CAR_Public/030527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, May 27, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 103

                           Headlines                            

ALASKA: Jury Decides V. Fishermen In Salmon Price-Fixing Lawsuit
ATRIUM COMPANIES: Faces CO Homeowners Suit Over Imperial Window
AUTOBYTEL INC.: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
AUTOWEB.COM: Named As Defendant in CSFB Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AUTOWEB.COM: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit

BLUE RHINO: Sued Over False Statements On Cost Of Distributors
CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Manchester Diocese Resolves Most Abuse Claims
DAOU SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit's Dismissal
DELTA FINANCIAL: Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Fraud Suit

DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Court Grants Approval to Consumer Settlement
ELECTRONIC DATA: Securities Fraud Suits To Be Consolidated in TX
EMERGING VISION: Plaintiffs Appeal Unfair Trade Suit Dismissal
EN POINTE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

FORD MOTOR: High Court Orders Reconsideration of Punitive Awards
HMO LITIGATION: Member Dentists Sue Health Insurers Under RICO
IDAHO: Prominent Attorney Labels Shield Law Unconstitutional
IOWA: Shareholders Claim CEO Tricked Directors To Approve Sale
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Negotiating Settlement For NY Securities Suit

LASON INC.: MI Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
LIBERTY SATELLITE: Faces Suits Over Liberty Stock Purchase Offer
LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuits
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Intends To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
LUMENIS LTD.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Fraud Lawsuit
OHIO: Settles Suits Against Police's Use of Force In Race Riots
ON COMMAND: Shareholders Sue Over Liberty Stock Purchase Offer
POST APARTMENT: Plaintiffs Ask For Expedited Discovery in Suit
POST APARTMENT: Shareholders File Derivative Lawsuit in GA Court

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Axcan Pharma Offer in DE
TEXAS: Judge Dismisses 8 Suits Over Haltom City Jail Sex Abuse
TWINLABS CORPORATION: Faces Several Suits Over Ma Huang Products
VITALWORKS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in CT
WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached In Apple Commission Litigation

                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AVERY DENNISON: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CERNER CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in MO


                           *********


ALASKA: Jury Decides V. Fishermen In Salmon Price-Fixing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury recently decided that Seattle processors and Japanese
importers did not fix the price of sockeye salmon, returning a
verdict against the 4,500 Bristol Bay fishermen who filed a
class action after prices for their catch began dropping a
decade ago, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The jurors took about six hours to sift through the testimony
deciding that the defendant processors and importers had not
engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy during the class period.  
The class action filed on behalf of some 4,500 Alaskan fishermen
accused the processors and importers of conspiring more than a
decade ago to lower the prices paid in the world's largest
sockeye salmon fishery.

Processors argued during the trial that it was world market
conditions that lowered prices that the fishermen could get for
their fish.  Defense attorneys tried to show that a long
recession in Asian markets had lowered demand, and that
competition from farmed supply had boosted supply -- factors
that worked together to lower the prices for the Bristol Bay
salmon.

On the other hand, fishermen's attorney Stephan Susman argued
that market forces alone could not explain why the fishermen's
share of the profits got smaller and smaller.  He said that
collusion also played a part "..it was both," said Mr. Susman.

Attorneys for the fishermen said their clients were underpaid by
hundreds of millions of dollars for nearly a billion pounds of
fish.  The plaintiffs relied heavily on testimony that
processors and importers shared price information and tried to
show that the companies then used the information shared to set
prices and force smaller processors to match the set prices or
go out of business.

A handful of defendants settled claims against them before the
case went to the jury rather than go through the trial.  They
paid about $40 million in settlement money.

Jury foreman Michael Nourse said the jury members took time to
review the fishermen's best evidence.  "There wasn't a smoking
gun," Mr. Nourse said, "not even a smoldering gun."


ATRIUM COMPANIES: Faces CO Homeowners Suit Over Imperial Window
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atrium Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary, formerly known as
Champagne Industries, Inc. ("Champagne," renamed Atrium Door and
Window Company of the Rockies), are defendants in a purported
class action pending in the United States District Court in
Boulder, Colorado in which 63 homeowners have sued the Company
and Champagne, along with three other home builder and home
product manufacturer defendants.

The claims asserted against Champagne allege manufacturing and
design defects associated with its Imperial window, a half-jamb
wood window manufactured by Champagne and installed in
plaintiffs' homes between 1987 and 1997.  The claims asserted
against the Company, which purchased Champagne in 1999, are
based on alter ego and successor liability theories.

The plaintiffs, which claim to represent a purported class of
4,500 homeowners with Imperial windows, seek damages in an
unspecified amount for repair and replacement of windows and
other resulting damage, together with other relief permitted
under applicable law and equity.  In addition, one of the
homebuilder defendants has filed a cross-claim against Champagne
seeking indemnification in an amount of $2,800.

The Company believes the Company and Champagne have meritorious
defenses and are vigorously defending against these claims.

The case is currently before the court on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which the trial judge is expected to rule
upon sometime in the next one to six months.  While a vigorous
defense of the case has been presented related to the class
certification issues, the Company believes there is a likelihood
that class certification will be granted.  Because little
discovery has been taken to date with respect to alleged
damages, and the uncertainty with regard to class certification,
apportionment of liability among the defendants and insurance
coverage, it is not possible now to predict the final outcome of
this lawsuit, or estimate any possible loss.


AUTOBYTEL INC.: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the securities class action filed
against Autobytel, Inc. and certain of its current and former
directors and officers and underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering.

The action alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege the Company's prospectus for it's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws, because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Autobytel Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Autobytel Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.

