CAR_Public/030529.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, May 29, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 105

                           Headlines                            

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
ALBERS MEDICAL: Recalls 3 Lots of Counterfeit Lipitor Bottles
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ex-TWA Pilots Seek Reinstatement of Seniority
BCN TRADING: Recalls Asian Boy Candy For Undeclared Sulfites
CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Telemarketers

DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Reaches Pact To Settle NJ Securities Lawsuit
eGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Packaged Salad For Listeria Contamination
IMPORTED VIAGRA: FDA Issues Warning On Use of Viagra From Belize
INFOSPACE INC.: Court Allows Transfer of Stock Suit to W.D. WA

INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set July 2003
INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Securities Lawsuits Ordered Consolidated
LEAP WIRELESS: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
MARKETWATCH.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Fake Charity

MIIX GROUP: Shareholders Sue Over Advantage Transaction in NJ
NEW VALLEY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
SKECHERS USA: Employees File Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Courts
SKECHERS USA: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in C.D. CA
THEGLOBE.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Firms Lose in Ruling Over Advertising Fraud
TOBACCO LITIGATION: MA Court Decertifies Lights Cigarette Suit
WEGMAN'S FOOD: Recalls Graham Crackers For Undeclared Sulfites

*Partnership for Civil Justice Fights For Protesters' Rights

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in NY
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
BLUE RHINO: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EUNIVERSE INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in CA

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Chitwood Harley Files Suit in S.D. NY
SARA LEE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. IL
SUPERGEN INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA

SUPERGEN INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
WESTAR ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KS

                           *********

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. and certain of its
current or former officers and directors.  The suit also names
as defendants several of the underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of its
IPO (March 20, 2000) through December 6, 2000.  The central
allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the ACLARA
IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and
entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased ACLARA stock in the IPO and the after-market.  The
complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements.

More than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits.  In
July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against
issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers
(including ACLARA defendants) was filed by the entire group of
issuer defendants in these similar actions.

On February 19, 2003, the court in this action issued its
decision on defendant's omnibus motion to dismiss.  This
decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA but
denied the motion to dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and
virtually all of the other defendants.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against this suit.  As a result of this
belief, no liability for this suit has been recorded in the
accompanying financial statements.  However, the Company could
be forced to incur significant expenses in the litigation, and
in the event there is an adverse outcome, its business could be
harmed.


ALBERS MEDICAL: Recalls 3 Lots of Counterfeit Lipitor Bottles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Albers
Medical Distributors, Inc. voluntarily recalled three lots of
90-count bottles of the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor and is
warning healthcare providers and others that these three lots of
counterfeit Lipitor represent a potentially significant risk to
consumers.  The product was repackaged by Med-Pro, Inc., of
Lexington, Neb., and the labels say "Repackaged by: MED-PRO,
Inc. Lexington, Neb." in the lower left-hand corner.

The following lots are involved in this recall:

    (1) 20722V - 90-tablet bottles, Expiration 09-2004,

    (2) 04132V - 90-tablet bottles, Expiration 01-2004, and
  
    (3) 16942V - 90-tablet bottles, Expiration 09-2004

FDA is urging healthcare providers and patients alike to check
the packaging very carefully before using this product.  
Patients who have any of the product (labeled as "Repackaged by
MED-PRO, Inc.") with these three lot numbers should not take it,
and they should return the product to their pharmacies.  FDA's
investigation into this matter is continuing.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ex-TWA Pilots Seek Reinstatement of Seniority
----------------------------------------------------------------
TWA's former pilots, whose seniority was obliterated when
American Airlines took over their former employer in 2001, are
asking the federal courts to reinstate their seniority and
effectively order the immediate rehiring of more than 1,500
furloughed fliers, Captain Robert A. Pastore, a 36-year-veteran
pilot and a former TWA Board Member announced today.

Two unions, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), and the
Allied Pilots Association (APA), along with American Airlines
are named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It is alleged that they
took part in a well-orchestrated, secret civil conspiracy to
deprive the former TWA pilots of their seniority when their new
employer became American Airlines following TWA's bankruptcy.  
At that time, ALPA, the world's largest pilot's union, was the
collective bargaining representative for TWA pilots while the
APA represented the American Airlines pilots (who were
previously also represented by ALPA).

"We had no idea at the time that ALPA, our own union, was
secretly engaged in merger talks with the APA.  Looking back we
were nothing more than a bargaining pawn," said Captain Pastore,
a named plaintiff in the lawsuit.  "The record will show that
the TWA pilots were victimized and that their seniority was
sacrificed for the benefit of American Airlines and those
unions. It was a sham and an outrage."

APA was ultimately recognized by the federal government as the
bargaining representative for all of the American pilots,
including those formerly with TWA.

Captain Bud Bensel, co-plaintiff and former Merger Committee
Chairman of the ALPA-TWA bargaining unit, said there is abundant
evidence to show that the defendants planned to "not only
abandon but sacrifice the TWA pilots" and "sabotage" the
integration process.  He said when US Airways still figured in
the airline integration plan, American and the two defendant
unions agreed to a process by which US Airways pilots would
retain their seniority.

"It's clear by the way they (American and the two unions) were
going to treat the US Airways pilots that there was a double-
standard with regard to the TWA pilots.  We were double and
triple-crossed," added Mr. Bensel.  

Ultimately, US Airways was not part of the integration and it
filed for federal bankruptcy protection.  Meanwhile, American
Airlines has steadily been shedding its ex-TWA pilots (as well
as flight attendants) in favor of less senior, lower paid
American Airlines pilots.

"By the end of the current round of layoffs more than 70 percent
of the original 2,300 TWA pilots will no longer by flying," said
Captain Pastore.  "American has taken, in some cases, decades of
earned seniority and wiped it from a pilot's record.  Reward for
service along with your pink slip is 30 days paid health
insurance.  You can bet American won't do the same for Donald
Carty. "

Captain Sally Young, a former TWA pilot who is among those
American will lay off July 1, says the lawsuit is all about
fairness.  Captain Young, a 14-year veteran and single parent of
two young sons, said there is nothing fair about her or her
colleagues losing their jobs while pilots with far less
seniority are retaining theirs.  "There is something
fundamentally immoral about what happened in the integration (of
TWA into American) and about what's happening now."

The pilots are represented by Cureton, Caplan P.C., a New Jersey
law firm with expertise in plaintiff class actions.


BCN TRADING: Recalls Asian Boy Candy For Undeclared Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
BCN Trading Inc. is recalling 8 oz. plastic tubs of Asian Boy
Brand Sweet Lotus candy because the product contains undeclared
sulfites.  People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if
they consume this product.  No illnesses have been reported to
date in connection with this product.

The Asian Boy Brand Sweet Lotus candy, a product of Vietnam, was
distributed to retail stores in an uncoded, 8oz. plastic tub in
the New York Tri-State area and nationwide.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets food inspectors
that the product containing sulfites was distributed in
packaging that did not declare the presence of sulfites.  The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  

Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.  
Analysis of the Asian Boy Brand Sweet Lotus candy revealed that
it contained greater than 10mg of sulfites per serving.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-522-3388.


CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Telemarketers
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against
three California telemarketers for selling consumers fraudulent
services to recover unclaimed property and provide pre-approved
credit cards.  The complaint, filed in San Diego County Superior
Court, also alleges the defendants obtained consumers' social
security numbers, dates of birth, mother's maiden names and bank
account information, all of which could be used to commit
identity theft.

"The perpetrators of this scam not only ripped off consumers,
they obtained information that allowed them to steal victims'
identities," said Mr. Lockyer.  "The defendants violated 18
separate state and federal laws.  But it all boils down to this:
They lied and cheated, and we're going to make sure they pay for
it."

The complaint asks the court to impose at least $2 million in
civil penalties on the defendants, and to permanently prohibit
them from engaging in the alleged unlawful conduct.  The lawsuit
alleges the defendants violated state laws that prohibit false
advertising, and deceptive business and contracting practices,
as well as statutes that restrict dissemination of pre-recorded
phone messages and regulate credit service providers.  The
defendants also violated federal statutes that prohibit mail
fraud and artificial or pre-recorded phone messages initiated
without the recipient's prior approval, according to the
complaint.

The defendants include Robert Barrere and Debra Millward of San
Diego and California resident Ronald Steger.  They have
conducted business in the state using names such as Unclaimed
Property Center, Asset Recovery Group, AMS Financial Services,
Financial Resource Network and First National Trust Services,
among others.  The defendants have sold the fraudulent asset
recovery and credit card services to consumers in California and
throughout the United States.  

In both telemarketing scams, the defendants used auto-dialing
equipment to deliver pre-recorded messages and live
solicitations to consumers.  In the asset recovery scheme, the
complaint alleges, an unidentified speaker tells recipients they
have more than $500 or $600 in unclaimed money, property or
other assets.  The message directs consumers to contact the
"claims department" to retrieve their property.  When consumers
call the number provided for the claims department, another
recorded message tells them that in order to collect their
property, they must send a "retrieval fee" ranging from
$25 to $99 to a certain address.

The complaint alleges that in return for the fee, the defendants
ask some consumers to complete a form, which requires them to
disclose personal information.  No consumer has been provided
any of the advertised asset recovery.  The defendants have given
some consumers casino vouchers valued at $500 or $600, but the
vouchers are not redeemable for cash.

In the credit card scam, the complaint alleges the defendants
mislead consumers by telling them they have been pre-approved to
receive a Visa or MasterCard credit card.  Further, the
defendants falsely tell consumers their card will have a
guaranteed credit limit - in some cases as high as $10,000 -
regardless of consumers' credit history.  The initial, pre-
recorded solicitation instructs consumers to call a certain
number to obtain their credit card.  When consumers call that
number, they are told to provide their bank's name, their bank
account number, the next check number and their bank routing
number.  During this call, the defendants also tell consumers
they will receive their card by paying a one-time "membership
fee," which will be deducted from their bank account.  The
complaint alleges the defendants do not provide consumers credit
cards in exchange for the membership fee.   Further, the
defendants continue to deduct the membership fee from consumers'
bank accounts, even though the defendants provide no membership
services.  


DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Reaches Pact To Settle NJ Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. entered a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and directors and certain of the underwriters in
the Company's April 24, 2002 initial public offering of
5,000,000 shares of its common stock, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, based upon
the Company's alleged failure to disclose the filing of a
revised registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering reflecting changes to the 1999 financial
statements of the Company's joint venture with Elan, DOV
Bermuda,Ltd.  The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering and sought money damages or rescission.

On December 20, 2002, the Company entered into an agreement,
which was approved by the court on April 16, 2003, to settle
these lawsuits.  The settlement includes all defendants and
covers as a class all those who purchased common stock of the
Company in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
through December 20, 2002 and suffered damages.  If no appeal is
filed by May 16, 2003, or if an appeal is sought and is
dismissed or denied by the court, the Company will pay in the
aggregate to the plaintiffs $250,000 and 500,000 six-year
warrants to purchase common stock exercisable at $10.00 per
share.


eGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against eGain Communications Corporation, certain
of its officers, and the lead underwriters for its initial
public offering.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a alleged class of plaintiffs who
purchased the Company's common stock between September 23, 1999
and December 6, 2000.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus the
Company filed in connection with the initial public offering was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriter defendants solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
for shares of eGain stock, and that the underwriters entered
into agreements with certain investors in which these investors
agreed to purchase additional shares of Company common stock in
the aftermarket in exchange for receiving shares of eGain common
stock in the initial public offering.

The lawsuit is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee in In re: Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), pending before the Honorable Shira
A. Scheindlin.  The Company believes it has good and valid
defenses to these allegations.

During 2002, motions to dismiss the claims in the action were
briefed and argued.  During late 2002, the plaintiffs entered
into an agreement, voluntarily dismissing the claims against the
certain individual defendants in return for a tolling agreement.  

In February 2003, the court rendered a decision granting the
motions to dismiss in part, denying them in part, and permitting
the cases to proceed in part.  With respect to the Company, the
court held that plaintiff did not have standing to pursue the
section 11 claim for damages, and dismissed that claim.  The
court, however, ruled that plaintiffs could proceed with the
section 10(b) claim against the Company.

The Company intends to defend the remaining claim vigorously.  
However, these claims, even if not meritorious, could result in
the expenditure of significant financial and managerial
resources.


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Packaged Salad For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express is recalling Hearts of Romaine salad 10oz code
S111A18B with an expiration date of May 6, 2003 because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

Hearts of Romaine was distributed through retail stores in the
following states and provinces: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, and Ontario.

The company recently learned that a routine test of a single
sample conducted on April 30th by an independent party indicated
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes.  It is not anticipated
that any of this product is in the marketplace due to the fact
that it is well beyond its expiration date and it is a highly
perishable product.  Even though it is highly unlikely that any
product so far beyond its expiration date still exists, this
voluntary, precautionary recall is being issued to safeguard
consumer interests.

No illnesses have been reported or associated with Fresh Express
Hearts of Romaine product or any other Fresh Express products.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 242-5472.


IMPORTED VIAGRA: FDA Issues Warning On Use of Viagra From Belize
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking
steps to respond to irregularities related to its handling of a
large import shipment of unapproved "Viagra," apparently from
Belize.  Through a series of procedural irregularities, foreign
versions of Viagra that were examined by FDA upon importation,
were released to individuals who had ordered them. In order to
detain illegally imported products that may present a risk to
the public health, FDA issues import alerts that assist the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and FDA border personnel
in identifying certain high-risk commercial import shipments.

The number of imports has jumped in the past 20 years.  Over 8
million products-regulated and unregulated -- were presented for
import last year.  The Port of Miami mail facility in Florida
alone receives over 100,000 packages a day.  This large increase
in imports has meant an increased need for surveillance--a need
FDA has met by doubling its import operations.  FDA monitors all
imports, and physically inspects and analyzes thousands of
imported products, far more than ever before.

