffs are seeking class action status and
injunctive relief and "restitution" with respect to their
California Business and Professional Code claims.  In one of the
cases, plaintiffs have now filed their motion to certify the
class, and the opposition to the motion is due on May 17, 2003.  

The Company believes that the claims made against it in these
actions are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend
against them.


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits to Be Consolidated in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class actions filed against Parametric Technology
and certain of its current and former officers and directors
have moved to consolidate the suits in the US District Court in
Massachusetts.

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

The Company believes the claims are without merit.  The Company
cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these actions at this
time, and there can be no assurance that the litigation will not
have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or
results of operations.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Parties Submit Orders For Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. in New
York State Court submitted orders relating to class
certification for the suit.

This matter was assumed by the company in connection with the
Thorn Americas acquisition, and appropriate purchase accounting
adjustments were made for such contingent liabilities.  The
plaintiff acknowledges that rent-to-own transactions in New York
are subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase
Statute but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does not
provide Thorn Americas immunity from suit for other statutory
violations.  The plaintiff alleges Thorn Americas has a duty to
disclose effective interest under New York consumer protection
laws, and seek damages and injunctive relief for Thorn Americas'
failure to do so.

This suit also alleges violations relating to excessive and
unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed
charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of its payment
records.  In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested
class certification, injunctive relief requiring Thorn Americas
to cease certain marketing practices and price their rental
purchase contracts in certain ways, unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, rescission of the class members contracts, an
order placing in trust all moneys received by Thorn Americas in
connection with the rental of merchandise during the class
period, treble damages, attorney's fees, filing fees and costs
of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further relief
granted by the court.  The plaintiff has not alleged a specific
monetary amount with respect to the request for damages.

The proposed class includes all New York residents who were
party to the Company's rent-to-own contracts from November 26,
1994.  In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both
parties from the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment,
we obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division of
the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiff's claims based
on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest rate.
The plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to certify a statewide class in December
2000.  The plaintiff's class certification motion was heard by
the court on November 7, 2001 and, on September 12, 2002, the
court issued an opinion denying in part and granting in part the
plaintiff's requested certification.  The opinion grants
certification as to all of the plaintiff's claims except the
plaintiff's pricing claims pursuant to the Rental Purchase
Statute, as to which certification was denied.  The parties have
differing views as to the effect of the court's opinion, and
accordingly, the court granted the parties permission to submit
competing orders as to the effect of the opinion on the
plaintiff's specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27,
2003.  A hearing has been scheduled before the court for May 30,
2003 to determine the form of order to be entered.  Regardless
of the determination of the final certification order by the
court, the Company intends to pursue an interlocutory appeal of
the court's certification order.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
continue to vigorously defend itself.  


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. asked the United States District Court in
Texarkana, Texas to dismiss a class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors/

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and
misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects for the third and
fourth quarters of 2001.  The complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 25, 2001 through October 8, 2001 and seeks damages in
unspecified amounts.

The suit further claims that the Company, and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, violated various
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with an offering
in May 2001.

On February 7, 2003, the Company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.  In addition, the Company's
outside directors named in the matter separately filed a motion
to dismiss the Securities Act claims on statute of limitations
grounds.  On February 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also
filed a motion to dismiss the matter.

The plaintiffs filed response briefs to these motions, and the
Company's response to these response briefs is due on May 21,
2003.  The court has scheduled a hearing for June 26, 2003 to
hear each of these motions.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims in this matter are
without merit.  However, the Company cannot assure anyone that
it will be found to have no liability in this matter.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal PA Consumer Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania state court's
ruling dismissing the class action filed against Rent-A-Center,
Inc. on behalf of a class of customers in Pennsylvania, alleging
that the Company violated the Pennsylvania Goods and Services
Installment Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The amended complaint asserts that the Company's rental purchase
transactions are, in fact, retail installment sales
transactions, and as such, are not governed by the Pennsylvania
Rental-Purchase Agreement Act, which was enacted after the
adoption of the Pennsylvania Goods and Services Installment
Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
suit seeks class-wide remedies, including injunctive relief,
unspecified statutory, actual and treble damages, as well as
attorney's fees and costs.