The Company believes it has meritorious claims against the
underwriters.


AUTOWEB.COM: Named As Defendant in CSFB Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoweb.com, Inc. was named as a defendant in the securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB), the co-lead underwriter of the Company's initial public
offering.  The company, the former Chief Executive Officer and
the former Chief Financial Officer are also named as defendants.

The complaint alleges claims against the Company and such former
officers for violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Florida's Blue Sky laws and
also alleges claims based on common law theories of fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and respondeat superior.

The complaint makes similar allegations against approximately 50
other companies for which CSFB was the lead or a co-lead
underwriter.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
disseminated false and misleading information to the public
which misrepresented the accuracy of Autoweb's initial public
offering price, its financial condition and future revenue
prospects.

The complaint further alleges that the effect of the purported
fraud was to manipulate the Company's stock price so that the
defendants could profit from the manipulation.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  No date has been set for a
response to this complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend the action.


AUTOWEB.COM: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Autoweb.com, certain of its current and
former directors and officers and underwriters involved in its
initial public offering.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Autoweb Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Autoweb Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim without prejudice and with
leave to replead but denied the motion to dismiss the claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Autoweb.

The Company believes that it has meritorious claims against the
underwriters and intends to vigorously defend the action.   


BLUE RHINO: Sued Over False Statements On Cost Of Distributors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholders of Blue Rhino Corporation, a North Carolina-
based propane firm, are suing the company over "false and
misleading" statements about how much it paid for the
acquisition of 10 distributors last year, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  The lawsuit was filed in the US District
Court, in Los Angeles, California by representatives of the New
York-based law firm Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman.

The lawsuit alleged that Blue Rhino misrepresented the purchase
price of the acquisition, saying "it totaled $21 million when in
fact the true price of the acquisition was $32 million."  The
Blue Rhino acquired the 10 distributors in November 2002, by
purchasing two holding companies, Platinum Propane Holding LLC
and Ark Holding Co. LLC.

The false and misleading information caused Blue Rhino's shares
"to trade at artificially inflated prices," charges the lawsuit.  
On February 5, 2003, Blue Rhino filed statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, detailing its purchase of
Platinum Propane Holding and Ark Holding companies.  That
disclosure led to fluctuations in the company's stock price.

On February 7, Blue Rhino's stock sank as much as 23 percent
after a research report questioned the economic fitness of the
two acquired companies.  The shareholders' law firm, Cauley
Geller, in a recent news release, said Blue Rhino initially
characterized the two companies as financially healthy and
profitable.

"In fact, on a combined basis, these distributors had lost $2.8
million in the first 10 months of 2002, and owed Blue Rhino $5
million in cash advances in addition to their $2.8 million of
debt," the law firm said in the news release.

In addition, said law firm Cauley Geller, Blue Rhino
misrepresented the purchase price of the acquisition, saying it
"totaled $21 million, when in fact the true price of the
acquisition was $32 million."


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed without prejudice the consolidated securities
class action filed against Caliper Technologies and three of its
officers and directors:

     (1) David V. Milligan,

     (2) Daniel L. Kisner and

     (3) James L. Knighton

The suit alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit also names certain
underwriters of the Company's December 1999 initial public
offering of common stock.

The suit alleges that these underwriters charged excessive,
undisclosed commissions to investors and entered into improper
agreements with investors relating to aftermarket transactions.
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

The Company and the other issuers named as defendants in the IPO
suits moved on July 15, 2002 to dismiss all claims on multiple
grounds.  By Stipulation and Order dated October 9, 2002, the
claims against Mr. Milligan, Mr. Kisner and Mr. Knighton were
dismissed without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against it.
Plaintiffs were not given the right to replead the claims
against the Company; the time to appeal the dismissal has not
yet expired.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Manchester Diocese Resolves Most Abuse Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester announced recently that
it had settled legal claims from 61 people who said they were
abused by priests, The New York Times reports.  The $6.5 million
settlement resolves the majority of the cases that were lodged
against the diocese since early 2002.

Officials said the settlement will be paid with money from the
diocesan insurance fund, a combination of insurance coverage and
future reserves.  The money will be apportioned to victims over
three years, beginning in December.  The seven-month gap will
allow the financially beleaguered diocese to get on firmer
financial footing, diocesan officials said.  They emphasized
that the church will not use any other sources, including money
for schools and parishes or the sale of property to pay claims.

"I hope this response by the church will help them (the victims)
heal from the wounds of abuse," said Bishop John McCormack in a
statement.  "I am personally sorry for the hurt they have
experienced and have written to each person expressing my deep
regret, an apology on behalf of the church and my willingness to
assist them personally in any way that is helpful."

Mark Abramson, a lawyer who represented the 61 plaintiffs, said
negotiations with the church, which lasted for about a year,
were rocky.  Mr. Abramson said he believed the church had not
settled because it is in the best interest of the victims, but
rather because it lost a series of court rulings, and the inner
workings and history of protecting predatory priests was exposed
through 9,000 pages of clergy personnel documents released in
March.

The release of these 9,000 pages that showed how the diocese had
been handling the victims and the priests, resulted through a
settlement of a criminal case with the state attorney general's
office in December 2002.  The diocese was given blanket immunity
for admitting that it had failed to protect children from
abusive priests and was likely to be prosecuted under the
state's child endangerment statute.  Also, under the terms of
this same settlement, the diocese released the 9,000 pages
of clergy personnel documents and agreed, among other
stipulations, to undergo an annual audit by the state for the
next five years to ensure that children are not being harmed.

"They saw the writing on the wall and paid what they owed," Mr.
Abramson said.