To detain illegal and potentially unsafe products, the product
must be identified among all imports coming into the United
States, FDA must issue a Notice of Detention and then must
notify each and every individual recipient of the product of
FDA's action.  Through this process, FDA successfully detains
several thousand unapproved drug imports annually that appear to
be of particularly high-risk to the public.

FDA is sending a letter to each of the consumers who may have
received these Viagra products alerting them that the agency
cannot vouch for the quality, safety or effectiveness of these
unapproved products.  The agency advises these consumers not to
use these products.  

FDA is thoroughly assessing this matter in order to prevent
these mistakes from being repeated.  This situation highlights
the enormous challenges that the agency faces in dealing with
the rising number of unapproved and potentially risky foreign
versions of US products imported into the country in large
quantities.


INFOSPACE INC.: Court Allows Transfer of Stock Suit to W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York allowed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Infospace, Inc. to be transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

The suit alleges that the Company and its former chief executive
officer made false and misleading statements about the Company's
business and prospects during the period between January 26,
2000 and January 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges violations of
the federal securities laws and does not specify the amount of
damages sought.

On April 8, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.  On April 30, 2002, the
Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated
complaint to add Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and one of its
analysts as defendants.

The amended complaint was filed on May 9, 2002 and on July 2,
2002, the Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  On October 11, 2002,
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an order transferring
the case to the Southern District of New York for pre-trial
proceedings to be consolidated with the other various claims
pending against Merrill Lynch.

On December 2, 2002, the Company moved to have the case severed
from the proceedings in the Southern District of New York and
transferred back to the Western District of Washington.  The
plaintiffs opposed that motion. On March 25, 2003, the court
granted the motion.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
plaintiffs' claims, but litigation is inherently uncertain and
the Company may not prevail in this matter.


INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set July 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing has been set on July 2003 for the settlement
proposed by Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc. relating
to the consolidated securities class action filed against it
and:

     (1) Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. (BIG),

     (2) Venture Capital Corporation, a selling shareholder in
         the Company's initial public offering (IPO),

     (3) the Company's five inside directors,

     (4) Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and

     (5) Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
the Company's Common Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement for the Company's IPO in February 1999,
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making certain false and misleading statements in
the roadshow presentations, registration statement and
prospectus relating to the IPO.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, in connection
with the IPO, the defendants made various material
misrepresentations and/or omissions relating to:

     (i) the Company's ability to integrate Geotrac's flood zone
         determination business with the Company's own flood
         zone determination business and with its insurance
         outsourcing services business;

    (ii) actual and anticipated synergies between the Company's
         flood zone determination and outsourcing services
         business lines; and

   (iii) the Company's use of the IPO proceeds

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including interest, and
equitable relief, including a rescission remedy.  On March 26,
2001, the Company, BIG and the five inside director defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for, among
other things, failure to allege material misstatements and/or
omissions in the roadshow presentations, registration statement
and/or prospectus relating to the IPO.  However, federal judge
Richard A. Lazzara denied all of the defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint.  The case was set for trial during the
trial term commencing May 5, 2003.

On August 6, 2002, the plaintiff offered to accept, in full
settlement of the IPO Litigation as to all defendants, payment
of $2.1 million to the putative plaintiff class.  On August 14,
2002, the Company's Board of Directors voted to accept this
offer, and the issuer of the Company's applicable Directors and
Officers and Company Reimbursement insurance policy has agreed
to pay $2.1 million to the plaintiff class.

The settlement was also approved by BIG and by the other
defendants represented by Company counsel.  On April 18, 2003,
the parties filed various pleadings seeking court approval of
the settlement terms.  On April 22, 2003, Judge Lazzara entered
an order scheduling a July 18, 2003 hearing to determine whether
the proposed settlement terms are fair, reasonable and adequate,
and whether those terms should be approved by the court.  Judge
Lazzara's order also sets a June 27, 2003 deadline for class
members to request exclusion from the settlement, and for class
members to file and serve any comments and/or objections to the
settlement.

The Company believes that the material allegations of the
complaint are without merit, but has elected to settle the IPO
Litigation to avoid the time, expense and risks associated with
continuing the IPO Litigation.  No assurances can be given, if
the settlement is not consummated, with respect to the outcome
of the IPO Litigation, and an adverse result could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition and results of operations.


INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Securities Lawsuits Ordered Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit Court for in and for Pinellas County, Florida
ordered consolidated the class actions filed against Insurance
Management Solutions Group, Inc. following the announcement in
August 2002 of the Company's intention to commence a cash tender
offer for all presently outstanding publicly-held shares of its
Common Stock.

Two suits were initially filed on behalf of a putative class
consisting of the Company's current public shareholders against
the Company and the Company's current directors, challenging,
among other things, the proposed Going-Private Transaction.  The
lawsuits were styled Pennapacker v. Insurance Management
Solutions Group, Inc., et al., and Karcich v. Insurance
Management Solutions Group, Inc., et al.

On November 4, 2002, the Pennapacker and Karcich cases were
consolidated.  On November 21, 2002, the Company announced that
its Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of a Special
Committee thereof, had withdrawn its approval of, and the
Company had terminated its intent to commence, the going-private
transaction.  On December 6, 2002, a first amended and
consolidated complaint was filed.  The amended complaint names
as defendants the Company, Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. (BIG)
and seven current or former directors of the Company.  

Another suit entitled the Short litigation, filed August 30,
2002, names as defendants the Company and seven current or
former directors of the Company.

In the Pennapacker/Karcich Litigation, the plaintiffs allege
that each defendant has breached its or his fiduciary duties to
the public shareholders in connection with the Company's
operations, the Going-Private Transaction, and the Company's
discussions with a third party potentially interested in
acquiring the Company or its business.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that each defendant either
has violated its or his fiduciary duties (including its or his
duties of loyalty, care, good faith, candor and independence),
or is aiding and abetting other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties, by, among other things, allegedly:

     (1) attempting to usurp through the Going-Private
         Transaction various funds obtained by the Company
         through its IPO and by its subsequent sale of the
         stock of the Company's former Geotrac subsidiary;

     (2) negotiating a transaction with an unnamed bidder for
         an undisclosed price for the Company or its business
         which plaintiffs believe will be inadequate;

     (3) attempting to discourage other offers for the Company
         or its assets;

     (4) falsely conditioning the Public Shareholders to believe
         that the Company's value is impaired by a purported
         foreseeable decline in demand by BIG for the Company's
         products and services, for the sole purpose of reducing
         the perceived value of the Company;

     (5) issuing a false and misleading registration statement
         in connection with the Company's IPO;

     (6) improperly brokering assets back and forth between the
         Company and BIG, based on non-arm's length
         negotiations;

     (7) allowing BIG to usurp critical Company assets and then
         allowing BIG to extend the deadline for repayment,
         without any consideration for the Company;

     (8) misleading the Public Shareholders as to the true
         nature of the Company's relationship with BIG and the
         true foreseeable dependence of BIG on the Company;

     (9) managing the Company to dismal operating results and a
         low stock price;

   (10) failing to fill vacancies on the Company's board of
        directors;

   (11) asking the same financial advisor who reviewed the
        Going-Private Transaction to review the terms of the
        potential sale of the Company or its business; and

   (12) attempting to usurp benefits of the Company for
        themselves as a result of the potential sale of the
        Company or its business.

