CAR_Public/030605.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, June 5, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 110

                           Headlines                            

ACTV INC.: Shareholders Launch Suit V. OpenTV Merger in DE Court
ADAM INC.: GA Court Hears Certification Motion For Stock Lawsuit
ADVANCEPCS INC.: Faces Lawsuit For CA Antitrust Law Violations
AES CORPORATION: VA Court Allows Transfer of Stock Lawsuit to IN
AES CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in GA

ARKANSAS: School Districts Sue Over Pulaski County Desegregation
BAYER CORPORATION: Charged With Contaminated Blood Products Sale
CYTODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Suit, Must Return $12.5M In Profits
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit Over Self-Funded Health Plans in PA
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: CO Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in Part

HALLIBURTON CO.: Nears Settlement For Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiff To File Amended Stock Suit in IN
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Investors File Securities Lawsuit in S.D. IN
LOUISIANA: Panel Dismisses Fen-Phen Lawsuit v. Pennington Clinic
MBNA CORPORATION: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement

NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Payment of Admin Costs
NEW YORK: Agreement Reached On Neponsit Nursing Home Evacuation
OHIO: Board To Free Inmates After Court Orders Correct Hearings
OKLAHOMA: Tulsa Says $3M Fees Unwarranted In Officers' Bias Suit
OKLAHOMA HEALTH: Lawsuit Challenges Fee Scale For Pediatric Care

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NY
SIRNA THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Okays Securities Lawsuit Settlement
SL INDUSTRIES: NJ Residents Sue Over Groundwater Contamination
SPORT-HALEY INC.: CO Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ST. PAUL COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate CA Securities Suits

TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: MA Court Consolidates Securities Suits
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in MA
SUPREME COURT: Justices Save Several Key Cases For Final Month
UNITED STATES: Detainees Allegedly Mistreated After September 11
USA INTERACTIVE: WA Court Consolidates Suits V. Expedia Merger

USA INTERACTIVE: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Hotels.com Merger

                  New Securities Fraud Cases   

ALLIANT ENERGY: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in W.D. WI
eUNIVERSE INC.: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Lodges Stock Suit in NY

                          *********

ACTV INC.: Shareholders Launch Suit V. OpenTV Merger in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTV Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in and for the County of New Castle over
its proposed merger with OpenTV Corporation.  The suit also
names as defendants OpenTV, and the Company's directors.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of ACTV have
breached their fiduciary duties to the ACTV stockholders in
approving the merger agreement and that, in approving the merger
agreement, ACTV`s directors failed to take steps to maximize the
value of ACTV to its stockholders.  The complaint seeks certain
forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation
of the merger.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to defend against the complaint vigorously.  The Company
cannot, however, provide any assurance that it or OpenTV will be
successful.


ADAM INC.: GA Court Hears Certification Motion For Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia heard
arguments for certification of a securities class action filed
against Adam, Inc. and certain of its then officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of the Georgia
Securities Act arising out of alleged disclosure deficiencies in
connection with the Company's initial public offering of common
stock, which was completed on November 10, 1995.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company and its officers and directors have opposed the
plaintiff's written motion for class certification.  A hearing
on the motion was held on January 30, 2003, but the court has
not yet ruled.  The parties are currently exchanging information
during the discovery period.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend the action
vigorously.


ADVANCEPCS INC.: Faces Lawsuit For CA Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePCS, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for Alameda County by a
plaintiff alleging his right to sue as a private attorney
general under California law.  

This case purports to be a class action against the Company and
other pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies on behalf of
self-funded, non-ERISA health plans and individuals with no
prescription drug benefits that have purchased drugs at retail
rates.  The complaint alleges that certain business practices
engaged in by the Company and by other PBM defendants violated
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.  The Company has not yet filed an answer in this case.