Mr. Abramson said each case had been evaluated individually and
each plaintiff would receive from $20,000 to $455,000, based on
the severity of the abuse.

Patrick F. McGee, a diocesan spokesman, said a dozen claims, or
fewer, remained pending.  The cost of settlements, coupled with
a drop in donations, has left the diocese in financial straits.  
The diocese has eliminated 19 jobs and has closed a youth
retreat house.  It plans to close, by June 30, Bishop
McCormack's stately brick house, which was donated to the
diocese in the late 1940s.  Closing the home is expected to save
the diocese about $47,000 annually.  It has not decided whether
or not it will sell the property.


DAOU SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Daou Systems, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

The suit alleges that the Company improperly used the
"percentage-of-completion" accounting method for revenue
recognition.  Claims are pleaded under both the 1933 Securities
Act (relating to the Company's initial public offering) and
section 10b of the 1934 Securities Act.  The complaint was
brought on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 13, 1997
and October 28, 1998, but it does not allege specific damage
amounts.  The suit was amended three times.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the third amended
complaint, and in October 2002, the court granted that motion,
this time with prejudice.  The plaintiffs noticed appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on November 13, 2002.  The Company
filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on November 26, 2002 challenging
the failure of the trial court to assess whether the complaints
were filed in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on April 9, 2003.  The
Company is currently scheduled to file its brief no later than
May 19, 2003.

On October 7, 1998 and October 15, 1998, two separate complaints
were filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County,
California.  These state court complaints mirror the allegations
set forth in the federal complaints.  They also assert claims
for common law fraud and the violation of certain California
statutes.  As with their federal counterparts, they do not
allege specific damage amounts.  

On April 1, 1999, a consolidated amended suit was filed on
behalf of the same state court plaintiffs, and this new
complaint alleges the same factual basis as is asserted in the
federal litigation.  The state litigation pleads claims for
fraud and violations of certain California Corporation Code
provisions.  By stipulation of the parties and order of the
court, this state court litigation was stayed pending the
outcome of the motion to dismiss the federal lawsuits.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the
federal and state complaints are without merit, and the Company
intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.  No
assurance as to the outcome of this matter can be given,
however, and an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, and financial condition.


DELTA FINANCIAL: Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County denied
Delta Financial Corporation's motion to reargue summary judgment
for a class action charging it with improperly charging certain
borrowers processing fees.  

The complaint seeks certification of a class of plaintiffs, an
accounting, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
(including attorneys' fees), based upon alleged:

     (1) unjust enrichment,  

     (2) fraud and
   
     (3) deceptive trade practices

In September 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by plaintiffs.  The court denied
the motion to dismiss.  In April 1999, the Company filed a
motion to change venue and plaintiffs opposed the motion.  In
July 1999, the court denied the motion to change venue.  The
Company appealed and in March 2000, the Appellate Court granted
the appeal to change venue from New York County to Nassau
County.

In August 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed in July 2000.  In
September 2000, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, from which the Company appealed.  The Appellate
Court denied the appeal in December 2001.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
complaint, which the court denied.  The Company appealed that
decision, but the appellate court denied the appeal.  The
Company filed a motion to reargue in December 2002, which was
denied by the court in January 2003.

Discovery will now continue in the lower court.  The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend
this suit, but cannot estimate with any certainty its ultimate
legal or financial liability, if any, with respect to the
alleged claims.


DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York approved the settlement for the class action filed against
Delta Financial Corporation, seeking certification as a class
action and alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1996
and reports subsequently filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint alleges that the scope of the violations alleged
in the consumer lawsuits and regulatory actions brought in or
around 1999 indicate a pervasive pattern of action and risk that
should have been more thoroughly disclosed to investors in the
Company's common stock.

In May 2000, the court consolidated this case and several other
lawsuits that purportedly contain the same or similar
allegations against the Company and in August 2000 plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit in its entirety,
which was opposed by plaintiffs in November 2000, and denied by
the Court in September 2001.  The Company reached an agreement
in principal with plaintiffs' counsel and its insurer to settle
the action on a class-wide basis in August 2002 and executed a
settlement agreement in January 2003, pursuant to which the
Company denied all wrongdoing.

The court approved the settlement at a fairness hearing in April
2003, and the settlement will be administered in the coming
months.


DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Court Grants Approval to Consumer Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
preliminarily approved the settlement proposed by Delta
Financial Corporation to settle the class action charging it
with improperly charging and collecting from borrowers certain
fees when they paid off their mortgage loans with the Company.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of plaintiffs,
declaratory relief finding that the payoff statements used
include unauthorized charges and are deceptive and unfair,
injunctive relief, and unspecified compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages (including legal fees), based upon alleged
violations of Real Property Law 274-a, unfair and deceptive
practices, money had and received, unjust enrichment and
conversion.

In March 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was opposed by plaintiffs.  In June 2001, the Company's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was
granted.  In August 2001, plaintiffs appealed the decision.

In September 2002, the Company executed a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company denied all
wrongdoing, but agreed to resolve the litigation on a class-wide
basis.  In May 2003, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing for July 2003, at
which point the Company anticipates that the court will approve
the settlement.  In the event that the settlement is not
approved, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to defend this suit.  However, it cannot estimate
with any certainty the Company's ultimate legal or financial
liability, if any, with respect to the alleged claims.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Securities Fraud Suits To Be Consolidated in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems, Inc.'s motion to consolidated all the
class actions filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas has been granted.

Numerous purported shareholder class actions were filed against
the Company from September through December 2002 in response to
the Company's September 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement,
publicity about certain equity hedging transactions that it had
entered into, and the drop in the price of EDS common stock.  
The cases allege violations of various federal securities laws
and common law fraud based upon purported misstatements and/or
omissions of material facts regarding the Company's financial
condition.