In the Short Litigation, the plaintiff alleged that in
connection with the Going-Private Transaction, the defendants to
the Short Litigation would fail to supply the Public
Shareholders with sufficient information to enable them to make
informed decisions with regard to the Going-Private Transaction,
including material non-public information concerning the value
of the Company's assets, the full extent of the Company's future
earnings potential, and the Company's expected increase in
profitability.

The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants have engaged in
self-dealing, are not acting in good faith toward the Public
Shareholders, and have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Public Shareholders.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that:

     (i) the Company timed the Going-Private Transaction such
         that BIG and its affiliates would capture the Company's
         future potential and value for their own ends without
         paying the Public Shareholders an adequate or fair
         value for their shares of Company Common Stock;

    (ii) the Company's directors structured the Going-Private
         Transaction to benefit BIG and its affiliates at a
         substantially unfair price to the Company and its
         Public Shareholders, with the effect that BIG and its
         affiliates would acquire the Company's assets and
         benefits at little or no cost by using the Company's
         resources to fund the Going-Private Transaction and to
         provide substantial funding to BIG and its affiliates;

   (iii) the defendants' valuation of the Company for purposes
         of the Going-Private Transaction inadequately evaluated
         the Company's assets and total worth;

    (iv) certain of the individual defendants did not adequately
         take into consideration purported material conflicts of
         interest on the Company's board of directors; and

     (v) the Company's acceptance of the terms of the Going-
         Private Transaction amounted to a rejection of a
         preferable prior offer made by BIG and its affiliates
         for the shares of Company Common Stock held by the
         Public Shareholders.

On September 25, 2002, the Company and three other defendants to
the Short Litigation removed the Short litigation to the US
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  On November
26, 2002, the Short Litigation was remanded to the Circuit Court
of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County,
Florida.

On April 8, 2003, the judge assigned to both the
Pennapacker/Karcich Litigation and the Short Litigation entered
an order denying the objection of the plaintiff in the Short
Litigation to the consolidation of that litigation with the
Pennapacker/Karcich Litigation, and consolidating the two
lawsuits.

The plaintiffs' counsel in the two lawsuits has informed the
Company's counsel that they intend to seek leave to file a new
consolidated amended complaint, combining and amending the
initial allegations contained in the lawsuits; however, the
consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed.

Although management of the Company believes that the material
allegations of the complaints in the Pennapacker/Karcich
Litigation and the Short Litigation are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the litigation, no assurances can
be given with respect to the outcome of the litigation.  
Moreover, such litigation could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, financial condition and results of
operation and could adversely affect the Company's ability to
consummate any transaction.


LEAP WIRELESS: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California ordered consolidated nine securities class actions
filed against Leap Wireless International, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from
February 11, 2002 through July 24, 2002.

These lawsuits are virtually identical and each alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants concealed the deteriorated
value of the Company's wireless licenses by relying upon a
fraudulent impairment test of those assets, which resulted in a
gross and material overstatement of the value of the Company's
assets in its financial statements.  The actions seek an
unspecified amount of damages, plus costs and expenses related
to bringing the actions.

On March 14, 2003, the court entered plaintiffs' stipulation and
order for the appointment of lead plaintiffs and approval of
lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel and ordered the cases
consolidated.  No class has yet been certified in these actions.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims
raised by these lawsuits.  However, if the Company does not
prevail, the amounts involved could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


MARKETWATCH.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Marketwatch.com, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers and directors and a number of
investment banks, including some of the underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the 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 our initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  
On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the individual defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the court dismissed the individual defendants from the case
without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by
the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  There currently are settlement
discussions among the plaintiffs, the company defendants and
their insurance carriers that do not contemplate the payment of
any Company funds but which involve the assignment of claims to
the plaintiffs.  The Company cannot predict as to whether or
when a settlement might occur.


MICHIGAN: Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Fake Charity
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox brokered a settlement in
connection with a lawsuit filed on behalf of Michigan residents
in 2001 against a supposed charity called "Michigan Wish
Foundation" and Telestar Group, Inc., a telemarketing company
hired to raise money on its behalf.

The suit alleged that the defendants violated Michigan's
Charitable Organizations and Solicitations Act by soliciting
contributions without a license and by using a name that was so
similar to that of another charitable organization -- the well-
known and reputable Make-A-Wish Foundation -- that members of
the public were being confused and misled about which charity
would benefit from their contributions.  

"We were fortunate to learn about this organization's illegal
operations early enough to file a lawsuit and stop the
solicitations before the campaign got off the ground," Mr. Cox
said.  "The damage to donors and to the Make-A-Wish Foundation,
an established charity that does not conduct telephone
solicitations, was kept to a minimum, and this settlement
ensures that these deceptive solicitations will not resume."

Under the terms of the parties' settlement, which applies to
Michigan Wish Foundation, Telestar Group, Inc, and the
principals of both companies:

     (1) The "Michigan Wish Foundation" will be immediately and
         permanently dissolved;

     (2) Telestar Group Inc. may not solicit contributions on
         behalf of any charitable organizations without first
         applying for appropriate licenses with the Attorney
         General's Office and otherwise complying with
         applicable law;  

     (3) Defendants are required to make payments to the
         Michigan chapter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation; and  

     (4) All monies collected in "Michigan Wish Foundation"
         contribution boxes, as well as any future
         contributions, will be turned over to the Make-A-Wish
         Foundation of Michigan.

The settlement calls for any contribution boxes from the
Michigan Wish Foundation still in possession of retail
establishments to be transferred to the Attorney General for
distribution to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Michigan.  

Applauding the settlement, Susan Lerch, President & CEO of the
Make-A-Wish Foundation of Michigan, said, "We appreciate the
Attorney General's Office's ongoing efforts to protect the
public by ensuring that hard-earned donor dollars go to the
charity for which they are intended.  The funds received as a
result of this settlement will be put to very good use, granting
the wishes of children in Michigan with life-threatening medical
conditions."

Ms. Lerch urged consumers to be mindful that the Make-A-Wish
Foundation does not engage in any telemarketing whatsoever; in
fact, since it was founded in 1980, the organization has always
had a strict policy prohibiting telephone solicitations in Make-
A-Wish's name.  According to Ms. Lerch, "Despite our no-
telemarketing policy, we frequently receive complaints or
inquiries from people who have been told, or otherwise misled to
believe, that a telemarketer was calling them on our behalf."