In July 2002, the Company filed preliminary objections to the
complaint in Griffin.  On December 13, 2002, the court granted
the Company's preliminary objections and dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs then filed a notice of
appeal.  The plaintiffs' appeal brief was filed on May 9, 2003.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims in this matter are
without merit.  However, the Company cannot assure anyone that
it will be found to have no liability in this matter.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Requests Interlocutory Appeal for OR Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. has requested for interlocutory appeal in
the class action filed against it in state court in Multnomah
County, Oregon, alleging violations of Oregon state law
regarding overtime, lunch and work breaks and failure to timely
pay all wages due the Company's Oregon employees, as well as
contract claims that the Company promised but failed to pay
overtime.

The suit seeks to represent a class of all present and former
executive assistants, inside/outside managers and account
managers employed by the Company within the six year period
prior to the filing of the complaint as to the contract claims,
and three years as to the statutory claims, and seeks class
certification, payments for all unpaid wages under Oregon law,
statutory and civil penalties, costs and disbursements, pre- and
post-judgment interest in the amount of 9% per annum and
attorneys fees.

As of March 31, 2003, the Company operated 19 stores in Oregon.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the
Company filed our motion for summary judgment.  On January 15,
2003, the court orally granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment in part, ruling that the plaintiffs were prevented from
recovering overtime payments at the rate of "time and a half,"
but stated that the plaintiffs may recover "straight-time" to
the extent plaintiffs could prove purported class members worked
in excess of forty hours in a work week but were not paid for
such time worked.  The court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the remaining claims and granted plaintiff's
motion for class certification with respect to the remaining
claims.

The Company strongly disagrees with the court's rulings against
our positions and has requested that the court grant it
interlocutory appeal on those matters.  The Company's request
for interlocutory appeal is currently pending before the Court.
Although the Company believes the claims remaining in this case
are without merit, it cannot give any assurance that it will be
found to have no liability in this matter.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Opposes Certification For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. opposed class certification for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and Warren
V. Musser, the Company's former Chairman.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in
Philadelphia, alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
Mr. Musser had pledged some or all of his Safeguard stock as
collateral to secure margin trading in his personal brokerage
accounts.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to
disclose the pledge, along with their failure to disclose
several margin calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of
certain margin debt and the consequences thereof on Safeguard's
stock price, violated the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs
allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of the Company's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

On May 23, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint for failure to state claim
upon which relief may be granted, which the court denied,
holding that, based on the allegations of plaintiffs'
consolidated and amended complaint, dismissal would be
inappropriate at this juncture.

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the court a motion
for class certification.  The court has not yet ruled on
plaintiffs' motion.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain, the Company
believes that it has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


SAWTEK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sawtek, Inc., a subsidiary of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. faces
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's securities between
January 27, 2000 and May 24, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sawtek and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning Sawtek's business operations
and financial performance caused Sawtek's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.  Sawtek designs,
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of electronic
signal processing components, based on "surface acoustic wave"
or SAW technology, primarily for use in the wireless
communications industry.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
misrepresented Sawtek's financial performance by improper
"channel stuffing" -- inflating revenue by shipping more
products than distributors could sell -- and by disseminating
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenue
and business prospects despite a widespread downturn in the
wireless and telecommunications markets.  

The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the charges.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles Consumer Lending Suit in FL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (SCI), which is being sued in
Florida for allegedly desecrating graves, has agreed to settle a
consumer lending lawsuit with its Miami cemetery customers for a
potential of $3 million, Associated Press Newswires reports.

SCI, the world's largest funeral industry company, based in
Houston, has offered to pay a total of $50,000 cash in $10
payments to customers with claims under the federal lending law.  
The company also has offered $175 coupons under state law to an
estimated 16,000 customers with installment sales contracts.

Customers claimed that SCI's Memorial Plan charged illegally
high processing fees, skipped consumer disclosures on finance
charges, amounts financed and annual interest rates and did not
give copies of paperwork to consumers as required.

SCI, while acknowledging no liability or wrongdoing in the
settlement, has accepted an injunction barring continued use of
a contract that consumers complained about and limiting future
processing fees to $10 rather than $50.