In addition, five purported class actions were filed on behalf
of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and, in some cases,
its directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
and made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of
EDS shares.

The Company intends to mount a strong defense against the
action.  As these matters are in the earliest stages, the
Company is not able to determine the impact on its condensed
consolidated financial statements.


EMERGING VISION: Plaintiffs Appeal Unfair Trade Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against Emerging Vision, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
VisionCare of California, Inc. (VCC) in the California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County.

The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
the defendants from their continued alleged violation of the
California Business and Professions Code and restitution based
upon the defendants' alleged illegal charging of dilation fees
during the four-year period immediately preceding the date of
the plaintiff's commencement of such action.  

In the suit, the plaintiff alleged that VCC's employment of
licensed optometrists, as well as its operation (under the name
Sterling VisionCare) of optometric offices in locations which
are usually situated adjacent to the Company's retail optical
stores located in the State of California, violates certain
provisions of the California Code and was seeking to permanently
enjoin VCC from continuing to operate in such manner.

On motion of the Company, which included a claim that VCC is a
specialized Health Care Maintenance Organization that has been
specifically licensed, under the California Knox Keene Health
Care Service Plan Act of 1975, as amended, to provide the
identical services that the plaintiff was seeking to enjoin, the
court dismissed this action, with prejudice, and without
liability to the Company.

In April 2003, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
decision of the lower court dismissing this action.  The Company
intends to actively pursue its opposition of this appeal.


EN POINTE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
En Pointe Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, five of
its directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties.

The suit alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
regarding the Company and that the individual defendants
improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the Company's
common stock and seeking a recovery by the Company's
stockholders of the damages sustained as a result of such
activities.

In February 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
the grounds that the allegations failed to state any actionable
claims against them.  The Motion to Dismiss was granted with
leave to amend.  Plaintiffs have filed their amended complaint.  

In January of 2003, the defendants filed another motion to
dismiss.  The motion has been fully briefed and is currently
under submission with the court.  The defendants intend to
continue to vigorously defend the allegations.


FORD MOTOR: High Court Orders Reconsideration of Punitive Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court recently told the state courts in California
and Kentucky to reconsider multimillion-dollar punitive awards
against Ford Motor Co. in personal injury lawsuits in the light
of the court's decision last month in another case involving
limits on damages for product liability, The Washington Post
reports.

Corporate lawyers hailed the action as a sure signal that the
days of gigantic punitive awards in product-liability cases are
coming to a close.  The corporate lawyers view it to be the
court's intention that damages be limited even in cases
involving injury or death.  

Plaintiff and consumer advocates cautioned against reading too
much into the action, noting that the justices issued no
opinion.  At issue is whether juries are free to punish
corporations with fines far beyond the simple monetary value of
the damage caused by a dangerous product that kills or hurts
someone.

The Supreme Court ordered the state courts in California and
Kentucky to review the respective Ford Motor personal injury
lawsuits in the light of its decision last month in a Utah case,
involving a couple who sued the State Farm Insurance Co. for its
handling of coverage of an automobile accident.  A jury had
awarded the couple $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145
million in punitive damages.  After several appeals, the
compensatory award was reduced to $1 million, but the punitive
amount stayed the same.

The Supreme Court ruled last month the punitive award was out of
proportion, and it suggested that punitive damages greater than
10 times the compensatory damages could be unconstitutional.

One legal expert said it may be some time before the
ramifications of the cases became clear.  Syracuse University
law professor Peter A. Bell noted that it is routine for the
High Court, having ruled once on a topic, to send related cases
back to the states for reinterpretation in light of the earlier
ruling.

"They want the lower courts to be able to digest what they have
said," said Professor Bell.  The court's decision last month
"has got a lot for everybody to digest in it, including the
justices themselves."

The words of the justices, digested or not, have caused a flurry
of activity.  Dozens of punitive-damages cases are being
appealed involving a number of industries, including insurance
and pharmaceutical companies.  More than 35 trade groups,
chambers of commerce and consumer products companies filed court
briefs supporting Ford in the two cases.

In the California case, a jury awarded $4.6 million in
compensatory damages and $290 million in punitive damages to the
estate of the Romeo family, when a couple and their teenage son
died after their Ford Bronco rolled over on a highway in 1993.  
The Kentucky case involved a $15 million punitive award on top
of $3 million in compensatory damages a jury ordered Ford to pay
to the estate of Tommy Smith, who was crushed when his pickup
slipped out of gear.

"The Supreme Court has made a strong statement that excessive
and arbitrary awards will not be tolerated . in product-
liability cases," said lawyer Ted Boutrous, who represented Ford
in appealing both cases.

However, consumer advocates and plaintiffs lawyers argue that in
the Utah case, the court did not require that its ratio on
punitive damages be applied to cases involving physical injury
or death, such as in the Romo and Smith cases.

Joan Claybrook of the Public Citizen consumer advocacy group,
characterized the remand action of the High Court as a kind of
"judicial housekeeping."  

"By remanding the (two cases), the court is saying (to the
states) 'just be sure you considered this earlier decision,' but
it is not something mandatory or required," Ms. Claybrook said.