The announcement of this settlement comes less than a month
after the US Supreme Court held, in the case of Madigan
(formerly Ryan) v. Telemarketing Associates, that state
attorneys general are free to pursue fraud actions when charity
fund-raisers make false and misleading representations designed
to deceive donors about how their donations will be used.  The
Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of consumers
asking fund-raisers to describe in detail how donations will be
used and reporting to the Attorney General's office suspected
fraudulent solicitations.


MIIX GROUP: Shareholders Sue Over Advantage Transaction in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The MIIX Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The suit
also names as defendants the Company's directors and officers,
Medical Society of New Jersey and Fox-Pitt, Kelton, Inc., which
acted as financial advisor to the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its directors and
officers engaged in securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty and violations of New Jersey antitrust laws in connection
with the MIIX Advantage transaction and alleged
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in various SEC
filings by the Company.  The complaint demands unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages, rescission of the sale of
shares in the Company's initial public offering, attorney fees
and other relief.

The Company and external counsel believe the Company has valid
defenses to the plaintiff's claims.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend the action.  The outcome of the suit could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition and results of operations.


NEW VALLEY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action filed in Delaware
Chancery Court against New Valley Corporation on behalf of the
Company's former Class B preferred shareholders.  The suit also
names as defendants Brooke Group Holding and certain directors
and officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the recapitalization, approved by a
majority of each class of the Company's stockholders in May
1999, was fundamentally unfair to the Class B preferred
shareholders, the proxy statement relating to the
recapitalization was materially deficient and the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Class B preferred
shareholders in approving the transaction.

The plaintiffs seek class certification of the action and an
award of compensatory damages as well as all costs and fees.  
The Court has dismissed six of plaintiff's nine claims alleging
inadequate disclosure in the proxy statement.  

Brooke Group Holding and the Company believe that the remaining
allegations are without merit.  Although there can be no
assurances, in the opinion of management, after consultation
with counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


SKECHERS USA: Employees File Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces two class actions alleging overtime and
related violations of the California Labor Code.

On December 2, 2002, a class action entitled OMAR QUINONES v.
SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Orange.  The suit was
filed on behalf of managers of the Company's retail stores and
seeks, inter alia, damages and restitution, as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief.

On February 25, 2003, another related class action entitled
MYRNA CORTEZ v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief on
behalf of assistant managers.

While it is too early in the litigation to predict the outcome
of the claims against the Company, the Company believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in both class
actions and intends to defend against those claims vigorously.  
Further, the Company does not believe that an adverse result
would have a material effect on its financial position or
results of operations.


SKECHERS USA: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between April 3,2002 and December
9,2002.  The suits also name as defendants the Company's
officers and directors.

The suits uniformly allege violations of the federal securities
laws and breach of fiduciary duty.  The suits seek compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive and equitable
relief.

While it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation,
the Company believes the suits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.


THEGLOBE.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against TheGlobe.com, Inc, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and several investment banks
that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the
Company during the period from November 12, 1998 through
December 6, 2000, alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed
to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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

On February 19, 2003, a motion to dismiss all claims against the
Company was denied by the court.  The Company and its current
and former officers and directors intend to vigorously defend
the actions.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.  Any unfavorable outcome of this litigation could
have a material adverse impact on its business, financial
condition and results of operations.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Firms Lose in Ruling Over Advertising Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington ruled
recently that the lawsuit accusing the cigarette industry of
conspiring to deceive consumers about the dangers of tobacco and
cigarettes would not be dismissed as the defendants had
requested, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Judge Kessler's decision permits the Justice Department's
prosecutors to continue their pursuit of $289 billion in damages
for the commission of advertising fraud in the largest US
government lawsuit filed against cigarette companies.  This case
originated more than three years ago under former President Bill
Clinton and is scheduled to go to trial in September 2004.

Cigarette companies had hoped to lessen the scope of the lawsuit
by asking for partial summary judgment on the advertising-fraud
claims in the case.  The companies argued that advertising and
marketing long have been regulated by the Federal Trade
Commission and therefore should not be a part of the government
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, which is typically used in the United States to prosecute
organized crime.  Judge Kessler gave little or no credence to
this argument.

The suit, against all nine major tobacco companies and two non-
profit groups that conducted joint industry research and public
relations, seeks tough restrictions on the marketing,
manufacture and sale of tobacco products, as well as damages
that are supposed to represent what the industry has earned
since 1971, from 33 million people who became addicted to
cigarettes as minors.

In a statement, Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc.,
formerly Philip Morris Cos., said the major companies will file
summary judgment motions to dismiss the entire case later this
year.

Judge Kessler's ruling came just a day after the major legal
victory for cigarette companies when a Florida appeals court
dismissed the $145 billion award from a class action
representing former smokers.  However, the federal decision,
exemplified by Judge Kessler's ruling, signals that the
cigarette industry, beleaguered by a price war and new
regional ordinances prohibiting smoking in public places, still
faces significant legal troubles.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: MA Court Decertifies Lights Cigarette Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court decertified a
"lights" class action alleging Philip Morris USA improperly
marketed Marlboro Lights cigarettes.  The liability and damages
theories were similar to those in the class action, now on
appeal in Illinois.  The decision came in the Aspinall case,
which was certified as a class action on October 11, 2001.

In today's decision, Justice Janis M. Berry ruled that the trial
judge should not have certified the case as a class action. Said
Justice Berry, "Contrary to the determination reached by the
lower court, individualized factors in this case defy class
certification in the manner that was done here."

"Today's decision is in line with the vast majority of state and
federal courts that have determined that the law simply doesn't
allow smoking cases to be fairly tried as class action cases,"
said William S. Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate general
counsel, Philip Morris USA.  "We look forward to making the same
arguments before the appellate court in Illinois, which will
soon review the Price class action case . We feel strongly that
the case in Illinois should not have been certified as a class
action and the trial was the result of an unfair procedure."

Philip Morris USA asked the Illinois Supreme Court to accept a
direct appeal of the $10.1 billion verdict in the Price case.  
The court is expected to decide soon whether to accept the
direct appeal, which would bypass the state's intermediate
appellate court.  Last week, an appeals court in Miami reversed
and decertified the Engle class action case, which produced a
$145 billion judgment.  The court held that the class did not
meet the legal requirements for certification.

Today's decision came under a provision of Massachusetts law
that allows a review of class certification decisions in advance
of trial.  One other case involving "light" cigarettes, the
Hines case in Florida, has been certified as a class action.  
That class certification is also under review by an appellate
court.


WEGMAN'S FOOD: Recalls Graham Crackers For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of
the following products (all dates and codes):

     (1) Wegmans Honey Graham Crackers, 16 oz.,

     (2) Wegmans Low-Fat Honey Graham Crackers, 14 oz.,

     (3) Wegmans Cinnamon Graham Crackers, 16 oz.,

     (40 Wegmans Low-Fat Cinnamon Graham Crackers, 13 oz.