US District Court Judge Donald Graham gave the class action
settlement preliminary approval and will consider any objections
at a hearing set down for July 16.

SCI also is being sued for allegedly digging up old graves to
make way for new ones and selling graves with inadequate space
at Jewish cemeteries in Broward and Palm Beach Counties.  A
decision is pending as to whether customers on these issues can
group themselves under a single class action as they did in the
lending lawsuit in the Miami case.


TEXAS: Senate Approves Bill To Limit Suit Protections In Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Senate recently approved legislation, 28 to 3, that
would effect changes in the way Texans pursue civil lawsuits,
with protections carved into the bill for business and doctors
in liability and medical malpractice cases, respectively,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The bill now goes back to the House, which already has passed
the legislation.  The next step will likely be the creation, by
the two chambers, of a conference committee whose work will be
to resolve the differences that still may exist between the two
versions after the House has discussed the changes the Senate
has made.  If ultimately sent to Governor Rick Perry and signed
into law, the new law would be the first significant change to
the state's civil liability laws since 1995.

The bill is designed to limit the number of lawsuits filed by
making new rules for class actions, setting new protections for
retailers and manufacturers and placing restrictions on
attorneys fees, among other rule changes.  The bill under
consideration also would cap damage awards in medical
malpractice cases at $250,000 for doctors, $500,000 for
hospitals and $750,000 overall in cases of multiple defendants.

Supporters say the bill will make Texas a more business-friendly
state and stem the rapidly rising cost of medical malpractice
insurance rates facing doctors and hospitals.  Medical groups
have said that the caps will discourage people from filing
frivolous claims if there is no large award to be collected.  
Opponents said the restrictions, particularly in medical
malpractice cases, will prevent people from taking legitimate
grievances to court.

"How can you put a value on a person's arm or leg or sight . or
upon the death of a child?" said Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, D-
Austin.  "What we are doing is cutting off the courts to a lot
of people in this state."

The Senate also gave initial approval to a companion
constitutional resolution that is a key component of the bill's
overall success.  The resolution asks Texas voters to give the
Legislature constitutional authority to set damage caps in
liability cases.

Supporter say its passage is vital to avoid a repeat of 1988,
when the state's Supreme Court struck down the $500,000 cap that
used to be in the law.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Settles Growers' Antitrust Suit Over Auction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA and two other of the chief cigarette makers
recently agreed to settle the class action, filed on behalf of
more than 400,000 growers and quota holders, charging that the
cigarette makers violated antitrust laws by rigging bids at
tobacco auctions and by conspiring to undermine the federal
tobacco quota and price support program.  All these alleged
actions, said the growers, led to depressed prices for leaf
tobacco, according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.

Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corporation, as well as several other companies joined
the settlement.  One defendant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., one
of the "Big Four," did not settle, because it contends that it
has not engaged in any of the misconduct alleged by the growers
and will prevail at trial.

As many as 500,000 growers and quota holders across the south
could qualify for payouts under the terms of the settlement.  
Under these terms Philip Morris and the tobacco companies
joining in the settlement have agreed to buy large amounts of
US-grown tobacco over the next decade and pay American growers
$200 million to settle the allegations that they fixed prices
paid to the growers at auctions.

Philip Morris, which is the nation's biggest cigarette maker, is
responsible for the largest portion of the settlement.  It has
agreed to buy a minimum of 330 million pounds of US-grown
tobacco leaf each year for at least ten years, with adjustments
allowed for changes in production requirements.  Philip Morris
will pay as much as $145 million to the growers.

Brown & Williamson will buy at least 55 million pounds of US
tobacco leaf each year for the next 10 years and pay $23 million
to the growers.  Lorillard has agreed to buy 20 million pounds
of leaf each year and pay $20 million to the growers.  The
agreement is subject to approval by a federal judge in  
Greensboro, North Carolina.


UBS WARBURG: Ruling Makes E-Mail Evidence More Widely Accessible
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the US Court for the Southern District
of New York, has ordered that UBS Warburg must pay for the
search and recovery of e-mail messages requested by a plaintiff.  
The meaning for aggrieved investors of this recent order is that
they are possessed of a new legal tool to support their cases
against the investment banks, The New York Times reports.

