CAR_Public/030521.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, May 21, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 99

                           Headlines                            

AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL
APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Noted Lawyer Begins One Of Two Lawsuits
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Dismisses In Part Securities Suit

ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
AVICI SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
CALIFORNIA: Urged to Share Education Costs with School District
DOW CHEMICAL: Belies Claims in MI Dioxin Contamination Lawsuit
DRUGSTORE.COM: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Faces WA Unfair Trade Practices Suit
FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Appeal on Suit Over Foster Care System
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HOMESTORE INC.: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
IMANAGE INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit

IMMERSION CORPORATION: Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
INTERSIL CORPORATION: Parties in Stock Suit Start Negotiations
JNI CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Stock Suit
LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
MERRY LAND: GA Shareholder Sues Over Cornerstone Realty Merger

MODEM MEDIA: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek To File Amended Suit in CT
NATIONWIDE LIFE: LA Consumers Sue Over Premium Variable Annuity
NETRATINGS INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
PEC SOLUTIONS: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
RETEK INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RETEK INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in MN
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
QUICKSILVER RESOURCES: MI Court Refuses To Review Certification
RADIO ONE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Asks WI Court To Dismiss Consolidated Suit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Suit Filed Over Alleged $150M in Overcharges

SECURITIES LITIGATION: NC Investors Not Included in Pact Share
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Problems Descend From Many Directions
TOWNE SERVICES: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. TN
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in MI
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in OR
EUNIVERSE INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
J. JILL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
PEC SOLUTIONS: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Files Stock Lawsuit in NJ
SARA LEE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
UNUMPROVIDENT CoRTS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NY

WORLDCOM INC.: Klayman & Toskes Lodges Arbitration Suit in NYSE

                          *********

AIRSPAN NETWORKS: 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 Airspan Networks, Inc., and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman)

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer) and

     (5) certain underwriters of the Company's July 2000 initial
         public offering

The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially
false and misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.  

In particular, 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 and in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 11 of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder because the Prospectus did not disclose
these arrangements.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that, pursuant
to Section 15 of the Securities Act, Mr. Stonestrom, Mr.
Caffarelli, Mr. Desch and Mr. Paget are jointly and severally
liable for the Company's alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.

The suit is being coordinated with over three hundred other
nearly identical actions.  The consolidated complaint was filed
in 2002 and the Company responded with a consolidated motion to
dismiss.  The motion to dismiss was heard by the court in the
fourth quarter of 2002, and in February 2003, the court
dismissed the Section 10b-5 claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

In October of 2002, Mr. Stonestrom, Mr. Caffarelli, Mr. Desch,
and Mr. Paget each executed a Reservation of Rights and Tolling
Agreement in connection with the litigation.  The Tolling
Agreement, subsequently approved by the court, provided for
dismissal without prejudice and without costs of all claims
alleged against the officers.

The Company cannot predict whether plaintiffs will re-file the
complaints against the officers in the future.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself and its officers against
this lawsuit.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airspan Networks, Inc. was named as a defendant in the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Credit Suisse
First Boston (CSFB).  The suit also names as defendants Company
officers Eric D. Stonestrom and Joseph J. Caffarelli as well as
various CFSB related entities and various CFSB employees.

The complaint alleges claims against the Company, Mr. Stonestrom
and Mr. Caffarelli for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Florida's Blue Sky laws
as well as claims based on common law theories of fraud and
negligent misrepresentation for allegedly issuing a Registration
Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and
misleading information and that failed to disclose material
information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the Company and the
Executive Defendants misrepresented the accuracy of its initial
public offering price, its financial condition, and its future
revenue prospects to create the illusion of unpredictable
revenue growth.  The plaintiffs further allege that the effect
of the purported fraud was to manipulate the Company's stock
price so that the Company, along with the underwriter-
defendants, could profit from the manipulation.

The complaint also alleges that, pursuant to Section 20(a) and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and certain common law
theories, the Company and the Executive Defendants are each
jointly and severally liable for each other's alleged violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The Company has not yet responded to this complaint.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its officers
against this lawsuit.


APARTHEID LITIGATIONS: Noted Lawyer Begins One Of Two Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Fagan has begun one of two class actions facing global
companies alleged to have profited from South Africa's apartheid
regime, the Financial Times reports.  The atrocities of South
African apartheid will be played out in New York City, in the US
District Court of the Southern District of New York as the first
hearing of this reparations case commences.

The plaintiffs are the tens of thousands of victims of human
rights abuses under the white minority regime that ruled until
1994; while the defendants are 34 of the world's biggest
companies and banks, accused of having supported and financed
apartheid.

Lawyer Ed Fagan is seeking damages of more than $100 billion
from international companies and banks that operated in South
Africa under apartheid.  Mr. Fagan will not be working in
unknown terrain as he presents this case.  He is an attorney
known for having helped secure a payout of $5.2 billion from
German industry and the government for the Third Reich slave
laborers.  Mr. Fagan also won a $1.25 billion settlement from
Swiss banks for the families of Holocaust victims whose savings
had never been passed on.

The suit is brought under US Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789,
which was also used to pursue the Holocaust claims.  

A second class action has been filed by lawyers led by Michael
Hausfeld from the United States and Charles Abrahams from South
Africa.  They are representing Khulumani, an apartheid victims'
group, and Jubilee South Afric, the anti-debt campaigners.

Although the two class actions differ on tactics, many of the
companies named as defendants are the same.  The US
Multidistrict Litigation Panel may decide, in a ruling expected
this month, to consolidate the two lawsuits.  Both suits allege
that:

     (1) banks including UBS, Credit Suisse and Citigroup
         extended high interest loans to the apartheid regime,
         in contravention of international sanctions;

     (2) carmakers, including Daimler Chrysler, for example
         built armored vehicles for the security forces that
         terrorized the black majority;

     (3) mining companies such as Anglo American and De Beers
         profited from apartheid by exploiting the low-paid
         workforce the system guaranteed.

The companies involved will not comment publicly on the
litigation, but they appear to be getting together on a common
strategy to have it dismissed.  In private, some express outrage
at the lawsuits, claiming they had no direct dealings with the
apartheid government and, in some cases, opposed its policies.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois dismissed
in part the securities class action filed against Apropos
Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former directors
and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's s
stock, and asserts that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in February 2000.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On March 31, 2003, the court issued its decision on the motion
of the Company and other defendants to dismiss the case,
granting that motion in part and denying it in part.  The
Company has moved the Court for reconsideration of, or
alternatively for permission to file an immediate appeal as to,
that portion of the order denying the motion.  

Although legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes the allegations are without merit and intends to defend
the litigation vigorously.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: 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 Apropos Technology, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The
lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

In July 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants.  

In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation providing for
the dismissal of the individual defendants without prejudice.  
In February 2003, the Court issued a decision granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss the litigation filed
by the Company and the other issuer defendants.  The claims
against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the
securities laws were dismissed with prejudice; the claims under
the registration provisions of the securities laws were not
dismissed as to the Company or virtually any other issuer
defendant.