HMO LITIGATION: Member Dentists Sue Health Insurers Under RICO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dental Association (ADA) and two of its member
dentists are suing some of the nation's largest insurers under
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
(RICO) and under state laws as well, over insurance abuses
against dentists contracted under the insurers' managed-care-
plans, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Defendants named in the lawsuit are:

     (1) CIGNA Corporation,

     (2) CIGNA Dental Health Inc.,

     (3) MetLife, Inc.,

     (4) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

     (5) Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, and

     (6) Mutual Of Omaha Insurance Company

The lawsuit, filed recently in the US District Court of Florida
in Miami charges the defendants with illegally paying their in-
network dental providers less than their charges for provided
dental services and with late payments in states with prompt-pay
statutes.  Among other things, specific charges in the complaint
against the defendants include:

     (i) Defendants' secret use of cost-based or other actuarial
         criterial unrelated to a covered procedure or service
         to approve or deny claims;

    (ii) Downcoding, that is changing the procedure code to a
         less expensive code, and bundling, that is combining
         two or more performed procedures into one billed
         procedure in order to deprive plaintiffs of fees owed
         them for covered services;

   (iii) Delaying payments to dentists; and using their economic
         power and market dominance to coerce plaintiffs to
         accept these abusive practices and to unilaterally
         amend contracts with dental providers.

The plaintiffs are requesting an injunction to prohibit the
insurers from continuing to engage in the alleged abusive and
awarding of compensatory and punitive damages.

"The conduct that we have found with reference to the defendants
in this lawsuit is pervasive, unfair to patients and the
profession, and, I believe, illegal," said Peter Sfikas, ADA
chief counsel.  "These are matters that should be brought to the
attention of the federal courts and rectified there."

The not-for-profit ADA is the nation's oldest national dental
association, representing more than 147,000 members.  It
advocates for the public's health and promotes the art and
science of dentistry.


IDAHO: Prominent Attorney Labels Shield Law Unconstitutional
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berman is attorney for a group of northern Idaho residents
who have brought a class action against some grass growers.  The
lawsuit claims that the smoke created by the grass-burning,
conducted by the grass growers, endangers their health and
diminishes the value of their homes and property, the Associated
Press Newswires.

Mr. Berman told a state judge during a recent hearing that the
Idaho Legislature violated the Constitution when it voted to
shield grass growers from lawsuits if they follow the state's
new field burning rules.

Growers say they need to burn their fields to encourage the
vigorous growth of the next crop of grass.  Burning is scheduled
to start the week of July 28, but Mr. Berman has asked First
District Judge John Mitchell to block the burning.  Arguments on
that petition by Mr. Berman are set for next month.

The new law, enacted in the wake of Mr. Berman's class action
lawsuit, and according to Mr. Berman, actually enacted to
"derail" his lawsuit brought by the Idaho property owners
against the grass growers, covers the 10 northern counties of
Idaho.  The new law, the "shield" law, provides that grass
growers who pay $1 an acre to register fields and burn only on
days when the regulators say the wind conditions are favorable,
are immune from damage suits.  Violations by the grass growers
of the "shield" law carry up to a $10,000 fine.

Deputy Attorney General Clay Smith told Judge Mitchell, during
the recent court hearing, that the law is a "perfectly rational
response to a social problem."

Mr. Berman claimed, in the hearing before Judge Mitchell, that
the law "grants a right that has never been granted before in
the United States.  It is a special benefit to these farmers,
who are free to injure people while they sleep in their beds and
homes."

Attorney General Smith countered, however, with the argument
that there is no allegation that the fair market value of
people's property in northern Idaho has been reduced because of
burning.  There is no justification to support a claim that
burning constitutes an illegal taking of their property, the
Attorney General said.  Mr. Berman argued, however, that it is
not necessarily the property itself that is affected, but the
residents' enjoyment of that property.


IOWA: Shareholders Claim CEO Tricked Directors To Approve Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chief Executive of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. tricked
the company's directors into approving the 1999 sale of the
company to Berkshire Hathaway, according to claims recently
filed by the shareholders in a class action, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

Papers filed in the 1999 lawsuit claim that Chief Executive
David Sokol used personal relationships, fraud and deceit to
manipulate the board's decision.  MidAmerican was sold in
October 1999, to the Omaha-based investment firm Bershire
Hathaway, in which Mr. Sokol held an interest, for $2.1 billion,
or $35.05 per share.  Shareholders contend the price should have
been at least $37.37 per share.

Mr. Sokol and Omaha businessman Walter Scott, one of
MidAmerican's largest shareholders, brought the deal to
Berkshire Hathaway's attention and benefited from the deal.

The lawsuit claims that MidAmerican directors breached their
duty to shareholders.  "Many members of the board were
inattentive, ignorant or exhibited a lack of diligence,"
according to new claims being brought by the shareholders.  The
recently filed new documents have been filed in response to
MidAmerican's effort to have the lawsuit dismissed.

Company officials have said the price was fair and that
Berkshire Hathaway's offer was properly scrutinized.  
MidAmerican's board approved Mr. Sokol's request to have two
investment firms prepare a report on strategic initiatives that
executives might pursue, including a possible sale of the
company, in order to boost MidAmerican's stock price.  The
report, which ultimately estimated MidAmerican's value at
between $34 and $38 per share, was later used by board members
to evaluate the Berkshire Hathaway offer.

Shareholders say the final sale price was slightly lower than a
valuation included in a secret report prepared by one of the
same bankers at Mr. Sokol's request in September 1999.  That
report was said to be only for Mr. Sokol and Mr. Scott.

Douglas Anderson, the company's general counsel, said the
company plans to respond in writing to the new court documents
presented by the shareholders in the coming days.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Negotiating Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote Systems, Inc. is working for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its officers, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's securities between September 24, 1999 and August 19,
2001.  The suit alleges generally that the underwriters in
certain initial public offerings, including the Company's
allocated shares in those initial public offerings in unfair or
unlawful ways, such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy
in the aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.