Judge Scheindlin said that UBS had to dig into its archives and
pay for the restoration of a limited batch of e-mail messages
sought by a former employee who is suing the firm for sexual
discrimination and retaliatory dismissal.  

Judge Scheindlin's opinion already is being referred to by
lawyers representing investors and investment banks as "a
definitive piece of jurisprudence," because it suggests that
investment banks will have to take on the responsibility and pay
for the recovery of e-mail messages as long as plaintiffs can
demonstrate that the evidence sought is relevant to their cases.  
Arbitration lawyers say that Judge Scheindlin's decision will
change the economics of arbitration cases involving investors
seeking damages from investment banks over fraudulent research.

"The decision is very significant and will help customers get
crucial evidence for their cases," said Jacob H. Zamansky, a
leading arbitration lawyer.  "As long as you can make a showing
that the evidence you are asking for is relevant, the banks must
bear the cost for searching through the e-mails"

Investment banks have cited the technical challenge and cost
involved in retrieving old e-mail traffic as a reason to dismiss
arbitration claims, many of which the investment banks
characterized as frivolous.  Under industry rules, most customer
and employee complaints must be resolved by arbitration, rather
than in court.

In the UBS case, lawyers for the bank stated that if the
plaintiff Laura Zubulake wanted the additional files, which were
stored on tape and not readily accessible, she should pay the
$175,000 it would cost to retrieve them.  Ms. Zubulake has not
worked since her dismissal in October 2001, she could not afford
to pay such a sum, say her lawyers.

However, in her decision, Judge Scheindlin ordered UBS to turn
over 5 of the 94 files that were stored on backup tapes and
additional e-mail messages on optical disks, which will cost
much less than the original request.

"We are pleased that we won this motion, which significantly
limited the scope of discovery an prevented an unjustified
fishing expedition," said a spokesman for UBS Warburg.

Much of the opinion's legal punch may come from its author.  
Judge Scheindlin will be the presiding judge over a seminal
class action contending that 55 investment banks and executives
at technology companies defrauded investors by artificially
inflating the prices of hot initial public offerings.

The outcome of that lawsuit, which could cost investment banks
billions of dollars, will depend largely on what kind of e-mail
evidence plaintiffs can secure from the banks.

"It is very important for our case," said Melvyn I. Weiss, whose
law firm, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, is leading the
lawsuit.  "Judge Scheindlin has set the standard.  She has made
it clear that she will force the defendants to make available
all material that otherwise would be difficult to obtain."

In her 38-page opinion, in which she quoted Henry David Thoreau
in its introduction, Judge Scheindlin makes the point that
federal standards governing the discovery process are outdated
and were written before the flowering of e-mail as the primary
means of corporate communication.

Judge Scheindlin has set new standards, which effectively give
plaintiffs the right to ask that investment banks provide
expanded levels of e-mail traffic that may take a significant
effort to retrieve, so long as the plaintiff proves that the
messages are relevant to the case.  The investment bank would
then be responsible for bearing the cost.

"This will be the law of the land when it comes to
arbitrations," said James A. Batson, of Liddle & Robinson, who
is representing Ms. Zubulake.  "Defendants can no longer hide
behind the cost factor."

Previously, many arbitration cases filed against investment
banks by investors who contended that fraudulent research from
Wall Street wiped out their investments, were dismissed -- 7,000
last year -- because of the lack of e-mail evidence.  If
plaintiffs wanted such evidence, the banks argued, the
plaintiffs should pay for it.  Given that e-mail recovery
operations can be expensive, plaintiffs often dropped their
cases.  Now comes the Scheindlin opinion, lawyers say, which
will be a powerful new weapon in their continuing attempts to
extract fresh e-mail evidence from the investment banks.

Analysts estimate that investment banks could have hundreds of
millions of dollars of potential exposure to arbitration.  One
of the banks' more aggressive and effective defenses has been to
hold the line on broad requests for e-mail traffic.  Now that
the standard may be plaintiffs' proof of the need for certain e-
mails, with the banks carrying the cost of retrieval, more
definition seems required; for example, what will be the
guidelines for cutting back on plaintiffs' requests for e-mails
and, additionally, what kind of circumstances will shift payment
of retrieval of additional e-mails to plaintiffs.