The products are being recalled because they may contain
sulfites, which are not declared on the label.  No illnesses
have been reported to date.  The recall of these products is of
concern only to those individuals who are sensitive to sulfites.  
Consumption may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in
persons with sulfite sensitivity.

Wegmans Graham Crackers are sold exclusively at Wegmans Food
Markets located in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  

For more details, contact the company by Phone: 1-800-WEGMANS.


*Partnership for Civil Justice Fights For Protesters' Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
At an antiwar march in downtown Washington DC, panic and
confusion sprouts in a crowd of some 30,000 that have a permit
for the march.  The DC police want everyone out of 18th Street
NW, and they push their batons hard against rib cages and backs.  
One woman wails, "I lost my daughter"; a man is pinned face down
on the pavement while an officer strikes him on the head several
times with his nightstick, the Washington Post recounts.

The Washington Posts also recounts, "The crowd surges away from
the batons.  But a thin, intense woman dressed in business black
charges against the tide, directly at the blue police line.  She
whips out a camera and starts snapping, until an officer shoves
her between two cars.  He threatens her with arrest unless she
leaves.  She rushes up to a lieutenant in charge and tells him
his cops are clubbing people."

The photographer is Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.  She and her law
partner and husband Carl Messineo have become the
"constitutional sheriffs" for a new protest generation.  Still
in their thirties, they are outpacing the established free-
speech watchdogs "in this capital of marches, crusades, lost
causes and mass arrests."

The Partnership for Civil Justice is handling four key First
Amendment lawsuits stemming from protests against corporate
globalization, the Bush inauguration and the war in Iraq.  The
causes vary, but the complaints are the same - that the DC
police collaborate with the FBI and other federal agencies to
suppress dissent and that the DC police engage in preemptive
mass arrests, spying and brutality.

Such extreme charges make opposing lawyers roll their eyes.  
Even the ACLU has parted ways with the Partnership, which
marches on, poking under obscure rocks, making interesting
claims. A couple of examples:

    (1) Two men in street clothes, one wearing a black ski mask,
        were caught on an amateur videotape roaming through the
        Bush inauguration crowd.  They shoved bystanders and one
        pepper-sprayed people, seemingly at random.  After two
        years of pressing by the Partnership, the District
        acknowledged the men were on-duty police officers.  One
        has admitted the pepper-spraying, but both deny anything
        they did was improper.  Of course, a critical question
        is do the District authorities think what they did was
        improper.

     (2) FBI agents took notes on protesters boarding buses to
         the Bush inauguration and monitored activists'
         gatherings, including one at the First Congregational
         United Church of Christ on G Street NW, according to
         government records.

These evidentiary nuggets are part of lawsuits in their
preliminary stages in court, and they may end in legal defeat.  
The Partnership lawyers say they are shining a light on methods
the government is applying to non-violent dissent.  That is no
small victory already won.

"We are not waiting 30 years for a COINTELPRO investigation, and
then simply have the authorities say, 'We're sorry,' Ms.
Verheyden-Hilliard said, referring to the FBI's notorious
campaign of disrupting protest groups in the 1960s.  "We are
exposing the misconduct right now so we can stop it."

You don't have to be a radical lawyer to question the tactics.  
Last month, Kathy Patterson, chairwoman of the DC Council's
Judiciary Committee, announced an investigation into how police
handle demonstrations.  Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard and Mr. Messineo
"hold the state accountable, and they are not afraid to push
things as far as they can to get what is right and to challenge
the system," said Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the New
York-based National Lawyers Guild, whose members have
represented activists since the 1930s.

Still, the Partnership has tackled some issues in a way that has
alienated people who would ordinarily be their natural allies in
the legal community that specializes in protester defense.  The
Washington model has been for protesters lawyers to stay out of
the sectarian fray.  Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard, on the leadership
committee of International ANSWER, the coalition that sponsored
the recent antiwar march, spoke from the podium on the day of
that event, in words that cloaked her audience in her
partisanship:  "We know that occupation is not liberation.  We
know this is part of the endless war drive."

There is an element of irony in the complaint by some activists
and lawyers that the Partnership, in its crusade of representing
dissenters, brooks no dissent.  The Partnership and the ACLU
started as teammates in the lawsuit filed by protesters after
the World Bank demonstrations of April 2000, but the ACLU quit
when there were differences among the plaintiffs, some wanting
representation by the ACLU, others the Partnership  - the fact
of the strife highlighting that large differences existed among
the two sets of lawyers.

Last fall, the DC police did again what the Partnership has
alleged before in a lawsuit - surround a crowd and arrest
hundreds.  This time the department's own internal investigation
showed that the crowd was given no chance to disperse.

The Partnership filed a class action.  A rival suit was filed by
the ACLU team that had quit the earlier World Bank case, plus
Covington & Burling.  A judge must pick among them, as they
clash in a mix of legal vision, turf and ego.

The Partnership lawsuit speaks of "systematized mechanisms of
government disruption of free speech and assembly to criminalize
dissent."  The ACLU brief takes the police to task for alleged
illegal conduct at the one mass arrest, but does not allege
broader patterns.  Nor does the ACLU share the Partnership's
theory that federal agencies abetted the police.

The two groups may, one could theorize, be closer in political
belief than meets the eye, but certainly they have different
ideas about the path to take to defend the rights of the
protesters and achieve a "win."

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Allou Healthcare, Inc.
(AMEX:ALU) publicly traded securities during the period between
June 22, 1998 and April 9, 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 28, 1998 and April
9, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Allou
securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results.  In particular, the complaint
alleges:

     (1) that Allou was materially overstating its accounts
         receivables by at least $78 million, thereby
         overstating its revenues and earnings;

     (2) that Allou was materially overstating its inventory,
         thereby overstating its net worth; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 9, 2003, Allou announced that ``its lenders have filed
an involuntary petition for bankruptcy in the Eastern District
of New York under the provisions of chapter 11, title 11, of the
United States Code.''  Following this news, on April 9, 2003,
AMEX suspended trading in Allou's common stock.  Thereafter,
press reports revealed that an outside restructuring expert that
had been retained to run Allou discovered, among other things,
that ``only $30 million of $108 million in accounts receivable
reported by Allou to its banks seemed to be valid.''

Furthermore, on April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it
``believes that the levels of assets collateralizing loans were
substantially overstated in recent reports submitted by the
Company to its senior lenders.  The preliminary results of the
Company's investigation indicate that inventory was overstated
by approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000.  The Company has
retained a forensic accounting firm to assist with the
continuing investigation of this matter.''

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100
Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by
Phone: (612) 339-6900 by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Allou
Healthcare, Inc., formerly Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc.
(AMEX:ALU - News) publicly traded securities during the period
between July 3, 2002 and April 9, 2003, inclusive.

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

On April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it "believes that the
levels of assets collateralizing loans were substantially
overstated in recent reports submitted by the Company to its
senior lenders.  The preliminary results of the Company's
investigation indicate that inventory was overstated by
approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000.  The Company has
retained a forensic accounting firm to assist with the
continuing investigation of this matter."