The complaint also alleges that the Company had a duty to
disclose the activities of the underwriters in the registration
statement relating to its initial public offering.  The
complaints have been consolidated into a single action with
cases brought against over three hundred other issuers and their
underwriters that make similar allegations regarding the initial
public offerings of those issuers.

The plaintiffs' counsel and the individual named defendants'
counsel have reached an agreement whereby the individual named
defendants have been dismissed from the case, without any
payments by the Company.  The case against the underwriters and
the Company continues, however, plaintiffs' counsel and the
underwriters have each offered revised settlement proposals to
the issuers, but various terms and conditions are being
negotiated.  The Company is still evaluating each proposal.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously should settlement not be reached.
However, these claims, even if not meritorious, could be
expensive to defend and divert management's attention from
operating the Company.


LASON INC.: MI Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted approval to the settlement proposed by Lason,
Inc. relating to the class actions filed against it and certain
now former executive officers on behalf of purchasers of shares
of the Company's common stock during periods ranging from August
14, 1998 through December 17, 1999.

The complaints generally allege that the Company and certain of
its now former officers made public statements concerning the
Company's revenues and earnings and inflated the market price of
the shares of the Company's common stock.  The complaints allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and one complaint alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages allegedly incurred as a
result of the decline in the market price of shares of the
Company's common stock after the Company announced on December
17, 1999 that it expected lower fourth quarter earnings per
share as compared with consensus analysts' estimates.

All of the parties to the litigation agreed upon the terms of a
settlement.  Pursuant to the settlement, a Settlement Fund of
$12,680,000 in cash, plus interest, has been established.   

Although the Company cannot predict the outcomes of these
legal proceedings, it is not currently aware of any claim or
action, in the aggregate, that would have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


LIBERTY SATELLITE: Faces Suits Over Liberty Stock Purchase Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Satellite & Technology, Inc. faces five class actions
filed after it announced on April 1, 2003, that it had received
an expression of interest from Liberty Media Corporation
regarding the possibility of acquiring all of its issued and
outstanding shares not already owned by affiliates of Liberty
Media.  As proposed by Liberty Media, LSAT stockholders would
receive 0.2131 of a share of Liberty Media Corporation Series A
common stock for each share of LSAT common stock held.

The suits were filed on behalf of the stockholders of the
Company other than Liberty Media and the other named defendants,
in the Court of Chancery in New Castle County, Delaware.  The
suits name as defendants in addition to Liberty Media
Corporation and the Company:

     (1) Alan M. Angelich,

     (2) Robert R. Bennett,

     (3) William H. Berkman,

     (4) William R. Fitzgerald,

     (5) John W. Goddard,

     (6) J. Curt Hockemeier,

     (7) Gary S. Howard, and

     (8) Kenneth G. Carroll, the Company's President and Chief
         Financial Officer.

The suits assert, among other things, that LSAT's directors were
dominated and controlled by Liberty Media and that the proposed
consideration is inadequate.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief to prevent consummation of the offer made by Liberty
Media, and if the transaction with Liberty Media is consummated,
an order rescinding the transaction or rescissory damages.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit.


LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed against it, Globalstar
Telecommunications, Limited (GTL), Globalstar Capital
Corporation and Bernard L. Schwartz, by various holders of
securities of GTL and Globalstar.

The suit alleges:

     (1) that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material  
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about    
         Globalstar's business and prospects;

     (2) that defendants Loral and Schwartz are secondarily
         liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
         under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
         "controlling persons" of Globalstar;

     (3) that defendants GTL and Schwartz are liable under       
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue
         statements of material facts in or omissions of
         material facts from a registration statement relating
         to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January
         2000;

     (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
         the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
         sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000, and

     (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
         primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
         Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6,
1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related or affiliated therewith.

The Company and Mr. Schwartz have filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety as to Loral and Mr. Schwartz,
which motion is pending before the court.  The Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to this class action lawsuit
and intends to pursue them vigorously.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Intends To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York indicated that it might dismiss the securities class
action filed by holders of common stock of Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. against the Company, Bernard L. Schwartz and
Richard Townsend.

The suit alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
material misstatements or failing to state material facts about
Loral's financial condition and its investment in Globalstar and
that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these alleged
misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from November 4, 1999 through February 1, 2001, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related or affiliated
therewith.  

The Company, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Townsend have filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  At oral argument on
the motion on May 9, 2003, the court indicated its intent to
dismiss the complaint but gave the plaintiffs thirty days to
amend their complaint to state a cause of action.  In the
interim, the court denied the motion without prejudice to its
renewal.


LUMENIS LTD.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Harris County Court in Texas heard Lumenis Ltd.'s motion to
dismiss the class action filed against it and a leasing Company,
alleging a variety of causes of action.

The suit was initially filed in the Harris County Court in Texas
on behalf of approximately forty-eight physicians and medical
clinics, alleging:  

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of express and implied warranties,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) misrepresentation,
            
     (5) conversion,

     (6) product liability, and

     (7) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
         and Texas Securities Act

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint to dismiss the suit and securities allegations and to
add several new plaintiffs and in June 2002, the motion was
granted.  The suit was earlier moved to Texas federal court, but
the plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand the cases
to State Court, which was granted.

On February 11, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
cases based on forum non-conveniens.  The motion was heard on
April 7, 2003, and the judge's ruling is pending.  The Company
denies the allegations and will continue to energetically defend
itself.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. was named as a defendant in the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Credit Suisse
First Boston (CSFB) and approximately 50 companies, for whose
respective initial public offering CSFB purportedly served
as the lead underwriter.