On June 17, Judge Scheindlin will hear arguments to decide
whether UBS or Ms. Zubulake would have to pay for recovery of
any more files.


VERISIGN INC.: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against VeriSign, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The suit action seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased VeriSign stock from January 25,
2001 through April 25, 2002.

On April 14, 2003 the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint.

VeriSign cannot assure that it will prevail in any litigation.  
Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require VeriSign
to incur significant litigation expense and may result in
significant diversion of management attention.


WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: NC Residents Sue For Injuries In Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some 90 North Carolina residents have filed a class action over
injuries suffered from an explosion and fire at West
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. in Kinston, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  

A new Bern lawyer filed the lawsuit.  He is working with three
Louisiana law firms that have successfully pursued multimillion-
dollar lawsuits against oil refineries, railroads and the
tobacco industry.  Initial plaintiffs in the class action were
three Lenoir County plaintiffs who live near the plant but are
not employed there.  Some 90 residents of Lenoir and Craven
counties also have joined the lawsuit since it was filed.

The lawsuit alleges that West and plant manager Thomas Clagon
were negligent in failing to protect the safety of the people
near the plant and in allowing defective conditions to persist
in the plant.

West has hired Raleigh lawyers Rodney Pettey and Brian Williams
to represent the company.  The lawyers declined comment.


WILD OATS: Plaintiffs Move For Certification of Hepatitis A Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit filed against Wild Oats Markets Canada,
Inc., as successor to Alfalfa's Canada, Inc. asked the Supreme
Court in British Columbia, Canada to certify the lawsuit as a
class action.

The plaintiffs allege to represent two classes of plaintiffs -
those who contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through the
consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market in
the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against
Hepatitis A as a result of news alerts by Capers and the
Vancouver Health Authority.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against both
class certification and the suit itself.  The Company is not
able to estimate the potential outcome of the suit at this time.



WYETH: Reveals 90,000 People Opting Out Of Fen-Phen Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth said 90,000 people have opted out of a national settlement
for heart damage linked to diet drugs, raising the possibility
that the company might have to set aside more money to cover
future claims, The Wall Street Journal reports.

"We expect that in the end only a small fraction of the forms
filed will represent legitimate opt-outs," said Kenneth Martin,
Wyeth's chief financial officer in a conference call with
analysts after the market closed.

Nonetheless, the Madison, New Jersey, drug maker acknowledged,
in a quarterly regulatory filing, that "additional reserves may
be required" based on a flurry of forms filed by people seeking
to opt out of the settlement.

Wyeth has recorded $14.6 billion in litigation charges related
to the diet drugs Redux and Pondimin, part of the once-popular
diet drug cocktail called "fen-phen."  Wyeth withdrew the drugs
from the market in 1997, and ever since has been dealing with
claims that they caused heart damage.

As part of a national class action settlement, a trust was
established to pay claims that meet specific medical standards.  
About $600 million remains in the trust, and Wyeth has an
additional $1.82 billion in litigation reserves left.

The company said it would vigorously defend itself from any
suits brought by people opting out of the settlement.  "We don't
intend to settle cases by paying people just so they will go
away," Mr. Martin said.

Some cases have gone Wyeth's way.  The most recent, for example,
was a decision in New Mexico state court in February, when Wyeth
was given a favorable decision over an Albuquerque woman who
opted out of the settlement and sought more than $1 million in
damages.

That victory, said Wyeth's lawyer Peter Bleakely, sent a clear
message that plaintiffs "can't just walk in and say give me some
money" but must prove that the health problems they claim were
actually caused by the company's drugs.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a securities class action
against Accredo Health, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ACDO) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between June 16, 2002 and April 7,
2003.