Although legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit, and
intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: 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 suit filed against Asiainfo Holdings, Inc., certain of
the Company's directors and the co-lead underwriters involved in
the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between March
2, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors at the time of the IPO violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's
common stock pursuant to the IPO without disclosing to investors
that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.  The plaintiffs seek class action certification and
claim for an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with other issuer
defendants, filed a collective motion to dismiss the claims on
various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual defendants in the litigation.  The
dismissals were based on stipulations signed by those defendants
and the plaintiffs' representatives.  

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws, the court
dismissed all claims without prejudice.  

As regards the claims brought under the registration provisions
of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to
defraud be pleaded, the court denied the motion to dismiss such
claims as to the Company and as to substantially all of the
other issuer defendants.  The court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

While the Company cannot guarantee the outcome of the
proceedings, it believes that the final result of the actions
will have no material effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.  In
addition, management believes that the co-lead underwriters may
have an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees
and other costs of defending this suit and that the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies may also
cover the defense and exposure or settlement of the suit.


AVICI SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
actions filed against Avici Systems, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors, and one or more of its underwriters in
its initial public offering.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) improperly required
their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions
and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the
Company's IPO.  The lawsuits further claim that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.

In addition to the cases against Avici, various other plaintiffs
have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar
class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly
traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York City,
which along with the cases against Avici have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.

The Company and its officers and directors believe that the
claims against them lack merit, and intend to defend the
litigation vigorously.  In that regard, on July 15, 2002, the
Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in
these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on
various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the litigation, and
they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.  

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the
plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead these claims against
Avici.  As to the claims brought under the registration
provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that
intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss these claims as to Avici and as to substantially all of
the other issuer defendants as well.  The Court also denied the
underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

While Avici can make no promises or guarantees as to the outcome
of these proceedings, Avici believes that the final result of
these actions will have no material effect on its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


CALIFORNIA: Urged to Share Education Costs with School District
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Thelton Henderson ruled that the state
of California must share the burden of roughly $2.4 million in
initial costs associated with a new plan to improve the
Ravenswood school district's special education program, with the
district shouldering about a quarter of the costs, the San Jose
Mercury News reports.  The remainder will be paid by the state's
Department of Education.

Judge Henderson's ruling stems from the 1996 class action in
which the state was a co-defendant, and the court undertook to
determine the responsibility of the respective defendants, when
neither the state nor the school district could reach agreement.  
As is usual in such cases, the court retains jurisdiction over
the parties and their issues, until the court lifts the
jurisdiction.

Ravenswood Superintendent Floyd Gonella said the ruling places
an additional strain on the district.  Judge Henderson, while
praising the new board and superintendent for exhibiting a
commitment to returning the district to financial health, said
its new leaders could not escape the consequences of the past
administration.

"In order to meet all the costs of the district, I think we are
looking at cuts across the board," said Superintendent Floyd
Gonella.


DOW CHEMICAL: Belies Claims in MI Dioxin Contamination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical Co. recently has submitted a response to a class
action filed by 26 Saginaw, Michigan, residents over dioxin
contamination caused by the company's Midland manufacturing
plant, Associated Press Newswires reports.  

The residents' complaint alleges the dioxin contamination
threatened their health and has left their property worthless.  
Dioxins are highly toxic byproducts of manufacturing and
incineration systems and may cause cancer, birth defects and
other health problems in humans.

Dow's response, filed in Saginaw County Circuit Court says there
is no proof that excessive dioxin levels exist in the
plaintiffs' yards, the Midland Daily News reports.

The residents' lawsuit seeks to represent about 2,000 people who
have lived along the Tittabawassee River and flood plain since
January 1984.  About 120 plaintiffs now are involved in the
lawsuit, said their attorney, Jan P. Helder, Jr.

In the lawsuit, the residents ask the court to make Dow
establish a medical monitoring trust fund for them.  The fund
would pay for dioxin poisoning testing and treatment, as well as
for studies of the toxin's effects and possible cures.

Dow's response includes a motion to dismiss half the complaint's
counts, including the medical monitoring request.  The response
argues that the plaintiffs have not been told by a medical
professional that they have been injured by dioxins or will be
in the future.  Dow also disputes the plaintiffs' claims about
their declining property values.

The lawsuit contends, however, that although Michigan's current
standard for dioxin is 90 parts per trillion, levels as high as
7,300 parts per trillion have been detected in some contaminated
areas.

Last year Dow tried to broker a deal with the state's Department
of Environmental Quality that would have raised allowable dioxin
contamination levels nine-fold in Midland.  This attempt fell
apart in December.

Mr. Helder said Dow's expression of opposition was expected.  
The company's response expresses a "lack of recognition of the
significance of the problem," said Mr. Helder.


DRUGSTORE.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 Drugstore.com, Inc. its underwriters and
certain of the Company's present and former officers and
directors, in connection with the Company's July 27, 1999
initial public offering and the Company's March 15, 2000
secondary offering.

The suit purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period July 28, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges that the prospectuses
through which the Company conducted the initial public offering
and the secondary offering (together, the Offerings) were
materially false and misleading for failure to disclose, among
other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the Offerings and

     (2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby they agreed to allocate drugstore.com
         shares to customers in the Offerings in exchange for
         which customers agreed to purchase additional
         drugstore.com shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice based upon 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 Company disputes the
allegations of wrongdoing against it in these complaints and
intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters.  The
Company maintains insurance policies that it believes will
provide coverage for these claims and therefore believes that
these claims will not have, individually or in the aggregate, a
material adverse effect on its business prospects, financial
condition or operating results.  However, an unfavorable
resolution in these matters could materially affect the
Company's business and future results of operation, financial
position or cash flows.


EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Faces WA Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eacceleration Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court, State of Washington, County of Kitsap over
advertising for its products on the Internet.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Acceleration Software International Corporation,

     (2) Clinton L. Ballard,

     (3) Diana Ballard and

     (4) John Does A-L

The complaint alleges that through the practice of using
advertising banners for the Company's products on the Internet,
the Company has engaged in deceptive business practices and
fraud and is liable for public and private nuisance.  The
complaint seeks damages of $500 per class member, which may
include all users of the Internet or other amounts as the court
deems appropriate, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is frivolous and without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
in the complaint.  Accordingly, the Company believes that this
lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Appeal on Suit Over Foster Care System
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in
Atlanta dismissed the appeal of a class action against the
Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) that sought a
declaration that Florida's foster care system was
unconstitutional, The Miami Herald reports.

The federal appeals court ruled that Florida's 20,000 foster
children already were protected by judges in a state dependency
court and, therefore, had no need to seek the aid of federal
courts. In a ruling written by US Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, the
panel said there was no need for federal courts to intervene in
Florida's foster care system, because state dependency court
judges already had the power to improve the lives of children in
DCF's care.