Those materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results include allegations:

     (1) that Allou was materially overstating its accounts
         receivables by approximately $80 million and its
         inventory by approximately $35 million, thereby
         overstating Allou's revenue and earnings; and

     (2) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were therefore materially false and misleading.

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


BLUE RHINO: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of purchasers of Blue Rhino
Corporation (Nasdaq: RINO) publicly traded securities during the
period between August 15, 2002 through February 5, 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 August 15, 2002 and
February 5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Blue Rhino securities.  

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and financial results.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented:

     (1) that the 10 distributors acquired on November 22, 2002,
         which included Platinum Propane LLC and Ark Holding
         Co., LLC, were not healthy, highly profitable, and
         independent of the Company as portrayed by Blue Rhino.
         In fact, on a combined basis, these distributors had
         lost $2.8 million in the first ten months of 2002 and
         owed Blue Rhino $5 million in cash advances in addition
         to their $2.8 million of debt.  Also, one of the
         acquired distributors (Platinum) was in violation of
         its debt covenants for 2001;

     (2) that the Company misrepresented that the purchase price       
         of this acquisition only totaled $21 million when in
         fact the true price of the acquisition was $32 million;

     (3) that the Company was beginning to see a decline in
         earnings from the Overfill Protection Device (OPD)
         regulations;

     (4) that the Company's earnings projections were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made; and

     (5) that the false and misleading information disseminated
         by the defendants caused Blue Rhino's securities to
         trade at artificially inflated prices.

On February 5, 2003, the Company filed a current report on Form
8-K with the SEC.  Therein, the Company for the first time, and
contrary to its previous statements, disclosed that the true
acquisition price paid by the Company for the 10 distributors in
November 2002 was $32 million; that the acquired distributors
had a net loss of $2,804,000; and that the acquired distributors
were not healthy, highly profitable, and independent of the
Company.  News of the Company's 8-K filing shocked the market on
February 6, 2003.  On that day, shares of the Blue Rhino fell
$1.56 or 11% to close at $12.59, down from its previous day
close of $14.15.

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse First
Boston LLC (CSFB), f/k/a Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
and its Senior Energy Group Analyst Curt Launer on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of NewPower Holdings,
Inc. (Other OTC:NWPW.PK) during the period from October 5, 2000
through December 5, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
and misleading analyst reports on NewPower, an energy company,
without disclosing that CSFB held a 7.9% proprietary interest in
NWP and, at times, that Launer and another analyst owned stock
in NewPower.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, the market price of NewPower common stock was
artificially inflated, maintained or stabilized during the class
period.

On or about April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a complaint charging CSFB with
violating numerous rules of conduct of the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) and the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) by issuing false and misleading analyst
reports on numerous companies, including NewPower.  The SEC's
complaint describes the influence and control exerted by CSFB's
investment bankers on its supposedly independent research
analysts, and details how positive ratings and research reports
on NewPower issued by defendants to the public were influenced
by defendants' conflict of interests in owning stock of
NewPower, which were often not disclosed.

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


EUNIVERSE INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, against eUniverse, Inc.
(NasdaqSC:EUNI) and two of the Company's top officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the common stock of eUniverse during
the period between July 31, 2002 and May 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that eUniverse, a company engaged in
developing and operating a network of Web sites providing
entertainment-oriented content and certain proprietary products
and services, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its publicly reported sales and earnings.  

In particular, it is alleged that defendants overstated the
Company's revenues and net income for the second and third
quarters, and possibly the first, of the Company's fiscal year
ended March 31, 2003.

Before the market opened on May 6, 2003, eUniverse issued a
press release announcing that it intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters, and
possibly the first, of fiscal 2003, and that the restatement
will result in a material adverse change to its previously
reported financial results.

In response to the Company's announcement, the Nasdaq stock
market halted trading in the Company's stock until eUniverse
satisfies Nasdaq's request for additional information.  
Furthermore, on May 8, 2003, eUniverse announced that the
Securities & Exchange Commission has opened an informal inquiry
into the matter, and that director Jeffrey C. Lapin, who had
served on the Company's Audit Committee, had resigned.

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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Lehman Brothers, Inc. and Michael E. Stanek, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of RealNetworks, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:RNWK) between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading analyst reports to the investing public on
RealNetworks, a global provider of software products and
services for internet media delivery, in a bid to win or
maintain lucrative banking and advisory work from the Company.  
From July 1999 through June 2001, Lehman maintained its highest
rating on RealNetworks stock, despite the fact that the stock
lost approximately 90% of its value, falling from a high of
$78.59 per share in February 2000 to a low of $7.06 in April
2001.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the
market price of RealNetworks common stock was artificially
inflated, maintained or stabilized during the class period, to
the injury of plaintiff and the other class members who
purchased the stock at the time relying on the integrity of the
market price of the stock.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Donald R. Hall by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
(800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-
mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:REGN) between March
28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, inclusive, who suffered damages
thereby. The action, is pending against the Company and:

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

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

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

     (4) Neil Stahl (VP) and

     (5) Murray A. Goldberg (CFO)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between March 28, 2000
and March 30, 2003.

Regeneron is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and intends to commercialize therapeutic drugs for the
treatment of serious medical conditions.  During the class
period, Regeneron initiated Phase II clinical trials for its
diet drug AXOKINE for use in obese patients.

The complaint alleges that the defendants claimed that AXOKINE
would help patients lose weight better than a placebo over a
year.  However, more than two-thirds of the 1,467 patients on
the medicine in the clinical trials developed antibodies to it
after three months, which made the medicine less effective.  
Patients taking AXOKINE, including those who developed
antibodies, lost an average 6.2 pounds, compared with 2.6 pounds
for those on a placebo, which the Company admits is similar to
results dieters get with already available pills.  Before
results were released, defendants had led the public to believe
that AXOKINE would have more than $500 million in annual sales.

On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study.  On this news, the
biotechnology company's shares plunged 57%, a market cap loss of
more than $500 million.  However, even defendants' admission was
false, as, in fact, defendants manipulated the results of the
study.  In truth, 73.5% of the patients developed antibodies to
the drug.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Regeneron's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the class period,
increasing to as high as $40 on December 18, 2000, whereby the
Company and its top officers and directors sold more than $430
million worth of their own securities.

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


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Chitwood Harley Files Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqNM:REGN)
between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, inclusive.  The suit
is brought against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and certain of its
officers and directors.

Regeneron is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and intends to commercialize therapeutic drugs for the
treatment of serious medical conditions.  During the class
period, Regeneron initiated Phase II clinical trials for its
diet drug AXOKINE for use in obese patients.  The complaint
alleges that the Defendants claimed that AXOKINE would help
patients lose weight better than a placebo over a year.  
However, more than two-thirds of the 1,467 patients on the
medicine in the clinical trials developed antibodies to it after
three months, which made the medicine less effective.  Patients
taking AXOKINE, including those who developed antibodies, lost
an average 6.2 pounds, compared with 2.6 pounds for those on a
placebo, which the Company admits is similar to results dieters
get with already available pills.  Before results were released,
defendants had led the public to believe that AXOKINE would have
more than $500 million in annual sales.