The complaint alleges that Accredo, David D. Stevens, its Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Joel R.
Kimbrough, its Chief Financial Officer, 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 materially false
and misleading statements to the market during the class period.  
These alleged misstatements had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of Accredo 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 Accredo was failing to timely record an impairment
         in the value of certain receivables that it recently
         acquired, resulting in the Company reporting
         artificially inflated financial results throughout the
         class period;

     (2) that Accredo's published financial statements during
         the class period were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were
         therefore materially false and misleading; and

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

Based on the above, the earnings guidance and positive
statements concerning Accredo were lacking in a reasonable basis
and were therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 8, 2003, before the market opened, Accredo announced
that it was reducing its previously issued earnings guidance and
that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts
receivables it recently acquired.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Accredo common stock plunged over 43%
in one day to close at $14.29, after having closed at $25.40 the
previous day.  Allegedly, during the class period, Accredo
insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their Accredo stock
while in possession of the facts about the Company.

On May 5, 2003 Accredo announced that it had dismissed Ernst &
Young as its independent public accountant, and that it had
brought a lawsuit against the firm seeking damages in excess of
$53.3 million.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 1-866-264-3995 by
Fax: 1-414-482-8001 or by E-mail: www.gademi@ademilaw.com


eUNIVERSE INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of eUniverse, Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) between July 30, 2002
and May 5, 2003, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action
against Lehman Brothers Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE:LEH) on behalf of persons
who purchased Razorfish Inc. common stock from May 24, 1999
through February 9, 2001, inclusive in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing positive analyst reports recommending that investors
purchase Razorfish stock.  When issuing those reports, defendant
failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest
with respect to links between such positive recommendations and
Lehman's obtaining and retaining investment banking business
from Razorfish.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro or Liz Hutton by
Phone: 800-287-8119 by Fax: 617-439-0134 or by E-mail:
cases@shulaw.com
     

PARADIGM MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf
of purchasers of Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc.
(NasdaqSC:PMED) publicly traded securities during the period
from April 25, 2001 through May 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Paradigm and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated Section 10b of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
beginning on April 25, 2001 and continuing through December
2002.  Paradigm develops and sells laser surgical systems,
including the Ocular Blood Flow Analyzer (BFA).

The complaint alleges that Paradigm misrepresented in its
Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and in press
releases that it had received authorization from the American
Medical Association for a Common Procedure Terminology code
facilitating insurance reimbursement to doctors for performing
medical procedures with the BFA.  Additionally, the complaint
alleges that the Company misrepresented in a press release that
it had received a $105 million purchase order, when no such
purchase order existed.

As a result of these misrepresentations, according to the
complaint, the price of PMED securities was artificially
inflated during the class period.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen by Mail: 276 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 405, New York, New York 10001 by Phone:
866-767-3653 by Fax: 212-202-3827 by E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.rosenlegal.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC commenced a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (Nasdaq: REGN) between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003,
inclusive. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Leonard S. Schleifer (President and CEO),

     (2) George D. Yancopoulos (Chief Scientific Officer),

     (3) Hans-Peter Guler (VP of Clinical Studies),

     (4) Neil Stahl (VP) and

     (5) Murray A. Goldberg (CFO)

The complaint charges 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 materially false
and misleading statements to the market between March 28, 2000
and March 30, 2003.

Regeneron is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and intends to commercialize therapeutic drugs for the
treatment of serious medical conditions.  During the Class
Period, Regeneron initiated Phase II clinical trials for its
diet drug AXOKINE for use in obese patients.  The complaint
alleges that the Defendants claimed that AXOKINE would help
patients lose weight better than a placebo over a year.  
However, more than two-thirds of the 1,467 patients on the
medicine in the clinical trials developed antibodies to it after
three months, which made the medicine less effective.  Patients
taking AXOKINE, including those who developed antibodies, lost
an average 6.2 pounds, compared with 2.6 pounds for those on a
placebo, which the Company admits is similar to results dieters
get with already available pills.

Before results were released, defendants had led the public to
believe that AXOKINE would have more than $500 million in annual
sales.  On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost
effectiveness in about 70% of patients in a study.  On this
news, the biotechnology company's shares plunged 57%, a market
cap loss of more than $500 million.  However, even defendants'
admission was false, as, in fact, defendants manipulated the
results of the study.  In truth, 73.5% of the patients developed
antibodies to the drug.  As a result of the defendants' false
statements, Regeneron's stock price traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $40 on
December 18, 2000, whereby the Company and its top officers and
directors sold more than $430 million worth of their own
securities.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415 by
Phone: 800/404-7770 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.scott-scott.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  * * *