"Our view is that the proper courtroom hearing foster care
issues is the Dependency Court system, and the (federal) court's
dismissal would seem to agree," said Robert Brooks, a DCF
spokesman in Tallahassee.

The decision effectively ended a bitter, three-year battle
between Florida's troubled social service system and about a
dozen child-advocacy lawyers, who filed the suit on behalf of 31
foster children.  The lawsuit was filed originally in US
District Court in West Palm Beach by Karen Gievers, a persistent
critic of DCF.  Ms. Gievers said she and others who worked on
the lawsuit are considering other options, such as asking the
11th Circuit to reconsider.

"If the opinion stands, that will mean that the federal
courthouses are closed to the intervention of federal judges for
the purposes of protecting foster children from future harms,"
Ms. Gievers said.  The ruling could result in children having
virtually no protection in the courts, said Andrea Moore, a
Coral Springs attorney who has represented dozens of foster
children in dependency court.  DCF workers sometimes ignore the
orders of dependency court, even after being held in contempt
of court, Ms. Moore said.

The court seemed to be saying that relief for systemic problems
can be obtained on a case-by-case basis, said Ms. Moore.  "In my
experience that method does not result in systemic change," Ms.
Moore said.  It only results in some children who have advocates
getting better services than other children, she said.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against GRIC Communications, Inc., certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's December 14,1999
initial public offering (IPO):

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corporation,

     (2) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (3) DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and

     (4) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

The suit alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In October 2002, certain of the Company's officers and directors
who had been named as defendants were dismissed without
prejudice upon order of the presiding judge.  In February 2003,
the presiding judge dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against
the Company and its named officers and directors with prejudice.  

In addition, the parties have been participating in a mediation.  
Settlement proposals that could include dismissal of the
remaining Section 11 claim against the Company have been made.
There can be no guarantee that the parties will be able to reach
agreement on either a partial dismissal or a global resolution
of the claims involving the issuer defendants.  

The Company's management believes that the complaint is without
merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.  The Company
does not believe the outcome of this consolidated lawsuit will
have a material adverse affect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


HOMESTORE INC.: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Homestore, Inc. (formerly Homestore.com,
Inc.) and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suit alleges the defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to the Company's 2000 and 2001 financial results
included in its filings with the SEC, analysts reports, press
releases and media reports.  The complaints seek an unspecified
amount of damages.

In March 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System
was named lead plaintiff.  In July 2002, the CalSTeRS filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint naming the Company,
certain of the Company's former officers, directors and
employees, along with MaxWorldwide, Inc. (formerly L90, Inc.),
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, AOL and Cendant Corporation.

On March 7, 2003, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the
plaintiff's claims against a number of corporate and individual
defendants whom the plaintiff alleged either assisted in the
planning and execution of the purportedly fraudulent
transactions at issue, or who were parties to those
transactions.  Those defendants included MaxWorldwide, Inc., AOL
and Cendant, among others.  The court also dismissed, without
prejudice, the plaintiff's claims against a number of the
Company's current and former officers and employees.

With regard to those claims dismissed without prejudice, the
plaintiff has advised that it does not intend to amend the
complaint.  At the same time, the court denied the motions to
dismiss of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Company's former
chief executive officer.  The Company did not file a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims against it, but answered the
complaint.  Accordingly, the March 7, 2003 decision did not make
any ruling with respect to the claims asserted against the
Company.

It is possible that the Company may be required to pay
substantial damages or a substantial settlement amount in
connection with the litigation although, as is the case with any
litigation, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this
matter.  However, in light of the fact that the Company
determined that it was necessary to restate its 2000 and the
first three quarters of its 2001 financial results, due to the
circumstances forming the basis of the plaintiff's allegations,
and the fact that four of the Company's former employees have
pled guilty to violating federal securities laws in connection
with the financial results which required restatement, this
litigation poses a significant risk of a material adverse effect
on the conduct and scope of the Company's business, its results
of operations and its financial position.


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

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from November
17, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offering in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits challenging over 300 other public securities offerings
conducted in 1999, 2000 and 2001.  All of these cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and its related individual
defendants (as well as the other issuers named as defendants)
filed a motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, the individual
defendants stipulated with plaintiffs to dismissal from the case
without prejudice, subject to a tolling agreement.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss.  
The court denied the motions to dismiss claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of the cases, including
the case involving the Company.  The court denied the motion to
dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants
on the basis that the amended complaints in these cases alleged
that the respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted
follow-on securities offerings after their initial public
offerings.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: 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 Immersion Corporation and:

     (1) Louis Rosenberg (former Chief Executive Officer,
         President and Chairman of the Company),

     (2) Victor Viegas (current President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Bruce Schena (former Chief Technology Officer and
         Director); and

     (4) certain underwriters of the Company's November 12, 1999
         initial public offering

Subsequently, two of the individual defendants stipulated to a
dismissal without prejudice.

The case is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from November 12, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit has been consolidated for
pretrial purposes with similar lawsuits relating to more than
300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000
before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

On May 29, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectus incorporated in the registration statement
for the Company's initial public offering failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the offering; and

    (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the offering 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.

The amended complaint appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The amended complaint does not
claim any specific amount of damages.

On July 15, 2002, the Company (as well as the other issuers and
their affiliated individual defendants) filed a motion to
dismiss.  On February 19, 2003, the motion was granted in part
and denied in part.  The motion was denied as to claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving the Company, as
well as all other cases (except for 10 cases).  The motion was
denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as to the Company, on the basis that the
complaint alleged that the Company had made acquisition(s)
following the initial public offering.  The motion was granted
as to the claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act, but denied as to the claim under Section 20(a) of that Act,
as to the remaining individual defendant.

Management believes that the claims against the Company and
individual defendants are without merit.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: Parties in Stock Suit Start Negotiations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Intersil Corporation, are in negotiations to settle the
suit in preparation for a May 2003 court conference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its present
officers and directors and its lead initial public offering
underwriter and lead underwriter of its September 2000 offering,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation.  The suit alleges
violations of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, based on,
among other things, the dissemination of statements containing
material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the
commissions received by the underwriters of the initial public
offering as well as failure to disclose the existence of
purported agreements by the underwriters with some of the
purchasers in these offerings to thereafter buy additional
shares of Intersil in the open market at pre-determined prices
above the offering prices.  The plaintiffs seek class action
certification and an award of damages and litigation costs and
expenses.

The suit, as well as those alleging similar claims against other
issuers in initial public offerings, has been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes with a multitude of other securities related
suits.  In December 2001, plaintiffs filed amended complaints
that added certain officers as defendants and changed the nature
of their causes of action.  Plaintiffs dropped their claims of
securities fraud against the Company and the individual
defendants, while adding claims under one or more sections of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Intersil and the individual
defendants arising from the alleged misrepresentations or
omissions described above with regard to both the Company's
initial, and second, public offerings. In

April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The consolidated amended complaint pleads claims
under both the 1933 Securities Act and under the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act.  In addition to the allegations of wrongdoing
described above, plaintiffs also now allege that analysts
employed by underwriters who were acting as investment bankers
for Intersil improperly touted the value of the shares of
Intersil during the relevant class period as part of the
purported scheme to artificially inflate the value of Intersil
shares.  In October 2002, the individual employee defendants
were dismissed from the suit.  


