CAR_Public/030526.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, May 26, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 102

                           Headlines                            

ATMEL CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
ATMEL CORPORATION: Shareholder Derivative Suit Filed in CA Court
BARR LABORATORIES: NY Court Upholds Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Pact
BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in IN
CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal

CAREMARK RX: Faces Unfair Competition Lawsuit V. PBM Firms in CA
CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Consolidate, Dismiss ERISA Suits
CH ROBINSON: MN Court Grants Certification to Overtime Wage Suit
CHICOS FAS: CA Employees Commence Suit Over Wardrobing Practices
CORE LABORATORIES: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NY

GLS CAPITAL: PA High Court Reviews Delinquent Taxpayers' Lawsuit
HAWAIIAN HILTON: FL Resident Seeks Refund Over Kalia Tower Mold
HMO LITIGATION: Aetna To Announce Suit Settlement With Doctors
INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Vehicles For Choking Risk
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Employees Launch Wage Lawsuit in CA Court

LANE FURNITURE: Recalls 620T Recliner Chairs For Injury Hazard
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Suit
MONARCH VELO: Recalls Bike Helmets For Failing Safety Standards
NETSILICON INC.: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
NEW WORLD: To File Demurrer After Filing of Second Amended Suit

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: MD Court Dismisses Wireless Phone Suits
OTG SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
PARTY CITY: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
PEET'S COFFEE: Employees File Misclassification Suit in CA Court
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Won't Dismiss Securities Suit

READ RITE: Appeals Court Hears Appeal of Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
RURAL CELLULAR: Securities Suits To Be Consolidated in MN Court
SEA GULL: Recalls 7,100 Ceiling Light Fixtures for Fire Hazard
SEPRACOR INC.: To Ask MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits

SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit
STARBASE CORPORATION: Directors Ask CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit
STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 800 Toy Drumsticks Due To Choking Hazard
SYLVAN INC.: Faces Five Suits Over Possible Company Stock Sale
TERADYNE INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Settlement Between Growers, Cigarette Makers
UNITED GENERAL: Recalls Extension Cords For Fire, Shock Hazard
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Lost Wages Due To Closed Shellfish Beds
WALT DISNEY: CA Court Consolidates Nine Securities Fraud Suits

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Emerson Poynter Lodges Stock Suit in MN
AFC ENTERPRISES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in GA
AFFYMETRIX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
BLUE RHINO: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
BLUE RHINO: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA

CERNER CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MO
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in MI
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in OR
PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in NJ
REDBACK NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA

SARA LEE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

                           *********

ATMEL CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities from January 20, 2000 to July 31, 2002.  
The suit also names as defendants certain of its current
officers and a former officer.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from January 20, 2000 to July 31, 2002 as a result of
sales of allegedly defective product to a customer.  The suit
further alleges that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company believes there are no merits to this dispute and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Shareholder Derivative Suit Filed in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation faces a shareholder derivative class action
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara.  The suit also names as defendants
certain directors, officers and a former officer of the Company.  
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The suit alleges that between January 2000 and July 31, 2002,
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by
permitting it to sell defective products to customers.  The
complaint alleges claims for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) mismanagement,

     (3) abuse of control,

     (4) waste, and

     (5) unjust enrichment

The Company believes this dispute is groundless and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.


BARR LABORATORIES: NY Court Upholds Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York ruled that Barr Laboratories, Inc.'s 1997 settlement of
litigation with Bayer Corporation regarding the Ciprofloxacin
patent did not constitute a per se violation of the antitrust
laws.  The court also rejected two of plaintiffs' legal
theories, allowing the case to proceed solely on a single
remaining allegation.

In rejecting plaintiffs' claims that the Company's settlement
agreement was a per se violation of the antitrust laws, Judge
David G. Trager found that the provisions of Barr's Supply
Agreement did not restrict non-infringing goods, perpetuate
litigation or manipulate the 180-day generic exclusivity period.  
The sole remaining plaintiffs' claim in the case is that, but
for the agreement, Bayer would have granted Barr and/or HMR and
Rugby a license to distribute Ciprofloxacin.

"Judge Trager's decision significantly narrows the focus of the
Cipro litigation and limits the legal theories plaintiffs can
pursue in the case," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer.  "As with the dismissal of the
Tamoxifen anti-trust litigation lawsuits last week, the decision
by Judge Trager vindicates our ability to settle patent
challenge cases under terms that are both pro-competitive and
pro-consumer."

In 1997, Barr (as well as its partners Rugby and subsequently
HMR) and Bayer Corporation agreed to settle a pending challenge
of the compound patent protecting Bayer's Cipro from generic
competition.  Barr withdrew its patent challenge, and
acknowledged the validity and enforceability of Bayer's patent.  

As consideration, Barr received a non-refundable payment of
$24.5 million and signed a contingent, non-exclusive supply
agreement.  Under terms of the agreement, Bayer could decide to
allow Barr/Rugby to purchase and distribute Ciprofloxacin prior
to patent expiry, or receive a quarterly cash payment.  Also
under terms of the supply agreement, Barr/Rugby were granted the
right to begin distributing Ciprofloxacin manufactured by Bayer
six months prior to patent expiration.

Approximately 38 class action complaints were filed by direct
and indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin in state and federal
courts against Barr, Rugby and Bayer.  All federal complaints
were consolidated in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  A prior investigation into this agreement
by the Texas Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of
state Attorneys General was closed without further action in
December 2001.


BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brightpoint, Inc. entered into a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, several of its
executive officers and directors and its independent auditors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 1999
and January 31, 2002.

On April 29, 2003, the parties to the litigation entered into a
stipulation of settlement.  The settlement provides for the
Company's insurer, under the Company's directors and officers
liability policy to pay $5,050,000.  These funds will be used to
make distributions to members of the class who timely file a
proof of claim, and to pay plaintiff's attorney's fees and
expenses.

On May 1, 2003, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice of the
settlement to the class.  A hearing on final approval
of the settlement has been scheduled for July 18, 2003.


CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class actions filed against Capital One Financial Corporation
and several of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The suit alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
during the class period starting January 16, 2001, through July
16, 2002, inclusive.

The amended complaint alleged generally that, during the
asserted class period, the Company misrepresented the adequacy
of its capital levels and loan loss allowance relating to higher
risk assets.  In addition, the amended complaint alleged
generally that the Corporation failed to disclose that it was
experiencing serious infrastructure deficiencies and systemic
computer problems as a result of its growth.

On December 4, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend.  
Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on December 23, 2002, which asserted the same class
period and alleged violations of the same statutes and rule.  
The second amended complaint also added a new individual
defendant and asserted violations of generally accepted
accounting procedures (GAAP).

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 8, 2003, and plaintiffs filed a motion on March 6, 2003,
seeking leave to amend their complaint.  On April 10, 2003, the
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint, denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend,
and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.  
Plaintiffs appealed the court's order, opinion and judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with
respect to this case and intends to defend the case vigorously.  
At the present time, management is not in a position to
determine whether the resolution of this case will have a
material adverse effect on either the consolidated financial
position of the Company or its results of operations in any
future reporting period.


CAREMARK RX: Faces Unfair Competition Lawsuit V. PBM Firms in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. and subsidiary Caremark, Inc. were named as
defendants in a class action filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, on behalf of the general
public of the State of California and as a class action.  Nine
other pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies were also
named as defendants in this lawsuit, which alleges violations of
the California unfair competition law.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges alleged business practices
of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution and disgorgement of revenues.