The suit purports to be on behalf of all the purchasers of the
common stock of the named issuing companies and alleges
violations of federal and state securities law.  Specifically,
the suit alleges that CSFB and each named issuer conspired to
file false and misleading registration statements and other
reports containing knowingly inflated financial and performance
projections in order to support an aggressive IPO issue price.

Although the Company has not yet been served in this action, the
Company has reviewed the complaint, believes to have meritorious
defenses, and intends to forcefully defend itself.


OHIO: Settles Suits Against Police's Use of Force In Race Riots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio have approved a $4.5
million settlement of lawsuits, which accuse the police of using
excessive force in race riots in 2001, The New York Times
reports.

"This is an opportunity to advance our city," Mayor Charles
Luken told City Council members who had approved the settlement.  
"This is a good thing."

Judge Susan J. Diott of the US District Court approved the
settlement after the City Council's vote.  The settlement
involved three days of racial rioting in April 2001, after a
white police officer shot and killed Timothy Thomas, 19, a black
man who was fleeing to avoid arrest on misdemeanor charges.  
Cincinnati police have killed 14 other black men in encounters
over six years.  Officer Stephen Roach was acquitted in the
shooting of Mr. Thomas.

Blacks who began an economic boycott of Cincinnati after the
rioting, had said the lawsuits should be settled before
discussion could begin for the ending of the boycott.


ON COMMAND: Shareholders Sue Over Liberty Stock Purchase Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Command Corporation faces a class action filed in the Court
of Chancery in New Castle County, Delaware on behalf of the
stockholders of the Company other than Liberty Media
Corporation.  The suit also names as defendants Liberty and:

    (1) Kenneth G. Carroll,

    (2) William R. Fitzgerald,

    (3) Paul A. Gould,

    (4) Mark K. Hammond,

    (5) Gary S. Howard,

    (6) Christopher Sophinos, and

    (7) J. David Wargo, and

    (8) Peter Kern, a former director

Certain of the Company's officers were also named as defendants.  
The suit relates to the expression of interest from Liberty
regarding the possibility of acquiring all the issued and
outstanding shares of the company not already owned by
affiliates of Liberty.

The suit asserts, among other things, that the offer made by
Liberty was the product of unfair dealing by Liberty and its
representatives on the Company's Board of Directors and does
not offer the public stockholders of the Company fair value for
their shares.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent
consummation of the offer made by Liberty, and if the
transaction with Liberty is consummated, an order rescinding the
transaction or rescissory damages.  

The Company believes that the claims are without merit.


POST APARTMENT: Plaintiffs Ask For Expedited Discovery in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta,
Georgia for a voluntarily expedited discovery in the shareholder
derivative and purported class action filed against Post
Apartment Homes LP (as a nominal defendant) and members of the
board of directors of the Company, including John Williams.

The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's board of directors, among other relief, the disclosure
of certain information by the defendants.  This complaint also
seeks to compel the defendants to undertake actions to
facilitate a sale of the Company.

The defendants have not yet filed an answer to the plaintiffs'
motion.  The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it.


POST APARTMENT: Shareholders File Derivative Lawsuit in GA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Apartment Homes LP faces a shareholder derivative and
purported class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia. The suit also names as
defendants certain members of the board of directors of the
Company.  The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse
of control and corporate waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.

The defendants have not yet filed an answer.  The Company
believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to actively
defend itself.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Axcan Pharma Offer in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its directors face a class
action filed on behalf of its stockholders in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, alleging breach of fiduciary duties for not
negotiating with Axcan Pharma, Inc. relating to Axcan's offer to
acquire the Company's shares.   

The duration and outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted
at this time.  The Company believes that each of these lawsuits
is without merit.     


TEXAS: Judge Dismisses 8 Suits Over Haltom City Jail Sex Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge John McBryde has thrown out eight of the
14 lawsuits alleging sex abuse in the Haltom City Jail, because
the women cannot prove that the abuse was the city's fault, The
Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

The women alleged in their lawsuits that they had received
excessive jail sentences for minor offenses.  They further
alleged, once in jail they were subjected to sexual abuse
ranging from lurid stares to sexual assault.  Judge McBryde did
not rule on whether the women were abused.  Instead, he wrote
that the city can be sued "only if its official policy or
custom caused (the women) to be deprived of a federally
protected right."

Most of the women's claims revolved around former jailer Clint
Wade Weaver, who has admitted to trading early release from jail
for sexual favors.  The lawsuits contend that the city should
have provided Mr. Weaver and other jailers with better training
on civil rights.

Mr. Weaver has pleaded guilty to one count of official
oppression and has been indicted on three other charges,
including felony sexual assault.  Mr. Weaver was dropped from
the lawsuits in February, after he gave a statement casting most
of the blame on the city.

Some of the lawsuits also accuse former Municipal Judge Jack
Byno of handing out lengthy sentences without determining
whether the women were entitled to court-appointed lawyers.  
Judge McBryde said the city is immune from liability for Judge
Byno's actions.

"The law is clear that the judicial actions of a municipal judge
do not create liability for the city that employs them," Judge
McBryde wrote.

The women's attorneys have 10 days to ask Judge McBryde to
reconsider his rulings on the eight dismissed lawsuits, or the
attorneys can appeal to the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals in
New Orleans.  "We are in the process of looking through the
court's order now," said James Skinner, one of the three lawyers
for the women plaintiffs.

The city's lawyers have argued from the outset that the city is
not responsible for the problems in the jail.  Six lawsuits
remain pending against the city, including a would-be class
action that says the City Council is directly responsible
for problems in the jail.  Judge McBryde has not decided whether
it can be a class action.  