JNI CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the consolidated
securities class action filed against JNI Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period between July 13,
2000 and March 8, 2001.

The suits allege that during the class period, the Company made
false statements about its business and results causing its
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.  Based on these
allegations, the cases allege that the Company and the others
named in the cases violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The Company has retained counsel to defend these cases.

On March 25, 2002, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and
amended complaint.  The amended suit alleged claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 arising from the Company's secondary
public offering in October 2000.

On April 29, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the first consolidated and amended complaint.  
On March 25, 2003, the court executed an order granting with to
amend the Company's motion to dismiss and giving plaintiffs
until May 26,2003 to file an amended complaint.


LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Latitude Communications, Inc., certain
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO),
Latitude Communications Inc., and Emil C. Wang and Rick M.
McConnell, who were officers of the Company at the time of the
IPO.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriter
defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose
alleged compensation arrangements in the initial public
offering's registration statement and by engaging in
manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's common stock after the initial public offering.

The amended complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
Company and the named officers violated section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  No specific amount of damages has been claimed.

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and
all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.

Mr. McConnell and Mr. Wang have subsequently been dismissed from
the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.  
Furthermore, in July 2002, the Company and the other issuers in
the consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The motion to dismiss
claims under section 11 was denied as to virtually all the
defendants in the consolidated actions, including the Company.  
However, the claims against the Company under section 10(b) were
dismissed.

The Company will defend itself vigorously against the claims in
this lawsuit.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation
and because the litigation is still at a preliminary stage, the
ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.


MERRY LAND: GA Shareholder Sues Over Cornerstone Realty Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merry Land Properties, Inc. faces a class action filed by a
purported shareholder of the Company in the Superior Court of
Richmond County, Georgia.  The suit also names the Company's
directors as defendants.

The suit alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the shareholders by approving the proposed merger
transaction with Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. and
related transactions, including the sale by the Company of the
non-apartment assets to Merry Land & Investment Company, LLC.  
The action seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the
transactions and the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The Company and its directors believe the action is without
merit and will mount a vigorous defense against it.


MODEM MEDIA: 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 Modem Media, Inc. and:

     (1) G.M. O'Connell, Chairman,

     (2) Steven Roberts, former Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Robert C. Allen II, board member, a Managing Director
         and former President,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) BankBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (7) Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities and

     (8) Banc of America Securities LLC

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering 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 Company stock in the after-
market subsequent to the IPO.

The Company and the officers are named in the amended complaint
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.

In October 2002, the actions against the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice.  In July 2002, the Company and
the other issuers in the consolidated cases filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim,
which was denied as to it on February 19, 2003.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  
However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the
Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.  Any unfavorable outcome of this litigation could
have an adverse impact on the Company's business, financial
condition and results of operations.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action filed against Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc appealed Ohio State Court's ruling granting
summary judgment in favor of the Company.

The suit was filed in October 1998, relating to the sale of
deferred annuity products for use as investments in tax-deferred
contributory retirement plans.  Plaintiff Mercedes Castillo
heads the suit, which also names as defendants Nationwide Life
Insurance Company and Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.  

The amended complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased individual deferred annuity contracts or participated
in group annuity contracts sold by the Company and the other
named Company affiliates, which were allegedly used to fund
certain tax-deferred retirement plans.  The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In June 1999, the Company and other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the Company and
other named defendants.  On January 25, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add three
new named plaintiffs.  On February 9, 2002, the plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification.

On April 16, 2002, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment on the individual claims of plaintiff Mercedes
Castillo.  On May 28, 2002, the court granted the motion of
Marcus Shore to withdraw as a named plaintiff and denied
plaintiffs' motion to add new persons as named plaintiffs, so
the action is now proceeding with Mercedes Castillo as the only
named plaintiff.

On November 4, 2002, the court issued a decision granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff
Mercedes Castillo's individual claims, and ruling that
plaintiff's motion for class certification is moot.  Judgment
for the Company was entered on November 15, 2002.

Ms. Castillo filed a notice of appeal from the Court's orders
granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and denying
Her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add three new
named plaintiffs.  Ms. Castillo filed a brief on appeal on March
14, 2003.  The Company filed a responsive brief on April 21,
2003 and plaintiff's reply brief is due in mid-May, 2003.  The
Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek To File Amended Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ask the United States District Court in Connecticut
for leave to file a third amended class action against
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life
Insurance Company (NLIC).

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of retirement plans
that purchased variable annuities from NLIC to fund qualified
Employee Retirement Income Safety Act (ERISA) retirement plans.
The amended complaint alleges that:

     (1) the retirement plans purchased variable annuity
         contracts from the Company that allowed plan
         participants to invest in funds that were offered by
         separate mutual fund companies;

     (2) that the Company was a fiduciary under ERISA and that
         the Company breached its fiduciary duty when it
         accepted certain fees from the mutual fund companies
         that purportedly were never disclosed by the Company;
         and

     (3) that the Company violated ERISA by replacing many of
         the funds originally included in the plaintiff's
         annuities with "inferior" funds because the new funds
         purportedly paid higher fees to the Company.

The amended complaint seeks disgorgement of the fees allegedly
received by the Company and other unspecified compensatory
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney's fees.  
On December 3, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

The Company is opposing that motion.  The Company's Motion to
Dismiss was denied on September 11, 2002.  On January 14, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion to file a second amended complaint and
the motion was granted on February 21, 2003.

The second amended complaint removed the claims against the
Company concerning a violation of ERISA through the replacement
of many of the funds originally included in the plaintiff's
annuities with "inferior" funds that purportedly paid higher
fees to the Company.

On April 14, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which has not yet been granted by the
court.  The third amended complaint does not include claims
against the Company explicitly alleging a violation of ERISA
through misrepresentation, breach of contract, or the
replacement of funds originally included in the plaintiffs'  
annuities with "inferior" funds that purportedly paid higher
fees to the Company.  The Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: LA Consumers Sue Over Premium Variable Annuity
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC) faces a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  Plaintiff Edward Miller filed the suit,
relating to his November 2001 purchase of a group modified
single premium variable annuity issued by the Company.  

Plaintiff alleges that NLIC represented in its prospectus and
promised in its annuity contract that contract holders could
transfer assets without charge among the various funds offered
in the contracts, that the transfer rights of contract holders
could not be modified and that NLIC's expense charges under the
contracts were fixed.