The Company believes that the lawsuit mischaracterizes its
business practices and that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims alleged.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.


CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Consolidate, Dismiss ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to consolidate and dismiss two
class actions filed against it and subsidiary Caremark, Inc.

The two suits allege that Caremark Rx and Caremark each act as a
fiduciary as that term is defined in the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and that
Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to
these lawsuits and will continue to vigorously defend these
claims.  The Company, as applicable, has filed motions seeking
the consolidation and complete dismissal of both of these
actions on various grounds.  The plaintiffs have yet to respond
to these motions and they are currently pending before the
court.


CH ROBINSON: MN Court Grants Certification to Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court in St. Paul, Minneapolis ruled that
approximately 4,000 additional potential class members may
proceed with their claims against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
(CHRW) for failing to pay them overtime wages as proscribed by
law, according to the law firms of Sprenger & Lang PLLC and
Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, PA.

Sprenger & Lang filed a complaint in October, 2002 on behalf of
about 1,000 current and former female company employees alleging
gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and overtime
wage violations throughout the company's US operations.

Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen filed a lawsuit in November alleging
identical overtime wage claims on behalf of approximately 3,000
current and former male employees.  CH Robinson is the country's
largest transportation third-party freight logistics companies,
with annual revenues of more than $3 billion.

"Since the beginning of this matter, C.H. Robinson has been
playing games with the Court as to whether we are correctly
identifying the class of employees who have not received
overtime pay.  The bottom line is that this company has not been
paying its rank-and-file sales employees overtime wages as
required by the law," said Steve Sprenger, lead counsel for
Sprenger & Lang.

"Now finally these employees will be informed of their rights
and know that they may join in this action to receive
compensation for the overtime pay they were denied," said
Seymour Mansfield, lead counsel for Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen.  
"It's very important for present employees to know that the law
protects them from retaliaton from C.H. Robinson for
participating in this action."

Mr. Sprenger estimates that damages in the two cases could be as
high as $400 million, and that C.H. Robinson has saved
approximately $15 to $50 million per year by not paying the
required overtime wages to its employees.

The overtime claims received a boost when Ray Cordelli, a high-
ranking official in the Department of Labor under President
Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, testified that the C.H.
Robinson employees are not exempt from being paid overtime wages
under the law.

In Sprenger & Lang's initial complaint, which was filed in the
US District Court in Minneapolis, the Firm painted a lurid
picture of a male-dominated company whose female employees were
subjected to pornographic e-mails, pictures, and sexual
commentary from managers, supervisors and co-workers on a daily
basis.

For more details, contact Steve Sprenger by Phone: 202/772-1160
or 301/928-4695 (mobile) or Seymour Mansfield of Mansfield,
Tanick & Cohen, PA by Phone: 612/339-4295 or visit the Website:
http://www.chrwgendercase.com


CHICOS FAS: CA Employees Commence Suit Over Wardrobing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. (NYSE:CHS) faces a class action filed over the
retailer's practice of requiring workers to buy and wear Chico's
clothing as a condition of employment.  The suit, filed in the
Superior Court of California in San Francisco, alleges that this
practice - known in the retail industry as "wardrobing" -
violates the California Labor Code and California's Unfair
Competition laws.  

California law clearly states that if employers require
employees to wear distinctive clothing on the job, the clothing
is considered a "uniform" that must be provided by the employer.  
California law also prohibits employers from coercing their
employees to purchase the employers' products as a condition of
employment.

Despite laws prohibiting these practices, retail industry
experts say that "wardrobing" is widespread across the US
fashion retailing industry.  In recent months, similar class
action lawsuits have been filed in California against several
leading retailers, including Polo Ralph Lauren, The Gap and
Abercrombie & Fitch.

The lead plaintiff in the Chico's class action, Charissa
Villanueva, is a former Chico's employee in San Francisco.  
During her six-month employment with the company, Ms. Villanueva
was required to buy approximately $500 in Chico's apparel to
comply with Chico's wardrobing policy.

According to the lawsuit, Chico's requires employees to buy
company clothing on an ongoing basis.  The lawsuit alleges that
the company requires employees to buy in-season fashions and
that employees are subject to inspections by management.

Ms. Villanueva is seeking to have the case certified as a class
action based on the allegation that Chico's enforces its
wardrobing policy throughout California.  Hundreds of employees
at Chico's stores in California have been affected by this
policy.

The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction to force Chico's to
stop this practice.  The suit also seeks restitution for all
employees who have purchased Chico's products under this policy,
as well as punitive damages.

Started in Florida in1983, Chico's now has over 400 stores
nationwide, including 51 stores in California.  The company
targets its marketing of private label women's casual clothing
and related accessories to women over the age of 35 who have
higher levels of disposable income and who are less sensitive to
rapid changes in style.  In 2002, Chico's reported profits of
$66 million on sales of $531 million.

For more details, contact the Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin
by Phone: 415-677-9058 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ChicosClassAction.com.


CORE LABORATORIES: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Core Laboratories NV faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 6, 2002 and March 31, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning Core
Laboratories' financial results and business prospects and/or
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to correct these
statements.  The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

While none of the defendants have been served yet with any of
the lawsuits, the Company understands that the complaints
generally allege that the defendants overstated the company's
revenues and net income in 2002.  The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend these suits.


GLS CAPITAL: PA High Court Reviews Delinquent Taxpayers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its opinion in the class
action filed against GLS Capital, Inc. and the County of
Allegheny, Pennsylvania, on behalf of delinquent taxpayers in
Allegheny County whose delinquent tax liens had been assigned to
the Company.

The suit was initially filed in the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania, the appellate court of the state of Pennsylvania.  
Plaintiffs challenged the right of Allegheny County and the
Company to collect certain interest, costs and expenses related
to delinquent property tax receivables in Allegheny County, and
whether the County had the right to assign the delinquent
property tax receivables to the Company and therefore employ
procedures for collection enjoyed by Allegheny County under
state statute.  This lawsuit was related to the purchase by the
Company of delinquent property tax receivables from Allegheny
County in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

In July 2001, the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling that
addressed, among other things:

     (1) the right of GLS to charge to the delinquent taxpayer a
         rate of interest of 12% per annum versus 10% per annum
         on the collection of its delinquent property tax
         receivables,  

     (2) the charging of a full month's interest on a partial
         month's delinquency,

     (3) the charging of attorney's fees to the delinquent
         taxpayer for the collection of such tax receivables,
         and

     (4) the charging to the delinquent taxpayer of certain  
         other fees and costs

The Commonwealth Court in its opinion remanded for further
consideration to the lower trial court the items mentioned above
and ruled that neither Allegheny County nor the Company had the
right to charge attorney's fees to the delinquent taxpayer
related to the collection of such tax receivables.  The
Commonwealth Court further ruled that Allegheny County could
assign its rights in the delinquent property tax receivables to
the Company, and that plaintiffs could maintain equitable class
in the action.  

In October 2001, the Company, along with Allegheny County, filed
an Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, Western District appealing certain
aspects of the Commonwealth Court's ruling.  In March 2003, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion as follows:  

     (i) the Supreme Court determined that GLS can charge  
         delinquent taxpayers a rate of 12% per annum;  

    (ii) the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court the
         charging of a full month's interest on a partial
         month's delinquency;  

   (iii) the Supreme Court revised the Commonwealth Court's  
         ruling regarding recouping attorney fees for collection
         of the receivables indicating that the recoupment of
         fees requires a judicial review of collection
         procedures used in each case; and

    (iv) the Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth Court's
         ruling that GLS can charge certain fees and costs,  
         while remanding back to the lower trial court for
         consideration the facts of each individual case.  