The suit says the Council knew that Judge Byno was handing out
lengthy sentences and denying lawyers to inmates, but ignored
his actions, because he brought in more revenue than previous
judges.  The suit says that as many as 5,000 people may have
been denied lawyers.

Lawyers for the city and Judge Byno have filed separate requests
to dismiss the remaining lawsuits, but Judge McBryde has not
ruled on the requests, and both sides are awaiting his decision.


TWINLABS CORPORATION: Faces Several Suits Over Ma Huang Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
TwinLabs Corporation has been named as a defendant in a number
of pending lawsuits, alleging that its Ma Huang products caused
injury, death and/or damages, as well as certain proceedings
seeking class action certification for consumer fraud related to
the sale of such products.

Ma Huang has been the subject of extensive negative publicity in
the United States and other countries relating to alleged
harmful or adverse effects.  This publicity has led to recent
congressional hearings addressing the safety of Ma Huang and
several state governments have passed legislation regulating the
sale of products that contain Ma Huang.

Recently, the Suffolk County (New York) legislature passed a
bill that bans retail sales of ephedra products in Suffolk
County.  Other jurisdictions have proposed similar legislation.
The current media and political attention to Ma Huang is likely
to lead to further legislation related to the sale of products
containing Ma Huang including the possible ban of sale of these
products.

The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.  The Company
believes in the safety and efficacy of its products that contain
Ma Huang based on the scientific evidence.  Nevertheless, as a
result of the increasing costs that are negatively impacting the
profitability of these products, coupled with consumer demand
for non-ephedra weight loss products, the Company decided to
discontinue the sale of products that contain Ma Huang effective
on or about March 31, 2003.


VITALWORKS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitalworks, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
on behalf of purchasers of securities of the Company between
April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002.  The suit also names as
defendants three of its executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and breach of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements
and omissions regarding the Company's business and operations,
principally in press releases and public conference calls in
April 2002 and July 2002, which allegedly had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's common
stock during the class period, and that six officers of the
Company, including the defendant officers, sold shares of
Company common stock during the class period.

The plaintiff seeks recovery of an unstated amount of
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  While
management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses in
each of the foregoing matters and the Company intends to pursue
its positions vigorously, litigation is inherently subject to
many uncertainties.  Thus, the outcome of these matters is
uncertain and could be adverse to the Company.  However, even if
the outcome of these cases is adverse, management does not
believe that the outcome of these cases, individually or in the
aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the financial
position of the Company.


WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached In Apple Commission Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Apple Commission has been resurrected with a
small payment to be forthcoming from growers to support
research, lobbying and some other activities of a non-
promotional character, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The settlement stems from the class action that the commission
filed against the state's apple growers in 2001, to determine
the constitutionality of forcing the growers to pay for the
commission's promotion of Washington apples.  US District Court
Judge Edward Shea found in March that the forced assessments for
advertisement and promotion were an unconstitutional
infringement on the growers' rights to free speech.

"This has been a long and difficult process for all involved,
and for the industry as a whole," said Welcome Sauer, president
of the 66-year-old commission.  "We are pleased a settlement has
been reached so the industry can now move forward."

The settlement was negotiated with US Magistrate Lonny Suko in
Yakima among the commission and the defendant apple growers.  
The apple growers were represented by two north-central
Washington growers representing all the apple growers in the
class-action lawsuit; seven organic apple growers; and three
large Yakima apple warehouses.

The settlement still must receive approval from Judge Shea.  
Under the terms of the settlement, the Wenatchee-based
commission will operate on a curtailed basis, with growers
paying an assessment of 3.5 cents per 42-pound box of apples.  
The previous assessment was 25 cents a box, which for the 2002-
2003 apple crop would have brought in about $21.5 million.

Collection of the 3.5 cents will begin September 1 for all
varieties except Golden Delicious, Red Delicious and Fuji.  
Collection for the three latter-named varieties will begin
October 1.  The commission will seek legislation which will
redistrict and allocate seats on the commission based on planted
acreage in a district; rotate commission meetings between Yakima
and Wenatchee; and require a two-thirds majority approval for
any increases in the assessment as opposed to the current simple
majority.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AVERY DENNISON: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Avery Dennison
Corporation (NYSE:AVY) securities between July 24, 2001 and
April 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Avery with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Avery's financial results and business prospects and/or omitting
to disclose material facts necessary to correct these
statements.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Avery failed to
disclose, among other facts, that:

     (1) Avery was engaged in an illegal anti-competitive scheme
         with a leading competitor to drive a more stable price
         environment within the labelstock industry;

     (2) that the Company's financial results were a product of
         its anti-competitive behavior;

     (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
         behavior could possibly subject the Company to
         regulatory scrutiny on the future of such anti-
         competitive behavior was discovered; and

     (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if the Company was forced to end its anti-competitive
         behavior.

On April 14, 2003, however, the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ) announced it had started a criminal investigation
into the competitive practices in the labelstock industry and
would shortly issue a subpoena to the Company in connection with
that investigation.  Additionally, on April 15, 2003, the DOJ
filed a lawsuit against an Avery competitor, alleging evidence
of anti-competitive behavior by Avery and others.  On this news,
Avery's stock fell in excess of $4.00 per share.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or
(212) 983-9330 or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


CERNER CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the Western District of Missouri on behalf of all
persons who acquired securities of Cerner Corporation
(NasdaqNM:CERN) between July 17, 2002 to April 2, 2003,
inclusive.

Defendants are charged with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder for having failed to disclose and for
having misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

      (1) 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) 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) 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 per share on extremely heavy
trading volume.

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