Plaintiff claims that NLIC has breached the contracts and
violated federal securities laws by imposing trading fees on
transfers that were supposed to have been without charge.  
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and rescission on behalf of
himself and a class of persons who purchased this type of
annuity or similar products issued by NLIC between May 1, 2001
and April 30, 2002 inclusive and were allegedly damaged by
paying transfer fees.

This case is in a very preliminary stage, and the Company
intends to defend itself vigorously.


NETRATINGS INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Netratings, Inc., two of its former
officers and directors and investment banking firms that served
as underwriters for its initial public offering in December
1999.  

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from December 8, 1999 through December 6,
2000.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus
incorporated in the registration statement for the offering
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in     
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the initial public offering,
         and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the initial
         public offering 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.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued following the IPO.  No specific damages are claimed.  

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases, including
the Company's case, have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the Company (as well as the other issuer
defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
motions were heard on November 1, 2002.  In February 2003, the
judge granted the motion to dismiss certain of the claims
against NetRatings and the two individual defendants and denied
the motion to dismiss certain other claims against NetRatings
and the two individual defendants.

The Company believes that the remaining claims against it and
its officers and directors are without merit.  Management
currently believes that the resolution of this matter will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
position.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: 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 Openwave Systems, Inc. on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from June 11,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  It also names as defendants five
of the Company's present or former officers and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering.  
Pursuant to stipulation, the Court dismissed three of the
individual defendants without prejudice, subject to an agreement
extending the statute of limitations through September 30, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges liability as to all defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  The Company is
aware that similar allegations have been made in other lawsuits
filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300
other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted
in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the respective
securities fraud class actions.  On February 19, 2003, the
motion was granted in part and denied in part.  The motion was
denied as to claims under:

      (1) Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act as to the
          Company and the remaining individual defendant
          associated with the Company,

      (2) Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act as to the Company and
          one individual defendant associated with the Company,

      (3) Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the same one
          individual defendant associated with the Company.

The motion was granted in its entirety as to the other remaining
individual defendant associated with the Company.

Based upon the Company's current understanding of the facts, the
Company believes that the complaint's claims against it are
without merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously, but it
does not believe that resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEC Solutions, Inc. and certain of its officers face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from October 22, 2002 and
March 14, 2003.

The suit alleges that the defendants made, or were aware of
false and misleading statements, which effectively inflated the
market price of the Company's stock, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously against the
cases.  In addition, a stockholder's legal counsel sent a letter
of demand that the Board investigate the same charges addressed
in the class actions.


RETEK INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Retek, Inc., certain of its current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The suits allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a single
judge along with similar actions involving the initial public
offerings of numerous other issuers.  On February 14, 2002, the
parties signed and filed a stipulation dismissing the
consolidated action without prejudice against the Company and
the individual officers and directors, which the Court approved
and entered as an order on March 1, 2002.

On April 20, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
which they elected to proceed with their claims against the
Company and the individual officers and directors only under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus filed in
connection with the IPO was false or misleading in that it
failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain of the underwriters' customers
         in return for receiving shares in the IPO; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         common stock in the aftermarket in return for an
         allocation of shares in the IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for the
Company's stock.  Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the
omissions from the prospectus and alleged market manipulation
through the use of analysts, the price of the Company's common
stock was artificially inflated between November 18, 1999 and
December 6, 2001, and that the defendants are liable for
unspecified damages to those persons who purchased its common
stock during that period.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants,
along with the rest of the issuers and related officer and
director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on
common issues.  Opposition and reply papers were filed.

The court rendered its decision on February 19, 2003, which
granted dismissal in part of a claim against one of the
individual defendants and denied dismissal in all other
respects.  The suits may now proceed to the discovery phase.

The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously.  
Securities class action litigation can result in substantial
costs and divert management's attention and resources, which may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations.


RETEK INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against Retek,
Inc. filed a consolidated suit in the United States District
Court in Minnesota.  

The court has not yet certified any class.  The complaints
alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.  
Specifically, the complaints allege that, among other things,
between October 17, 2001 and July 8, 2002, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or concealed material
adverse facts from the market in press releases, presentations
and SEC disclosures.

The complaints claim that the Company and the individual
defendants misled the market with respect to, among other things
its alliance with IBM, its ability to develop certain software,
and its expectations regarding certain customer sales.  
Plaintiffs further allege that defendants manipulated financial
statements and failed to disclose problems with existing and
potential customer deals, which led to the Company's stock price
being artificially inflated during the class period.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other unspecified
relief.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel on February 14, 2003, and the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on April 15, 2003.  Defendants will
answer or respond to these allegations.

The Company disputes plaintiffs' allegations in the federal
class actions in Minnesota and believes that the allegations are
subject to a variety of meritorious defenses.  The Company
intends to establish a vigorous defense.  While there can be no
assurance, and while the outcome of federal class action cannot
be predicted with certainty, management currently believes that
the ultimate outcome of the federal class action litigation in
Minnesota is unlikely to have a material adverse affect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: 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 Sirenza Microdevices, Inc., various of its
officers and certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The suit alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper
and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares
in the Company's initial public offering, including obtaining
commitments from investors to purchase shares in the aftermarket
at pre-arranged prices.  

Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies'
initial public offerings were filed during 2001, and this
lawsuit is being coordinated with those actions.  

On October 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
courts dismissed the officer defendants from the action without
prejudice.  Subsequent to December 31, 2002, the court granted
in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed on behalf
of defendants, including the Company.  The court's order
dismissed all claims against the Company except for a claim
brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
the allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously. It does
not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse
impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Orange granted
final approval to a settlement proposed by Quality Systems, Inc.
to settle a consolidated securities class action filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's Common Stock between June 26,
1995 and July 3, 1996.

The suit alleges that the Company, its officers and directors or
both during the class period, and other defendants violated
California Corporations Code Sections 25400 and 25500,
California Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710, and California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et. seq., by
issuing positive statements about the Company that allegedly
were knowingly false, in part, in order to assist the Company
and the individual defendants in selling common stock at an
inflated price in the Company's March 5, 1996 public offering
and at other points during the class period, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story states.  

The settlement, which has been approved by the court, causes the
dismissal of the action and the complete release of any and all
claims of all participating class members against all
defendants, including the Company and all current and former
directors and officers of the Company named as defendants.  The
terms of the settlement call for a cash payment to plaintiffs,
fully funded by the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance.  The settlement terms also reflect the Company's
denial of all claims asserted in the litigation.


QUICKSILVER RESOURCES: MI Court Refuses To Review Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Otsego County, Michigan refused to
reconsider its decision granting class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Quicksilver Resources, Inc. and three of
its subsidiaries.

The suit alleges that Terra Energy Ltd., one of the Company's
subsidiaries acquired in 2000, underpaid royalties or overriding
royalties to the 13 named plaintiffs and to a class of
plaintiffs who have yet to be determined.  The pleadings of the
plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief against future underpayments.