Finally, the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court to
determine if the remaining claims can be resolved as a class
action.  No hearing date has been set for the issues remanded
back to the lower trial court.


HAWAIIAN HILTON: FL Resident Seeks Refund Over Kalia Tower Mold
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu attorney Thomas Grande filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court
on behalf of Florida resident Jeffrey Moffett, who is seeking a
refund on the rent he paid for a room in the Kalia Tower, before
the Tower was closed because of mold, Associated Press Newswires
reports.  Mr. Grande is seeking class action status for all
guests who stayed at the Kalia Tower before it was closed.

Mr. Moffett stayed at the Kalia Tower in July 2002, for 18 days,
with his wife and son, and asked to be moved because of the damp
bed sheets experienced day after day, during their stay in the
Tower.  The Moffetts asked four times to be moved after noticing
the damp bedsheets, and were given four different reasons why
they could not be moved.  On July 23, the Hilton moved the
Moffetts, the lawsuit says, and the next day the hotel company
completely disclosed the mold problem in the Kalia Tower and
shut down all Kalia rooms.

The lawsuit contends that Hilton knew of the excessive and
extensive mold growth in the Kalia rooms shortly after the Tower
opened in May 2001.  The lawsuit charges the Hilton with
deception and nondisclosure.  The lawsuit does not make any
health-related claims, but seeks room rent refunds.

Hilton has sued the 18 contractors that built the Tower,
alleging they are responsible for the defects that caused the
mold.  Hilton is spending $55 million to repair the Kali Tower,
which cost $95 million to build.  The Tower is expected to
reopen between July and September.


HMO LITIGATION: Aetna To Announce Suit Settlement With Doctors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is expected to announce, at any moment, a class
action settlement with nearly all the doctors in the United
States, over claims that, among other things, that the health-
care company unfairly cut reimbursements to the doctors, The
Wall Street Journal reports.  Aetna also has agreed to settle
charges by the plaintiffs, which involves about 600,000
physicians that the company interfered with the doctors'
recommendations to patients for treatment.

Under terms of the settlement agreement, Aetna promises to
change its bill-payment systems in ways that doctors expect will
result in fewer cuts to reimbursements.  The Company also will
adopt what doctors think is a more physician-friendly definition
of "medical necessity."  Both Aetna and the plaintiffs'
attorneys estimate the settlement is valued at about $470
million, including cash payments and the value to the doctors
of the changed billing practices over several years.  The
controversial billing practices were the subject of a Wall
Street Journal page-one article last July.

Patients will benefit from this class action settlement with the
doctors, in that physicians may, under the terms of the
settlement, as described above, feel more autonomy in making
medical decisions.  Nor will the settlement do much for the
doctors financially, other than to rebuild the relationship
between the nation's second-largest health insurer and the
physicians who treat the approximately 13 million people
that Aetna covers.

"Aetna's promises memorialized in the agreement, to commit to
external review, transparency, clearly defined coding guidelines
and a meaningful enforcement mechanism are truly landmark
commitments," said Archie Lamb, co-lead counsel of the national
class action.

There is a financial payout; Aetna will pay the doctors $100
million, or less than $150 per physician.  Aetna also will
donate $20 million to set up a foundation that will be run by
doctors and will seek to improve health care in the United
States by reducing medical errors, childhood obesity and racial
disparities.  In addition, Aetna is to pay up to $50 million in
legal fees to be divided among plaintiffs' attorneys.

Looking at one of the major allegations against Aetna by the
doctors; namely, how Aetna's software treated the doctors
submissions for payment for services, by slicing out part of the
charges submitted, a substantial attempt has been made under the
settlement to respond to this complaint.  Under the agreement,
Aetna will let the doctors have a significant say in how its
claims-processing software evaluates reimbursements for medical
treatments.  The settlement agreement also establishes a
"Billing Dispute External Review Board" that will allow
physicians to take their billing problems to an independent
body, which will rule on whether Aetna or the physician is
right.

The doctors received class certification in September 2002, by
US District Court Judge Federico A. Moreno, in Miami.  The
dozens of cases, which were all consolidated before Judge
Moreno, began in 1999, as many of the country's most powerful
plaintiffs' attorneys turned their attention from the cigarette
industry to health insurers.  However, Aetna, like many of the
other health insurers, already had begun to back off from its
most objectionable practices in recent years, in part as a
response to increased state regulations and pressure from
doctors and patients.

Aetna has agreed to provide doctors with:

     (1) $100 million, or about $150.00 per doctor,

     (2) A better definition of "medical necessity,

     (3) An advisory board run by the doctors to make
         suggestions to Aetna,

     (4) Access to information about claims-processing policies,

     (5) An independent billing-dispute panel whose decisions
         are binding,

     (6) A fee schedule that itemizes payment, which doctors
         don't generally get; and

      (7) A $20 million foundation to work on improving health
          care in defined areas.



INTERNATIONAL PLAYTHINGS: Recalls Toy Vehicles For Choking Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Playthings, Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily
recalling 126,000 Toy Vehicles.  Small parts on the vehicles can
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.  The Company
has received one report of small parts detaching.  No injuries
have been reported.

The Viking Mini Chubbies are toy wagons, tractors, helicopters,
cars, airplanes, and jeeps.  The toys measure about 3-inches
long and were sold in red, blue and yellow.  Model numbers are
printed on the bottom of the toy.  Models included in the recall
are AW01119, AW41111, AW61005 and AW81119.

Specialty toy stores nationwide sold these toys from April 2002
through March 2003 for about $1.  The toys were manufactured in
Thailand.  

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 445-8347
anytime or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.intplay.com/recall.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Employees Launch Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Financial Services Corporation faces a class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento,
alleging among other things, violations of California wage and
hour laws at its Sacramento and Walnut Creek facilities.

While the Company is in the early stages of investigating this
complaint, it believes that it has complied at all times with
applicable law and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.  
The Company does not yet know the amount of damages that the
plaintiffs are seeking to recover.  However, the defense of
lawsuits can be costly and time consuming, and can divert the
attention of management.  A determination that the Company
violated applicable wage and hour laws could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results
of operations.


LANE FURNITURE: Recalls 620T Recliner Chairs For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Furniture Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling 620,000 High-Leg Recliner Chairs.  A mechanism in the
footrest can create a pinch point that can cause injury if
consumers open or recline the chair by reaching underneath the
footrest.

Lane has received 18 reports of incidents involving the recliner
chairs, including lacerations, cut fingernails and three reports
of broken bones.  The recall includes three-position, high-leg
recliner chairs that have a five-digit style number beginning
with 026 or 027 and a shipping date prior to May 2002.  The
style number and shipping date can be found on a small label
located either underneath the footrest or under the chair
itself.  High-leg recliner chairs measure 7 inches to 9 inches
from the floor.

Furniture stores nationwide from December 1989 through April
2002 for between $500 and $1,200.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 467-9555
between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.lanefurniture.com.


METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metretek Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement with plaintiffs
in the class action filed in the District Court for the City and
County of Denver, Colorado against the Company and:

     (1) Marcum Midstream 1997-1 Business Trust, an energy
         program managed by the Company's subsidiary Marcum Gas
         Transmission, Inc. (MGT),

     (2) certain affiliates, officers and employees of the
         Company and MGT,

     (3) Farstad Gas & Oil, LLC,

     (4) Farstad Oil, Inc., and

     (5) Jeff Farstad

The 1997 Trust raised approximately $9.25 million from investors
in a private placement in 1997 in order to finance the purchase,
operation and improvement of a natural gas liquids processing
plant located in Midland, Texas.  The suit alleges that the
Metretek Defendants and the Farstad Defendants, either directly
or as "controlling persons", violated certain provisions of the
Colorado Securities Act in connection with the sale of interests
in the 1997 Trust.  The damages sought in the suit include
compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

March 27, 2003, the Company filed a stipulation of settlement,
which contains the terms and conditions of a proposed settlement
intended to fully resolve all claims in the suit.  The
settlement is contingent, among other things, upon the payment
of not less than $2,375,000 from the proceeds of the Company's
directors' and officers' insurance policy, which was issued by
Gulf Insurance Company.  The Stipulation creates a settlement
fund for the benefit of the class.  If the Denver Court approves
the settlement and all other conditions are met, then the
Company will pay $2.75 million into the settlement fund, of
which no less than $2,375,000 must come from the proceeds of the
Policy, and the Company will issue a note payable to the
settlement fund in the amount of $3.0 million.  The settlement
note would bear interest at the rate of prime plus three percent
(prime + 3%), payable in 16 quarterly installments, each of
$187,500 principal plus accrued interest, commencing six months
after the effective date of the settlement.  The settlement note
would be guaranteed by the 1997 Trust and all of the Company's
subsidiaries.

Under the Stipulation, the Company is required to obtain the
consent of the class's lead counsel before it can sell any
shares of stock of Southern Flow, Metretek or PowerSecure,
although such consent is not required if the Company makes a
prepayment of at least $1 million on the settlement note with
the proceeds of any such sale of subsidiary stock.  The
stipulation may require the Company to commence its payment
obligations thereunder pursuant to an escrow arrangement after
the Denver Court issues its final judgment and order approving
the stipulation, but before all appeals, if any, on that
judgment and order have been concluded.

If the stipulation does not receive final and non-appealable
approval by December 31, 2006, or such later date as is agreed
to by the parties, then the escrowed funds will be returned to
the Company and the suit will continue against the Metretek
Defendants.  In addition, under the stipulation, the Company
would be required to prosecute all third party and cross-claims
and equally share the net recovery of any amounts collected from
the resolution of these third party claims with the settlement
fund, with the portion accruing to the Company being in the form
prepayments on the settlement note.

The effective date of the stipulation is conditioned, among
other things, upon the following events:

     (1) payment by Gulf, the Company's insurance carrier, of at
         least $2,375,000 in insurance proceeds from the Policy
         for the benefit of the settlement fund;

     (2) the entry by the Denver Court of a preliminary approval
         order containing certain procedural orders,
         preliminarily approving the settlement terms and
         scheduling a settlement hearing;

     (3) the entry by the Denver Court of a Final Judgment and
         Order directing consummation of the settlement and
         containing certain other procedural findings and
         orders; and

     (4) the final and successful resolution of any appeals
         related to the Final Settlement and Order and the
         stipulation and the Interpleader Action described
         below.

On March 28, 2003, Gulf filed an interpleader complaint in the
District Court, City and Country of Denver, Colorado, seeking a
determination by the court as to the proper beneficiaries of the
Policy, and concurrently filed a motion to deposit the remaining
amount payable under the Policy into the registry of the court.  
The Interpleader Action is in front of the same judge in the
Denver Court as the class action.  The Metretek Defendants have
filed their answer to the interpleader action asking the Denver
Court to utilize the remainder of the insurance proceeds to
fund, in part, the settlement, but no other defendants have
responded as of April 30, 2003.  On April 18, 2003, the Denver
Court granted Gulf's motion to deposit the remaining insurance
proceeds into the registry of the court.

As of April 30, 2003, no date has been set for the preliminary
approval hearing on the settlement, and no further action has
been taken on the interpleader action.

The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims against it.
Although the ultimate outcome of these claims cannot be
accurately predicted due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation, in the opinion of management, based upon current
information, no other currently pending or overtly threatened
dispute is expected to have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or operations.


MONARCH VELO: Recalls Bike Helmets For Failing Safety Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monarch Velo, LLC is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Commission by voluntarily recalling 2,250 Catlike
KompactTM Bike Helmets.  The helmets fail impact testing
required under CPSC's safety standard for bicycle helmets,
violating the Consumer Product Safety Act.

This recall involves Catlike KompactTM adult bicycle helmets.  
The helmets were sold in two sizes (small/medium and large/extra
large) and various colors.  The sizing label inside the helmets
reads "Kompact" and "SM/MD" or "LG/XL."

Bicycle shops nationwide sold the helmets from March 2002
through February 2003 for about $130.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 228-5646
between 9 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.catlike-usa.com.


NETSILICON INC.: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated amended securities
class action complaint against NetSilicon, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors, certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering (IPO),

The suit alleges among other things, that the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement violated federal
securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of the
Company's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in the Company's
IPO to the underwriters' customers, and that the Company and the
two named officers engaged in fraudulent practices with respect
to this underwriter's conduct.  The action seeks damages, fees
and costs associated with the litigation, and interest.  

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
October 9, 2002.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with 300-
plus other publicly traded companies that have been named in
substantially similar lawsuits, filed a collective motion to
dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or
most of the issuer defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The Company and its officers and directors believe
that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and
intend to contest them vigorously.  The litigation process is
inherently uncertain and unpredictable, however, and there can
be no guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of this pending
lawsuit.


NEW WORLD: To File Demurrer After Filing of Second Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against New World
Restaurant Group, Inc. were allowed to file a second amended
class action in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Francisco.

The suit was commenced in July 2002, alleging that the Company's
outlet Noah's New York Bagels failed to pay overtime wages to
managers and assistant managers of its California stores, whom
it is alleged were improperly designated as exempt employees in
violation of California and Business Profession Code Section
17200.  

As a result of subsequent communications regarding the
circumstances under which the Company purchased another food
franchise Einstein Brothers out of bankruptcy, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint disclaiming back wages for the
period prior to June 19, 2001.  However, the first amended
complaint added as defendants certain former directors and
officers of Einstein.  The first amended complaint also added a
second cause of action seeking to invalidate releases obtained
from Noah's assistant managers pursuant to the settlement of a
Department of Labor investigation.

The Company filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint,
which the plaintiffs opposed.  Subsequent to the filing of that
demurrer, the Company procured a dismissal without prejudice of
the claims brought against Paul Murphy, the only individual
defendant the Company employed subsequent to its acquisition of
Einstein.

The plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to the severance of the
claims against the Company and those against the remaining
individual defendants.  The stipulation provides that the
plaintiffs will file separate second amended complaints against
us and against the remaining individual defendants.  As a
result, the Company's demurrer will be taken off the calendar.  
The Company will have thirty days from the date of the filing of
the second amended complaint to refile its demurrer.