On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study.  On this news, Regeneron's
shares plunged from $17.31 on March 28, 2003, to close at $7.52
on March 31, 2003, on extremely heavy trading volume.  However,
even defendants' admission was false, as, in fact, defendants
manipulated the results of the study.  In truth, 73.5% of the
patients developed antibodies to the drug.  As a result of the
defendants' false statements, Regeneron's stock price traded at
inflated levels during the class period, increasing to as high
as $40 on December 18, 2000, whereby the Company and its top
officers and directors sold more than $430 million worth of
their own securities.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by
Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia 30309
by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com


SARA LEE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Sara Lee
Corporation (NYSE: SLE) publicly traded securities during the
period 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 August 1, 2002 and
April 24, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sara
Lee securities.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's operations and prospects.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (1) that, despite the Company Reshaping program, the
         Company was still burdened with numerous poorly
         performing businesses and would have to reevaluate its
         various businesses.  Accordingly, Sara Lee did not have
         "the right mix of businesses" in that several material
         businesses were "not growing" or were "in significant
         decline;"

     (2) that the Company's underperforming businesses were
         causing the Company to experience declining results
         and, as a result, the Company would not be growing at
         the rates represented to the market;

     (3) due to a lack of proper internal or financial controls,
         Sara Lee failed to identify or recognize those
         businesses or brands among its portfolio of companies
         that would need to be "run dramatically differently in
         the future;" and

     (4) based on the foregoing, Sara Lee lacked any reasonable
         basis upon which to project it would experience
         "double-digit operating income increase" for fiscal
         2003 among its "five lines of business" or have diluted
         EPS for fiscal 2003 in the range of $1.54 to $1.60.

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

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


SUPERGEN INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of SuperGen Inc.
(NASDAQ: SUPG) common stock during the period between April 18,
2000 and March 13, 2003.

The complaint charges SuperGen and its chairman, president and
chief executive officer with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  SuperGen is a pharmaceutical company
dedicated to the development and commercialization of products
intended to treat life-threatening diseases, particularly cancer
and blood cell disorders, as well as other serious conditions
such as obesity and diabetes.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, one of the
Company's leading drug candidates was Mitozytrex, a proprietary
reformulation of the approved anticancer drug Mitomycin C, which
is used primarily to treat gastric and pancreatic cancers.

SuperGen's reformulation is based on technology designed to
improve the handling characteristics and safety profile of
mitomycin and other anticancer drugs by enhancing the drug's
stability in solution form and "shielding" it at the injection
site.  SuperGen sold millions of shares and notes for $25
million in proceeds so as to provide it with ample monies to
fund its operations.  

However, this all took place prior to revelations concerning the
veracity of the Company's statements regarding Mitozytrex.  The
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA authority to
disseminate information to the public regarding drugs and other
products within the FDA's jurisdiction to address imminent
health dangers or gross deception.  To protect the public health
due to the improper statements by the Company, the FDA notified
the public that SuperGen's product, Mitozytrex, has not been
found by the agency to have benefits that the Company claimed.

The true facts which were actually known by each defendant were
as follows:

     (1) That Mitozytrex caused adverse reactions such as fever,
         anorexia, nausea and vomiting, together with
         myelosuppression and hemolytic uremic syndrome;

     (2) That Mitozytrex was merely a bioequivalent to the
         innovator mitomycin.  It differed from the innovator
         formulation only in that the Company's product
         contained hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPCD).  No
         evidence exists to support the Company's claims that
         Mitoyztrex is superior to the existing formulations of
         mitomycin;

     (3) That there is no existing evidence that the addition of
         HPCD yields any clinical advantage over the original
         formulation of mitomycin;

     (4) That SuperGen's "Extra" technology did not shield the
         drug at the injection site; and

     (5) That the so-called "advantages" of the Company's
         product, including increased solubility, stability and
         shelf-life, were non-existent.

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


SUPERGEN INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
SuperGen, Inc. (NasdaqNM:SUPG) between April 18, 2000 and March
13, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against
the Company and Joseph Rubinfeld.

The Complaint charges that SuperGen and Joseph Rubinfeld
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
SuperGen securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, one of the Company's leading drug candidates was
Mitozytrex, a proprietary reformulation of the approved
anticancer drug Mitomycin C, which is used primarily to treat
gastric and pancreatic cancers.  SuperGen's reformulation was
based on technology designed to improve the handling
characteristics and safety profile of Mitomycin and other
anticancer drugs by enhancing the drug's stability in solution
form and "shielding" it at the injection site.  During the class
period, the Company claimed that Mitozytrex was superior to
existing formulations of Mitomycin.

However, defendants knew that:

     (1) Mitozytrex actually caused adverse reactions;

     (2) as Mitozytrex was merely a bioequivalent to the
         innovator Mitomycin there was no existing evidence that
         Mitozytrex had any clinical advantage over the original
         formulation of Mitomycin;

     (3) SuperGen's technology did not shield the drug at the
         injection site; and

     (4) the so-called "advantages" of the Company's product,
         including increased solubility, stability and shelf-
         life, were non-existent.

While in possession of these adverse facts, SuperGen sold
millions of shares and notes for approximately $25 million in
proceeds.

Finally, at the end of the class period, the FDA issued a
warning to the public revealing that SuperGen's product,
Mitozytrex, had not been found by the agency to have benefits
that the Company claimed.

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: SUPG@bernlieb.com.


WESTAR ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in KS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Westar
Energy Inc. (NYSE: WR) and on behalf of all purchasers of
Western Resources Capital I Cumulative Quarterly Income
Preferred Securities Series A (NYSE: WR_pa) from March 31, 2001
through December 26, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between March 31, 2001
and December 26, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had engaged in certain trades that may
         have violated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
         (FERC) affiliate transaction rules, specifically that
         these transactions involved power sales from one Cleco
         Corporation (NYSE: CNL) affiliate to Westar and then
         back to another or the same Cleco affiliate, these
         transactions totaled approximately $3.4 million in
         2000, $12.6 million in 2001 and $3.8 million in 2002;
         and

     (2) further as a result of a improper accounting practices
         regarding Westar's approximately 88% ownership of
         Protection One (NYSE: POI) a provider of property
         monitoring services, including electronic monitoring
         and maintenance of alarm systems, first and second
         quarter 2002 financial earning results had to be re-
         audited and restated.

On December 26, 2002, the last day of the class period, Westar
announced in a press release that it had received a subpoena
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on December 16,
2002, and that in addition to seeking details on trades with
Cleco and its affiliates, FERC also requested documents
concerning power transactions between Westar's system and
marketing operations, and information on power trades in which
Westar or other trading companies acted as intermediaries.

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



                         *********

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  * * *