Due to administrative oversight an answer was not timely filed
and a default was entered against the Company in December 2001.  
On October 24, 2002, the trial court granted Terra's motion to
set aside the default.  The court heard arguments on class
certification on November 8, 2002 and on December 6, 2002, the
court issued a memorandum opinion granting class certification
in part and denying it in part.  The court stated that those
portions of the royalty owner's complaint against the Company,
which alleged that the Company deducted excessive post
production costs from royalty payments should not be certified
as class action.  The court certified the remainder of the
complaint for class action status.

On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a motion for
clarification and reconsideration of the court's order.  That
motion was denied on March 9, 2003.

Based on information currently available to the Company, it
believes that the final resolution of this matter will not have
a material effect on its operations, equity or cash flows.


RADIO ONE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Radio One, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public
offerings violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
failing to disclose in its registration statements material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the underwriters.  The complaint
also contains a claim for violation of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this
omission constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s (the
"Issuers").  Those cases are now consolidated under the caption
In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 91
MC 92.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to the Company's officers and directors
until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement,
the officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit
without prejudice.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and almost
all of the Issuers, and denying the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claims against Radio One and many of the Issuers.  
The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.  The Company believes the
resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Asks WI Court To Dismiss Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rayovac Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP,

     (2) Kenneth V. Biller,

     (3) Kent J. Hussey,

     (4) David A. Jones,

     (5) Scott A. Schoen,

     (6) Stephen P. Shanesy,

     (7) Thomas R. Shepherd,

     (8) Randall J. Steward,

     (9) Warren C. Smith, Jr., and

    (10) Merrell Tomlin

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit also alleges that defendants
made various false and misleading statements which had the
alleged effect of artificially inflating the price of Company
stock during the period from April 26, 2001 until September 19,
2001.

Plaintiffs allege that statements by the Company during this
period in press releases, SEC filings and investor conference
calls regarding current sales and forecasted growth were false
and misleading due to alleged failures to disclose, among other
things:

     (i) alleged improper sales practices in purported
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles;

    (ii) failure to establish sufficient reserves for doubtful
         receivables;

   (iii) declining demand; and

    (iv) risks of doing business in Latin America

The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
suit.  The motion is currently under consideration by the court.

The defendants believe the claims are groundless and intend to
vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Suit Filed Over Alleged $150M in Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises and its subsidiary Celebrity Cruise
Lines overcharged passengers by at least $150 million with
fraudulent taxes, a lawsuit claims, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

According to the lawsuit recently filed in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court, the companies levied "their own brand of taxes" to offset
rising operational costs in an increasingly competitive
industry.  The Miami-based cruise lines violated Florida law by
engaging in deceptive trade practices since the spring of 2001,
by collecting the hidden taxes without notifying customers
beforehand in brochures or passenger invoices, the lawsuit
further alleges.  The suit seeks class action status.

"All they had to do was raise their cruise prices like any
merchant," attorney Thomas Tew told The Miami Herald.  "Instead,
they buried an increased fare in a bogus tax."  

Mr. Tew's law firm seeks class action status on behalf of an
estimated 5.7 million cruise customers, claiming that Royal
Caribbean charged each passenger from $22 to $35 in taxes that
varied with each cruise itinerary.  However, the company never
broke down the taxes on customer financial statements, the
lawsuit claims.  The suit alleges Royal Caribbean and Celebrity
appropriated from $15 to $25 per passenger in fraudulent taxes.

The plaintiffs want to be reimbursed for the paid taxes and are
asking that a judge stop the companies from imposing the
allegedly unauthorized taxes.  The suit says the companies were
only allowed to bill passengers three federal government
charges:  a $3 excise tax; a $7 immigration fee; or a $1.75 or
$5 customs tax.

Mr. Tew claims Royal Caribbean and Celebrity violated a 1997
agreement with Florida by charging taxes not owed to the
government.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: NC Investors Not Included in Pact Share
--------------------------------------------------------------
Any of the investors in North Carolina, who may have been hoping
for even a small portion of that state's share of the estimated
$10 million settlement with the investment banks, must resign
themselves to seeing not even a penny of the settlement money,
The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) reports.

However, they may benefit in other ways, because the North
Carolina Secretary of State's office hopes to use at least some
of the estimated settlement to educate investors about how best
to place their money, in such a way as to avoid the kinds of
mistakes that have wiped out millions of Americans' retirement
funds and savings in recent years.  Details about the proposed
education program remain scant:  No decision has been made on
who will head the investor education effort or what the program
will look like.

Even this hope, characterized by a gleam in someone's eye, or by
a sheaf of paper plans in someone's desk drawer, may not be
realized, since the state's lawmakers are still trying to fill a
budget shortfall and are eyeing the money, yet unarrived;
although no decision to seize the settlement cash has been made.

States will receive $495 million of the $1.4 billion settlement
money agreed upon between the investment banks and the
regulators last month over tainted stock research.  Another $399
million of the settlement will go to a restitution fund that the
Securities and Exchange Commission is setting up for small
investors.

As North Carolina ponders how best to spend its $10 million
share of the Wall Street settlement, other states are charting a
different course, with the monies not yet received.  Several,
including Virginia and New York, intend to plow the money into
their general funds to pay for road construction or other state
projects that need an infusion of cash.  

At least one state, Missouri, plans to use the money toward
investor restitution.  Some of the states have decided against
that use of the money, because there isn't enough money to make
such payments meaningful for the investors who lost money in
connection with the investment bank scandal.

North Carolina, for example, while not considering the amount of
restitution would make a difference to the investor, is making
sure the settlements leave investors free to file their own
lawsuits or to join class actions to get compensation.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Problems Descend From Many Directions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. revealed that they are cooperating
with a Securities and Exchange (SEC) investigation, which comes
on the heels of a class action that was filed following a steep
stock drop.  The stock drop (a slip from $15.52 from about
$33.25) occurred when the company announced that the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had registered some concerns about
Replagal, the Cambridge biotech company's experimental treatment
for Fabry disease, the Boston Herald reports.

The SEC has ordered an investigation of the company's
disclosures and filings regarding Replagal, including
information submitted to the SEC regarding the status of the
FDA's approval process for the drug.  Regulators have said that
clinical data would not support the product's approval.

The SEC is also investigating transactions of company
securities.  The class action which followed the stock drop was
filed by the Philadelphia law firm Berger & Montague PC and
alleges that the Company misled investors by filing "false and
misleading statements" between January 3, 2001, and January 14,
2003, the class period.

The lawsuit also alleges that the company misrepresented the
adequacy of the evidence showing Replagal would work against
Fabry disease, a metabolic disorder, which affects 5,000 to
10,000 people.

In April, the company said a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in Superior Court against its board.  The claims were
similar to those alleged in the class action.

A product competing with Replagal is manufactured by Genzyme
Corporation, also of Cambridge, and has since been approved by
the FDA.  Genzyme also has won seven years of exclusivity for
the product under an FDA program to promote the development of
drugs for rare diseases.