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: MD Court Dismisses Wireless Phone Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court in Baltimore, Maryland dismissed the class
actions filed against Nextel Communications, Inc. by the Law
Offices of Peter Angelos, alleging that wireless telephones pose
a health risk to users of those telephones and that the
defendants failed to disclose these risks.  The Company, along
with numerous other companies, were named as defendants in these
cases.  The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

Mr. Angelos' firm has also participated in the filing of an
amended complaint in a similar suit pending in federal court in
Louisiana, in which the Company is also named. These suits seek
to require the defendants to provide headsets, or reimburse the
cost of headsets, for use with wireless telephones, as well as
attorneys' fees and punitive damages, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.


OTG SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the Southern District of New
York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against OTG Software, Inc, its officers who signed the
registration statement in connection with its initial public
offering, and the managing underwriters of the initial public
offering.

The complaint alleges that the Company's initial public offering
registration statement and final prospectus contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions, related in part to
additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly
received by the underwriters from investors to whom the
underwriters allegedly improperly allocated shares of the public
offering. The complaint seeks relief in the form of damages
and/or rescission of the plaintiff's purchase transaction.

The suit is being heard along with other similar actions brought
against approximately 300 other issuers, issuers' officers and
underwriters in the Southern District of New York.  On July 19,
2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company intends to defend the action vigorously and believe
that it is not possible at the current time to estimate the
amount of a probable loss, if any, that might result from this
matter.


PARTY CITY: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for New Jersey granted approval
to the settlement proposed by Party City Corporation to settle
the securities class action filed against it and certain of its
former officers.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
acquired the Company's common stock during various time periods
between February 26, 1998 and March 18, 1999.  The suit alleges,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and sought unspecified damages, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story states.  

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, the Company's financial
condition, adequacy of internal controls and compliance with
certain loan covenants during the class period.

The plaintiffs further alleged that because of the issuance of a
series of false and misleading statements and/or the failure to
disclose material facts, the price of the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated.

In early 2000, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on the ground that it failed to state a course of
action.  In May 2001, the district court granted the motion with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs promptly filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In April 2002, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action.  The terms of the settlement are contained in
the agreement in principle, and include the settlement amount
the Company is to pay, which is not material to its results of
operations or financial condition, according to a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PEET'S COFFEE: Employees File Misclassification Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange by
one former and one current store manager alleging
misclassification of employment position and seeking damages,
restitution, reclassification and attorneys fees and costs.  

The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend
this litigation, but because the cases are in their early
stages, the financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be
predicted.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: NY Court Won't Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Quicklogic Corporation, some investment
banks that underwrote the Company's initial public offering, and
some of the Company's officers and directors.

The complaint alleges excessive and undisclosed commissions in
connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in the
Company's initial and secondary public offerings and
artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which
required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal
securities laws.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant to the
registration statements between October 14, 1999, and December
6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public
companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors
arising out of each company's public offering.  These actions,
including the action against the Company, have been coordinated
for pretrial purposes and captioned "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  In October 2002, the Company's officers
and directors were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the court denied in part and granted in part
the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, including
the Company.  The court's order did not dismiss any claims
against the Company.  As a result, discovery may now proceed.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the case vigorously.


READ RITE: Appeals Court Hears Appeal of Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on the appeal of the dismissal of a securities class
action filed against Read-Rite Corporation.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business condition and prospects, alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

In October 2000, following a motion for dismissal by defendants,
the court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice
and without leave to amend.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a
notice of appeal on November 9, 2000.

The Company is now awaiting the outcome of the appeal.  There
has been no discovery to date in this action and no trial date
has been set.  The Company believes it and the individual
defendants have meritorious defenses to this lawsuit.
Accordingly, both on its own behalf, and pursuant to
indemnification agreements between the Company and the
individual defendants, the Company intends to continue to defend
this action vigorously, and believes the final disposition of
the lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition.


REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rehabcare Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss a class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former officers,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The proposed class consists of persons who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock between August 10, 2000 and January
21, 2002.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in December
2002 that focuses primarily on alleged weaknesses in the
software system selected by the Company's Staffing Group and the
purported negative effects of such systems on the healthcare
staffing services business operations.  

No discovery has been commenced in the case pending the court's
ruling on the motion to dismiss.


RURAL CELLULAR: Securities Suits To Be Consolidated in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Rural Cellular
Corporation and three of its executive officers are expected to
be consolidated by July 3,2003 in the United States District
Court in the District of Minnesota.

The suits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock in the market during the time period
commencing in either May 2001 or on January 6, 2002, and
continuing through November 12, 2002.  The suits allege that the
Company's publicly-announced financial results misstated the
actual performance because the Company had inappropriately
accounted for certain transactions.

The lead plaintiffs further allege that, as a result, the market
price of Company securities was artificially inflated during the
class period.  The lead plaintiffs allege that defendants are
liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The lead plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, plus their attorneys' fees, and costs.


SEA GULL: Recalls 7,100 Ceiling Light Fixtures for Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Gull Lighting, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
7,100 Ceiling Light Fixtures.  The wiring in the lights can
short-circuit, posing a fire hazard to consumers.  The Company
has received two reports of the fixtures shorting out; though
there have been no reports of fire or injuries.

The recalled ceiling-mounted light fixtures come in six
different models - 5359-01, 5359-02, 5359-15, 5370-15, 5370-98,
and 5372-02 - which can only be accurately identified on the
packaging or receipts.  The white glass lights have an antique
brass, polished brass, white, or brushed stainless finish and do
not have any exposed screws.  The light fixture is twisted into
the base and locks in place.  

Electrical supply dealers and contractors sold and installed the
fixtures from July 2002 through February 2003.  These fixtures
were  not sold at retail stores.  

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 347-5483
between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit
its Website: http://www.seagulllighting.com.


SEPRACOR INC.: To Ask MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sepracor, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the two
consolidated securities class actions filed against it and
several of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securities
during different time periods, beginning on various dates, the
earliest of which is May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6,
2002.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Primarily the complaints allege that the defendants
disseminated to the investing public false and misleading
statements relating to the testing, safety and likelihood of
approval of SOLTARA, the Company's non-sedating antihistamine
drug candidate.  One suit is filed on behalf of the purchasers
of the Company's common stock, the other on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's debt securities.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwall Technologies, Inc. and Bostik, Inc. asked the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California to
dismiss the class action filed against them on behalf of all
entities and individuals in the United States who manufactured
and/or sold and warranted the service life of insulated glass
units manufactured between 1989 and 1999 which contained the
Company's Heat Mirror film, and were sealed with a specific type
of sealant manufactured by the co-defendant.

The plaintiff alleges that the sealant provided by the co-
defendant was defective, resulting in elevated warranty
replacement claims and costs, and asserts claims against the
Company for:

     (1) breach of an implied warranty of fitness,

     (2) misrepresentation,

     (3) fraudulent concealment,

     (4) negligence,

     (5) negligent interference with prospective economic
         advantage,

     (6) breach of contract,

     (7) unfair business practices and

     (8) false or misleading business practices

The plaintiff seeks recovery of $100 million for damages on
behalf of the class allegedly resulting from elevated warranty
replacement claims, restitution, injunctive relief, and non-
specified compensation for lost profits.

The Company believes all of the claims to be without merit and
intends to defend the action vigorously.  Toward that end, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss and has filed an opposition to
class certification.  Those motions have not yet been decided.
The action is in the early stages, thus an estimate of the
Company's loss exposure cannot be made.


STARBASE CORPORATION: Directors Ask CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starbase Corporation's former directors asked the Superior Court
of the State of California for Orange County to dismiss the
stockholder class action and derivative lawsuit filed against
them and the Company.

The complaint alleged that the former directors had breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders.  On
January 23, 2003, defendants filed a demurrer seeking to have
all the claims dismissed, and also filed a motion to stay
discovery pending a ruling on the demurrer.  

On February 25, 2003, plaintiff filed its first amended class
action complaint, or the amended complaint, naming as defendants
the five former directors and the investment banking firm that
provided financial services to the Company, two law firms that
provided legal services to the Company and an individual and
entity that helped arrange financing for the Company.  The
amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of Company
stockholders who tendered shares of the Company's common stock
in the tender offer commenced by Borland Software Corporation on
October 11, 2002 and that ended on November 11, 2002, or in the
merger that was completed on January 7, 2003.

Plaintiff alleges that the five former directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with a
proposed financing of the Company in mid-2002, and that the
other defendants aided and abetted the purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  

On March 21, 2003, the director defendants filed a demurrer to
have the amended complaint dismissed.  In addition, the court
has granted a motion of the director defendants to stay
discovery pending the hearing on the demurrer.  There is no
indication at present that the lawsuit will have a material
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 800 Toy Drumsticks Due To Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Step2 Company is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 800 Toy
Drumsticks.  The tip of the drumstick can break off, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  The Company is aware of one
incident where a child reportedly began to choke on the top of
the drumstick.  The child's parent performed the Heimlich
maneuver to remove the small part.

The drumsticks were sold with the Step2 Toddle Tunes Big Band
Drum set, models 7135B2 and 7135KR.  The drum sets are blue and
yellow with music decals attached to the front.  The word
"Step2" is imprinted across the front of the drum set.  The
yellow and blue drumsticks are about 9-inches long.

Toy stores and online retailers sold the drum sets nationwide
from February 2002 through April 2003 for about $30.  

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 347-8372 between 8 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.step2.com.


SYLVAN INC.: Faces Five Suits Over Possible Company Stock Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvan, Inc. and six members of its board of directors face five
class actions filed in the District Court of Clark County,
Nevada, the Court of Common Pleas, Butler County, Pennsylvania
and the District Court of Washoe County, Nevada, on behalf of
the Company's shareholders.

The suits allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and have conflicts of interest in connection with the
board's undertaking of an assessment of a recently received non-
binding indication of interest to acquire Company shares.  

The company has retained outside counsel and is evaluating the
plaintiffs' claims.  There are no other pending legal
proceedings to which Sylvan or any of its subsidiaries is a
party, or of which any of their property is subject, other than
ordinary, routine litigation incidental to their respective
businesses.


TERADYNE INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teradyne, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Boston,
Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and two of its executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making, during the period from July 14, 2000 until
October 17, 2000, material misrepresentations and omissions to
the investing public regarding the Company's business operations
and future prospects.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
including compensatory damages and recovery of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
complaint.  The motion has not yet been heard.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and will
defend itself vigorously.  Management does not believe that the
outcomes of these claims will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations but
there can be no assurance that any such claims would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Settlement Between Growers, Cigarette Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement last week between the tobacco farmer and the
cigarette makers in a class action over price fixing made the
headlines because of the estimated $1.2 billion total value of
the settlement.  However, the real value resides in the
political power the settlement may give the growers in a global
market and not in their budgets, The News & Observer (Raleigh,
N.C.) reports.

Pender Sharp, who grows tobacco leaf on about 100 acres in
Wilson County, North Carolina, noted that the real issue on
farmers' minds is buyout, a term referring to a proposal that
would pay the growers for their quotas, which are the licenses
to grow tobacco and eliminate the federal price support program.

The lawsuit claimed that the companies conspired to depress
tobacco prices and dismantle the federal price support program.  
The farmers who apply for payment under the settlement will get
one-time payments totaling $200 million under the terms of the
settlement with the cigarette manufacturers, who will pay the
farmers according to how many pounds of tobacco they produced
between 1996 and 2001, so payments will vary.  However, split
evenly among the roughly 450,000 farmers and tobacco quota
holders who qualify, the payment amounts to about $450 each.

Graham Boyd, executive director of the Tobacco Growers
Association of North Carolina said, "Nobody's going to get rich
off this money.  A lot of people are going to take their wife
and kids to dinner with it, and they'll put the rest in the
church collection plate."

The value of the agreement, therefore, is not in the one-time
payments to the farmers.  The companies participating in the
settlement - Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco, Brown &
Williamson Tobacco and three other smaller companies, Universal,
Dimon and Standard - agreed to buy at least 405 million pounds
of American tobacco every year for the next 10 years.  They
extended the guarantee to 12 years if the government price
support system is removed.

Philip Morris also agreed that at least 70 percent of the
tobacco products it sells in the United States during the next
decade will be made with American tobacco.  The other companies
agreed to smaller percentages.

This year, cigarette companies will voluntarily buy about 490
million pounds of American tobacco - more than what the
settlement requires - chiefly because of unrest in Zimbabwe, a
major source of foreign tobacco, according to Blake Brown, a
North Carolina State University professor and expert on tobacco
economics.  Professor Brown predicts that number will remain
stable for the next few years because of the political unrest in
that country.

Professor Brown said that the provision does give farmers a
safety net they haven't had before, when the cigarette
manufacturers could buy as large a share of leaf as they wished
from overseas.  Since 1997, the companies have cut their
purchases of American tobacco by more than half and relied more
and more on leaf from Brazil, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

However, the farmers and the experts agree that the most
important part of the settlement is probably its influence on a
movement to dismantle the federal price support program, in
place since the Great Depression, that regulates the amount of
tobacco grown with quotas, which are licenses that farmers must
rent or own in order to sell their crops.  The system keeps the
price of American tobacco higher than foreign leaf.  As part of
the settlement, Philip Morris agreed to give farmers $5 million
to lobby federal lawmakers to end price support.

Philip Morris also agreed to help pay for a buyout of quotas.  
Quotas now rent for hundreds of dollars an acre, but would
become worthless if the federal price support program were
dismantled.  Quota holders say they should be compensated for
that loss.

Most farmers see a buyout as the only permanent solution to
their problems.  They argue that abandoning the quota system
would allow them to sell their tobacco more cheaply, making them
more competitive with other tobacco-growing nations.  However,
Congress, so far, has refused to enact buyout legislation,
despite years of lobbying from the agricultural interests.

The importance of the settlement, said Keith Parrish, a Harnett
County, North Carolina, tobacco farmer and lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit, is in the fact that the settlement will allow farmers
to stay in business long enough to be compensated for the quota
that they have spent thousands on over the years.  The
companies' promise to buy American tobacco gives them a greater
incentive to support legislation that could lower the price.

"We actually were trying to save the program so we could at
least be paid for it in a buyout," Mr. Parrish said.  "We view
this as a beginning of trying to achieve more."


UNITED GENERAL: Recalls Extension Cords For Fire, Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
United General Supply Co. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
8,200 Extension Cords.  The extension cords have undersized
conductors and no over-current protection which causes
overheating, presenting a shock and fire hazard.

The Company has not received any reports of incidents involving
these extension cords.  This recall is being conducted to
prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled extension cords were sold in yellow and brown and
are approximately 9-, 25-, 50-, 100-feet long.  The 9-foot
extension cord was packaged in a green sleeve card with the
words "Household Extension Cord" printed across the front.  All
remaining sizes were packaged in black sleeve cards with the
words "Air Conditioner Extension Cord" printed across the front.