TOWNE SERVICES: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Towne Services, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it, two of its former officers and a current
officer in the District Court of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company
should have disclosed in the prospectus used for its secondary
public offering in June 1999 that it allegedly experienced
serious problems with its network infrastructure and processing
facilities during the move of its corporate headquarters in June
1999, and that these problems allegedly led to a higher than
usual number of customers terminating their contracts during the
second quarter.

The Company and its officers answered, denying liability.  The
parties reached a tentative settlement, which is subject to
certain conditions including court approval, and which is
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding signed January 17,
2003.  Counsel for plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims and
release all defendants for a negotiated settlement amount which
will be funded by Towne's directors and officers insurance
carrier and the Company.  The settlement funds were placed in
escrow on February 21, 2003.

Counsel for defendants estimate it will take a minimum of six
months for the court to approve the class action settlement. The
parties also continue to pursue the question as to whether the
carrier will also pay the cost of defense, including the
attorney's fees incurred by Towne, as provided by the underlying
insurance policy.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: 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 Vitria Technology, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering, or IPO, violated federal securities laws because the
Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in
January 2001 against numerous public companies that first sold
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these IPO-
related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before
United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of
New York.

Defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-related
lawsuits on July 15, 2002.  Subsequent settlement discussions
between the parties have resulted in an agreement by the
plaintiffs to dismiss the named individual officers and
directors of Vitria who were named as defendants in the IPO-
related lawsuit.  Judge Scheindlin entered a court order
detailing this dismissal on October 9, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, Judge Scheindlin issued a ruling denying
in part and granting in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
captioned Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB),
et al.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that CSFB knowingly
conspired with dozens of issuers, including the Company, to
conduct initial public offerings based on misinformation about
the Company's future prospects and the proper pricing of their
shares, in violation of the anti-fraud provisions of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Neither the Company nor its individual officers and directors
have yet been served with the complaint.  The Company intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Accredo Health, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ACDO) from June 16, 2002
through April 7, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between June 16, 2002 and April
7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Accredo
common stock.

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

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

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

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

     (4) defendants' earnings guidance and positive statements
         concerning the Company was lacking in a reasonable and
         therefore materially false and misleading.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Collins & Aikman Corporation
(NYSE:CKC) securities, between August 7, 2001 and August 2, 2002
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendant violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, between August 7, 2001 and
August 2, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of CKC
securities.  Specifically, that Heartland Industrial Partners,
L.P. was a private equity firm, presenting itself as a
specialist in leveraged buyouts.  Heartland acquired a
controlling interest in CKC in February 2002.  Together
Heartland and CKC acquired Textron Automotive Company's TAC-Trim
division.  Throughout the class period, Heartland and CKC
reported that the TAC-Trim acquisition would double CKCs annual
revenue and operating income by reducing costs through economies
of scale.

In August 5, 2002 however, the Company reported a net loss of
$20.3 million as compared to the prior year's net income of $9.2
million.  As a result, the price of CKC stock decreased 49% upon
hearing of the net loss.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by
Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of Oregon, on behalf of all open market
purchasers of the common stock of Electro Scientific Industries,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ESIOE) during the period September 17, 2002 through
April 15, 2003, inclusive.  The named defendants are the Company
and:

     (1) David Bolender,

     (2) James T. Dooley and

     (3) Joseph L. Reinhart

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.

Electro Scientific provides high technology manufacturing
equipment to the global electronics market.  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 September 17,
2002 through April 15, 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 sales and otherwise violated
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

On March 20, 2003, the Company announced it would be restating
certain quarterly financials.  On April 15, 2003, Electro
Scientific shocked investors by announcing a second restatement
of certain quarterly amounts.

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  


EUNIVERSE INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of
eUniverse, Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) between July 30, 2002 and May 5,
2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against the company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market between July 30,
2002 and May 5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price
of eUniverse common stock.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the statements by the
Company failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (1) eUniverse had materially overstated its net income and
         earnings per share;

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

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

eUniverse stunned the market on May 6, 2003 when it announced
that it ``intends to restate its financial statements for the
second and third quarters of the year ended March 31, 2003'' and
possibly also for the first quarter of fiscal 2003.  The NASDAQ
immediately halted trading of eUniverse shares and stated that
the shares will remain halted until eUniverse supplies
additional information.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com or by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90.


J. JILL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP
initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of
purchasers of The J. Jill Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: JILL) publicly
traded securities during the period between February 12, 2002
and December 4, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 12, 2002 and
December 4, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of J.
Jill Group securities.  The complaint alleges that defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's operations and financial results.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants' statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company's same-store sales growth -- a          
         operating metric that is important to investors in
         retailing stocks but which was not highlighted by the
         Company during the Class Period -- was declining as
         demand for the Company's products weakened;

     (2) that the Company was amassing a material amount of
         product which was of diminishing value and would have
         to be discounted in promotional campaigns, thereby
         causing the Company to experience declining financial         
         results;

     (3) that the Company was not collecting taxes in certain
         States where it made Internet sales and also had a
         retail store.  As a result, the Company was exposed to
         the heightened risk that it would be subject to
         regulatory scrutiny; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' earnings
         projections and positive statements about the Company
         were lacking in a reasonable basis and were therefore
         materially false and misleading.

On December 5, 2002, prior to the open of the market, J. Jill
Group shocked the market by announcing that it was revising its
earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002. The Company reported
that it expects fourth quarter diluted earnings per share to
range between $0.25 and $0.30. In response to this announcement,
the price of J. Jill common stock declined from $23.01 per share
to $16.52 per share, a decline of 28%, on extremely heavy
volume. Prior to the end of the Class Period, J. Jill insiders
sold more than $17 million of their personally-held stock to the
unsuspecting public.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by
Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against Lehman Brothers Inc.
and its senior technology analyst, Michael E. Stanek on behalf
of investors who purchased the common stock of RealNetworks,
Inc. (NasdaqNM:RNWK) during the period from July 1, 1999 through
June 30, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
and misleading analyst reports on RealNetworks, a global
provider of software products and services for internet media
delivery, in a bid to win or maintain lucrative banking and
advisory work from the Company.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements, the market price of
RealNetworks common stock was artificially inflated, maintained
or stabilized during the class period.

On April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) issued a complaint charging Lehman with
violating numerous rules of conduct of the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) and the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (NYSE), by issuing false and misleading analyst
reports on numerous companies, including RealNetworks.  The
complaint describes the influence and control exerted by
Lehman's investment bankers on its supposedly independent
research analysts, and details how positive ratings and research
reports on RealNetworks issued by defendants to the public were
contrary to defendants' more negative assessments of the
Company's true value and prospects.  Lehman eventually settled
these charges for the payment of $50 million.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


PEC SOLUTIONS: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of PEC Solutions, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:PECS) securities, between October 22, 2002 and March
14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendant violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of PECS securities.  Specifically, that the Company
overstated the strength of its projects and prospects by failing
to disclose that:

     (1) demand for the Company's products and services was on
         the decline due to governmental agencies delaying
         projects until Congress approved a budget for 2003; and

     (2) revenue would be lower than anticipated because of
         problems with its biometric identification contracts.