United General Supply sold the extension cords nationwide from
October 1999 through March 2001 for between $1 and $16.

For more information, contact the Company by Mail: United
General Supply Co., Lee-Tools Extension Cords, 9320 Harwin
Drive, Houston, Texas 77036 or by Phone: (800) 456-0022 between
9 am and 5:30 pm CT Monday through Friday.


UNITED STATES: Suit Over Lost Wages Due To Closed Shellfish Beds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer representing shell fishermen who have lost wages
since last month's oil spill in Buzzard's Bay, has shut down the
shellfish beds, has amended the class action in order to add the
federal government and drop the company that is being blamed for
the spill, Associated Press Newswires reports.

Dennis O'Bryan, a lawyer for the Fishermen's Legal Network,
originally had sued Bouchard Transportation of Hicksville, New
York, after a barge owned by the company spilled 98,000 gallons
of fuel oil into the bay on April 27, 2003.

The change was made so that shell fishermen who have suffered a
loss in business can make a claim for damages from federal funds
under federal law, and still reserve their right to sue the
company some time in the future, said Mr. O'Bryan.  

Mr. O'Bryan said shell fishermen had been told they could not
make federal claims if they had another lawsuit pending.  
Therefore, Mr. O'Bryan is asking the federal court to determine
whether a person can make an appeal to the federal government
for damages if the person also has a pending court action to
recover those damages.  If the court rules that someone can make
a government claim and still be part of a class action, the
class action against Bouchard will be reinstated, Mr. O'Bryan
said.


WALT DISNEY: CA Court Consolidates Nine Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against The Walt Disney Company, Inc., its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on behalf of a putative
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002.

The suits alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by not disclosing the pendency and potential
implications of the Winnie-the-Pooh royalties lawsuit prior to
the Company's filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q in May
2002.  The plaintiffs claim that this alleged nondisclosure
constituted a fraud on the market that artificially inflated the
Company's stock price, and contend that a decline in the stock
price resulted from the May 2002 disclosure.  The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages and/or rescission for themselves and
all members of their defined class.  

The court later granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
related actions into a single case and their motion for
appointment of lead plaintiffs and counsel.

Management believes that it is not currently possible to
estimate the impact, if any, that the ultimate resolution
of these legal matters will have on the Company's results of
operations, financial position or cash flow.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Emerson Poynter Lodges Stock Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of employees and former employees who
participated in ADC Telecommunications, Inc.'s (NasdaqNM:ADCT)
401(k) retirement plan from November 2, 2000 to the present day.

The complaint charges ADCT and certain of its officers for
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The complaint
further alleges that the defendants failed to manage the plan
appropriately, failed to adequately monitor and review the
performance and suitability of investment options, failed to
provide timely, accurate and complete information regarding the
present and future prospects of the Company and exerted undue
influence on ADCT plan participants to buy Company stock within
the plan.

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry by Phone:
(501) 907-2555 or (800) 663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


AFC ENTERPRISES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of AFC Enterprises, Inc. (NasdaqNM:AFCEE) between
March 2, 2001 and March 24, 2003, inclusive,

Throughout the class period, defendants represented that the
Company's financial statements were accurate and reported
according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  
However, on March 24, 2003, after the close of trading, AFC
announced that it would restate its 2001 and 2002 financial
results, and expected to miss the March 31, 2002 deadline for
filing its 2002 Annual Report.

As now revealed, at all times during the class period,
defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and
press releases concerning AFC's financial results.  The
financial statements of the Company made during the class
period, all of which implicitly and/or expressly were prepared
in conformity with GAAP, were materially false and misleading
because the Company materially overstated its earnings for at
least fiscal year 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002.

The Company's class period press releases and SEC filings were
materially false and misleading because they failed to reveal
that AFC inflated its operating results by:

     (1) improperly accounting for the sale of corporate-owned
         stores to franchisees;

     (2) improperly accounting for the value of certain long-
         lived assets;

     (3) understating advertising costs; and

     (4) improperly accounting for inventory at the Company's
         Seattle Coffee Company division.

On March 25, 2003, AFC stock lost over 21% of its value on
enormous trading volumes of over 9 million shares, dropping
$3.70 per share to close at $13.40 per share, a 52 week low.  As
a result of the Company's misrepresentations, AFC investors have
sustained tremendous losses, and stand to lose much more as the
full extent and magnitude of the restatement is disclosed.  

The Company also revealed it was in violation of financial
covenants with its lenders.  Moreover, defendants and other
Company insiders cashed out during the class period at prices as
high as $34 per share, reaping profits of over $30 million.

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


AFFYMETRIX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Affymetrix, Inc. (NasdaqNM:AFFX) securities between
January 29, 2003 and April 3, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Affymetrix with a violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and certain of its officers and directors with a violation of
Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act.  More specifically, on
January 29, 2003, the Company issued a press release, announcing
its financial results for the fourth quarter 2002 and fiscal
year 2002, wherein it advised that the Company expected to
achieve product revenue growth of 28% in 2003 and expected that
product revenue for the first quarter of 2003 would range
between $71-73 million.

However, these prospects lacked a reasonable basis as they
failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing declining
demands for its products and services, was taking numerous steps
to hide the deterioration in its business, and would no longer
be able to conceal the slowdown in its sales from investors.
What is more shocking is that the Company, not less than three
months after reporting their bright product revenue outlook,
reported that its expectations for first quarter growth were
significantly lower, such that product revenue growth would only
be between $60-62 million.  News of the lower product revenue
figures sent the Company's common stock in a rapid decline.

Additionally shocking is that about eleven days prior to the
Company's announced low first quarter figures, GlaxoSmithKline
PLC (who share a common director with Affymetrix) engaged in a
sale of 4,736,254 shares of Affymetrix common stock, which
resulted in a $124,557190.30 windfall for GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

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


BLUE RHINO: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Blue Rhino
Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO) between August 15, 2002 and February
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 action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.pivenlaw.com


BLUE RHINO: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Blue
Rhino Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO) during the period from August
15, 2002 through February 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges Blue Rhino and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Blue Rhino
securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.  The
scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding Blue Rhino's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic
         value of Blue Rhino common stock;

     (2) enabled defendants to acquire over $30 million in
         assets, purchased using artificially inflated Blue
         Rhino shares, to refinance debt upon more favorable
         terms with its lenders;

     (3) allowed defendants to sell $15.79 million worth of
         Company common stock in a private placement, as well as
         register over $23.8 million in shares of common stock
         for large shareholders that had entered into a private
         equity deal the prior year; and

     (4) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Blue Rhino securities at artificially inflated
         prices.

For more details, contact Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: Hoffman &
Edelson, LLC, 45 W. Court Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone:
877-537-6532 (toll free), by Fax: 215-230-8735 or by E-mail:
jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.


CERNER CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Cerner Corporation (Nasdaq: CERN) between January
23, 2003 and April 2, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and
certain officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Cerner
issued a series of statements that were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing an increased level of
         competition as competitors slashed prices in order to
         take business from the Company.  As a result, the
         Company was losing a material amount of sales to
         competitors;

     (2) that certain of the Company's clients were delaying or
         deferring the purchase of products from the Company or
         determining not to proceed with those purchases at all;

     (3) that the Company had reorganized its sales force and
         that the reorganization was negatively impacting the
         ability of the Company to close certain sales; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' earnings
         projections were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         times and were materially false and misleading.

On April 3, 2003, Cerner shocked the market by announcing that
"it expects its first quarter 2003 revenue and earnings to be
below expectations because of a lower level of new business
bookings in the quarter."  The press release further revealed
that the Company expected bookings for the first quarter of 2003
to be between $145 and $150 million and that earnings would be
between $0.13 to $0.15 per share as compared to analysts'
earnings estimates of $0.38 per share.  The market reacted
swiftly to this news, pushing the price of Cerner common stock
down over 45%, to close at $17.63 on extremely heavy trading
volume.

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


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
Collins & Aikman Corporation (NYSE:CKC) between August 7, 2001
and August 2, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company
and:

     (1) Heartland Industrial Partners LP,

     (2) Thomas E. Evans,

     (3) Jerry Mosingo,

     (4) Marshall A. Cohen,

     (5) Cynthia Hess,

     (6) Timothy D. Leuliette,

     (7) W. Gerald Mcconnell,

     (8) J. Michael Stepp,

     (9) David A. Stockman,

    (10) Daniel P. Tredwell, and

    (11) Samuel Valenti, III

The complaint charges that the Company, Heartland, and certain
of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of CKC securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, the Company stated repeatedly, in a wide variety of
forums, that it was successfully executing on its strategy for
riding out this market shakeup and that it would emerge from the
acquisitions "the new Collins & Aikman."  Defendants stated that
the "new Collins & Aikman" would have larger sales than its
predecessor and be more cost efficient and profitable.  

Defendants further stated, repeatedly, that the Textron
Automotive Company's Trim Division (TAC-Trim) acquisition would
be accretive to earnings and revenues and that in addition to
doubling the Company's annual revenue, the TAC-Trim Acquisition
would increase operating income by reducing costs through
synergies and economics of scale.  Together with Heartland's
statements regarding its capabilities as a leveraged buyout
export, these statements caused the price of CKC stock to
increase from about $8.19 at the commencement of the class
period to as high as $11.35 per share on May 15, 2002.

However, the truth became apparent on August 5, 2002, four days
after the surprise "retirement" of 51-year old CKC Defendant
Thomas E. Evans, when the Company revealed that it was not
growing into a more prosperous company but rather, that it was
losing money and moreover, losing substantially more money than
had been anticipated, based on the Company's statements about
its financial condition and prospects.  On that date, the
Company issued a news release in which it announced a huge
second-quarter loss and significantly lowered earnings
expectations for the year.  The Company reported a net loss of
$20.3 million, or $0.29 per diluted share, compared with net
income of $9.2 million, or $0.11 per diluted share a year
earlier, and expected 2002 earnings of $0.20 to $.26 per share,
well below the consensus estimate of $0.74 per share.

On this news, the investing public dumped its stock, pushing the
price down 49% to close at $2.81 per share on trading volume of
5.6 million shares, more than 10 times the stock's normal
trading volume.

Subsequently, it has become increasingly apparent that Heartland
materially deceived investors with respect to its ability to
transform CKC into a profitable "Mega Tier 2" supplier.  
Contrary to defendants' statements that Heartland's so-called
"buy, build and grow investment" model would result in
"operational scale, business focus and competitive advantage"
and "highly reliable quarterly performance," once Heartland
acquired a controlling interest in CKC, in February 2001, and
began burdening it with massive debt, the Company's reported
annual earnings per diluted share went from $0.18 in 2000 to a
loss of $1.19 in 2001 and a loss of $1.18 in 2002.

Moreover, CKC's fundamental ratios were inferior at all relevant
times, and remain inferior to those of its peers in the consumer
cyclical sector and the auto and truck parts industry.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-
mail: CKC@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ESIOE) securities
between September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, inclusive.

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 during the class
period, 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).

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: ESIOE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


PHARMACIA CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of institutions, individuals and other
investors who purchased the common stock and other securities of
Pharmacia Corporation, (NYSE: PHA), between April 17, 2000 and
August 21, 2001 inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey,

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and, specifically, pleads that, throughout the class
period, Pharmacia represented that one its drugs, Celebrex,
possessed a unique attribute which, unlike aspirin or ibuprofen,
retarded pain and inflammation without the adverse side effects
of stomach malaise or gastrointestinal bleeding.  Throughout the
class period, Defendants consistently trumpeted this critical
feature of Celebrex as providing a tremendous market advantage
because the use of traditional Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory
Drugs (NSAIDs) resulted in as many as 100,000 hospitalizations
each year and more than 15,000 deaths, related to
gastrointestinal problems such as ulcers and bleeding.

To support its representations, Pharmacia commissioned the
"Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study" (the CLASS study) -
a clinical study to compare the gastrointestinal problems of
patients who used Celebrex to those of patients who used other
NSAIDs. The CLASS data was widely circulated and reviewed.  
Based on this data supplied by Pharmacia, a review of Celebrex
appeared in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA), on September 13, 2000, and concluded that
patients who took Celebrex had fewer symptomatic ulcers than
those who took diclofenac or ibuprofen (two traditional NSAIDs).

On August 22, 2001, however, The Wall Street Journal shocked the
market when it reported that Celebrex caused higher incidence of
cardiovascular problems.  The Journal reported that noted
cardiologists Eric J. Topol and Steven E. Nissen, Chairman and
Vice Chairman, respectively, of cardiovascular medicine at the
Cleveland Clinic, conducted a study which concluded that
"'(c)urrent data would suggest that use of these so-called "COX-
02 inhibitors" might lead to increased cardiovascular events.'"  
The Cleveland Clinic doctors also concluded that Celebrex was
associated with a relatively high rate of heart attacks.  This
report was published in the Journal of American Medicine at or
about the same time.  In response, the price of Pharmacia stock
dropped to below $40 per share by August 30, 2001.

For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by
Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Redback Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RBAK) securities
between June 14, 1999 and March 8, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst
Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading public
statements, research reports and "Buy" recommendations on
Redback and praised the acquisition of Siara Systems, Inc. by
Redback while failing to disclose that Johnson owned Siara stock
and that the acquisition would result in a multimillion windfall
for Johnson.

The complaint also alleges that, based on defendants'
recommendations and failure to disclose defendant Johnson's
conflicts of interest, Redback securities sold at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.  As a result, plaintiff
and the rest of the class purchased their Redback shares at
prices that were artificially inflated and were damaged thereby.

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


SARA LEE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Sara Lee Corporation (NYSE:SLE)
securities, between August 1, 2002 to April 24, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between June 22, 1998 and April
9, 2003.  Due to these misrepresentations, the price of Sara Lee
securities became artificially inflated. Specifically, the
Company failed to disclose that:

     (1) a great number of the Company's business units were
         underperforming;

     (2) the underperforming businesses caused the growth rate
         of the Company to fall below the rate represented to
         the market;

     (3) the Company did not recognize those underperforming
         businesses or brands because of inadequate internal and
         financial controls; and

     (4) the Company lacked a reasonable basis to calculate, for
         fiscal year 2003, a ``double-digit operating income
         increase'' between its ``five lines of business,'' and
         a diluted EPS of between $1.54 to $1.60.

On April 24, 2003, Sara Lee announced its third quarter
financial results.  Although earning were expected to be $1.59
per share, the Company reduced them $1.50 to $1.59 per share.  
Consequently, the price of Sara Lee common stock declined by
10%.

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


                           *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                              

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  * * *