After the Company announced that it would have to restate its
prior guidance, the price fell from $15.80 per share, to $9.81
per share, a greater than 37% decline.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by
Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com


PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Files Stock Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Pharmacia Corporation (NYSE:PHA)
securities, between April 17, 2000 and August 21, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendant violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Pharmacia securities.  Throughout the class period,
Pharmacia marketed Celebrex as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drug (NSAID) which retards pain and inflammation without the
adverse effects of stomach pain or gastrointestinal bleeding
found in other NSAIDs.  Pharmacia claimed that this feature gave
the drug a competitive advantage over traditional NSAIDs, which
cause gastrointestinal problems resulting in greater than 15,000
deaths each year and as many as 100,000 hospitalizations.

Pharmacia was required to demonstrate this advantage via a
clinical study in order to remove the FDA's warning label.  In
union with its partner Pfizer, Pharmacia created the "Celecoxib
Long-Term Arthritis Safety Study," to compare the
gastrointestinal problems of Celebrex patients with that of
other NSAIDs patients.  Each of the sixteen physicians
performing the study were either Pharmacia employees or paid
consultants.  The data from this study was reviewed in the
Journal of the American Medical Association on September 13,
2000, which also found that Celebrex patients had fewer
symptomatic ulcers then those taking traditional NSAIDs.  Due to
these purported advantages, the investment and medical
communities believed Celebrex to be an exceptional drug.

On August 22, 2001 however, the Wall Street Journal reported a
higher incidence of cardiovascular problems among Celebrex
users.  Around this same time the Journal of American Medicine
reported similar problems with Celebrex.  In response to this
news, the price of Pharmacia securities fell below $40 by August
30, 2001.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull, or Joshua M. Lifshitz
by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com


SARA LEE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sara
Lee Corporation (NYSE: SLE) between August 1, 2002 and April 24,
2003, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against te
Company, C. Steven McMillan (CEO, President and Chairman of the
Board of Directors) and Lambertus M. De Kool (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 August 1, 2002
and April 24, 2003.  The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Sara Lee failed to disclose the following facts:

     (1) The Company's Reshaping program was a failure and,
         consequently, a large part of the Company's portfolio        
         was in businesses that either were not growing or were
         in significant decline;

     (2) The Company's increased investment in media advertising
         and new product development had not started to
         accelerate the growth of the Company's key brands but
         rather, the Company's key brands continued to perform
         poorly;

     (3) The Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls for the purpose of identifying underperforming
         business units, identifying the reasons for the units'
         underperformance and implementing the changes required
         to return operating performance to acceptable levels;
         and

     (4) Sara Lee lacked any reasonable basis for its projection
         of "double-digit operating income" increase for fiscal
         2003 or diluted earnings per share for fiscal 2003 in
         the range of $1.54 to $1.60.

On April 24, 2003, Sara Lee shocked the market. It issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the third
quarter, the period ending March 31, 2003.  The Company
announced that it was reducing earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50
to $1.52 per share, significantly below consensus expectations
of $1.59. In response to this announcement, the price of Sara
Lee common stock dropped by 10%.  During the Class Period, Sara
Lee insiders sold more than $23 million of their personally-held
Sara Lee common stock to the unsuspecting public.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 by E-mail: saralee@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CoRTS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
UnumProvident Corporate-Backed Trust Securities (CorTS)
Certificates pursuant to or traceable to an initial public
offering by CorTS Trust II For Provident Financing Trust I
(NYSE:KCC) on or about April 18, 2001 through March 24, 2003,
inclusive.

The action charges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 against CorTS Trust II For Provident Financing Trust I,
Provident Financing Trust I, UnumProvident Corporation
(UnumProvident) (NYSE:UNM), Salomon Smith Barney, Prudential
Securities, First Union Securities and certain UnumProvident
officers, including its Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officers.  UnumProvident is a provider of group and individual
disability insurance, as well as other complementary insurance
products such as long-term care insurance, life insurance,
employer- and employee-paid group benefits and related services.  
Through its principal subsidiaries, including Unum Life
Insurance Company of America, Provident Life and Accident
Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, UnumProvident
Corporation operates throughout North America and in the United
Kingdom, Japan and Argentina.

At the beginning of the Class Period, on or about April 18,
2001, CorTS Certificates were issued by CorTS Trust II For
Provident Financing Trust I, with issuance and payment of
Certificates ultimately guaranteed by UnumProvident.  Yet,
throughout the Class Period, UnumProvident failed to properly
account for long-term investment impairments, thereby grossly
inflating financial results.  On February 5, 2003 UnumProvident
announced recorded investment losses of $93 million and an
inquiry by the SEC requesting information relating to its
investment disclosures.

Later, on March 11, 2003, following a series of negative analyst
reports and increasing investor concerns over UnumProvident's
losses, the price of CorTS Certificates fell to as low as
$12.60.  On March 24, 2003, UnumProvident revealed the truth
that its previously issued financial statements were, in fact,
materially inaccurate and misleading, and a restatement of its
financial statements for previous years would be required.
Payment of CorTS certificates was imperiled by UnumProvident's
materially false and misleading actions, thereby jeopardizing
the value of CorTS Certificates.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Klayman & Toskes Lodges Arbitration Suit in NYSE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, P.A. are preparing to file an arbitration
claim with the New York Stock Exchange on behalf of an investor
with a $16,745,498 concentrated, margined position in WorldCom
(OTC Pink Sheets: WCOEQ).  Recently WorldCom changed its name to
MCI (OTC Pink Sheets: MCWEQ).

The claim seeks compensatory damages of $11,153,741 for alleged
unlawful conduct against a major Wall Street firm that was
included in the historic $1.4 billion regulatory settlement.

The $11.1 million securities arbitration claim that will be
filed alleges specific sales practice violations that occurred
instead of arguing the "analyst conflict" issues that have
plagued Wall Street's investment banking activities that were
the target of the recent settlement.  This specific arbitration
claim alleges the failure to recommend hedging strategies known
as "zero cost" collars to properly manage the concentrated stock
position.

Arbitration as an alternative path will ultimately depend on
whether the alleged losses are a result of sales practice
violations and whether the alleged damages are large enough to
justify the costs required to file a securities arbitration
claim.  Because statistics for investors suffering large losses
reveal an overall lower recovery rate in class actions,
investors are using arbitration as a means of recovering losses
instead of participating in class actions.  Empirical evidence
shows that when an investor suffers losses in larger amounts,
usually in excess of $100,000, an individual dispute resolution
process such as an arbitration claim filed before the New York
Stock Exchange or the National Association of Securities Dealers
is the best means of recovering losses suffered.

For more details, contact Lawrence L. Klayman by Phone:
888-997-9956 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nasd-law.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  * * *