AES CORPORATION: VA Court Allows Transfer of Stock Lawsuit to IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia granted AES Corporation's motion to transfer the
securities class action filed against it to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf all persons who purchased
the Company's stock between April 26, 2001 and February 14,
2002, purport to allege that certain statements concerning the
Company's operations in the United Kingdom violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On December 4, 2002 defendants moved to transfer the suit to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  On January 16, 2003, the Court granted defendants'
motion to transfer the suit.  The Company and the individuals
believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted against them and intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


AES CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the securities class actions against AES
Corporation filed an amended suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

In July 2002, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant, and
Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in three class actions
filed on behalf of a class of all persons who exchanged their
shares of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s common stock for shares of
the Company's common stock pursuant to the Registration
Statement dated and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
statements in or omissions from the Registration Statement
covering:

     (1) certain secured equity-linked loans by AES
         subsidiaries;

     (2) the supposedly volatile nature of the price of AES
         stock, and

     (3) AES' allegedly unhedged operations in the United
         Kingdom.

In October 2002, the defendants moved to consolidate these three
actions with other IPALCO securities suits.  On November 5,
2002, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead and local
counsel.  On March 19, 2003, the court entered an order on
defendants' motion to consolidate, in which the court
deferred its ruling on defendants' motion and referred the
actions to a magistrate judge for pretrial supervision.

On April 14, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which adds John R. Hodowal, Ramon L. Humke and John R. Brehm as
defendants and, in addition to the purported claims in the
original complaint, purports to allege against the newly added
defendants violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint also purports to add a claim based on
alleged misstatements or omissions concerning AES' alleged
obligations to Williams Energy Services Co. in connection with
the California energy market.  The Company and the individual
defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted against them and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.


ARKANSAS: School Districts Sue Over Pulaski County Desegregation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven public school districts have filed a lawsuit against the
Arkansas Education Department to stop the agency from using
almost $4 million in school funds to pay off debt associated
with the long-running school desegregation case in Pulaski
County, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The suit filed recently in Sebastian County Circuit Court, says
the equalization funds appropriated each year are to be used to
bring all the school districts to a uniform level of funding.  
"There is no provision in the statutes to permit equalization
funding to be used for any other purpose," the lawsuit says.

The Fort Smith School Board decided to file the lawsuit based on
a 1990 court decision, and 10 other school districts agreed
later to join in.  The state Board of Education voted May 12 to
defer spending nearly $15.9 million from the $1.4 billion
earmarked for equalization funding and charter schools.  From
the $15.9 million, the board voted to put $3.96 million into
court-ordered desegregation expenses.

The lawsuit says that re-designating the use of the funds
violated an unchallenged Pulaski County Chancery Court ruling in
a 1990 class action against the Education Department.  James M.
Llewellyn, an attorney for the Fort Smith district, said the
1990 case set a precedent that state aid cannot be used to pay
fees associated with the 20-year-old desegregation case
involving Pulaski County, Little Rock and North Little Rock
school districts.

"They said you can't take money designated for one thing and
spend it" on another, said Mr. Llewellyn.


BAYER CORPORATION: Charged With Contaminated Blood Products Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of hemophiliacs filed a class action against Bayer
Corporation and several other companies, claiming they knowingly
sold blood contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges
the companies conspired to sell blood-clotting products that
were manufactured using blood from sick, high-risk donors.  The
suit also alleges the companies continued distributing these
products abroad in 1984 and 1985, after they stopped selling
such products in the United States because of the known risk of
HIV and hepatitis C transmission.

Monday's lawsuit was filed on behalf of foreigners who received
the drug, said attorney Robert Nelson.  "This is a worldwide
tragedy," Mr. Nelson said.  "Thousands of hemophiliacs have died
unnecessarily from AIDS, and many thousands more are infected
with HIV or hepatitis C."

The medicine, called Factor VIII concentrate, can stop or
prevent potentially fatal bleeding in people with hemophilia.  
However, early in the AIDS epidemic, the medicine was commonly
made using mingled plasma from 10,000 or more donors.  Because
at the time there was not yet a screening test for HIV, the
virus that causes AIDS, thousands of hemophiliacs were infected.

The lawsuit alleges there were precautions Bayer and the other
companies could have taken, such as screening the donors, but
the companies refused to do so.

As of 1992, the contaminate blood-clotting products had infected
at least 5,000 hemophiliacs in Europe with HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS.  More than 2,000 already had developed AIDS and
1,250 had died from the disease, said the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed less than two weeks after Bayer responded
to an investigation by The New York Times, accusing the company
of selling old stock of the medicine abroad, while marketing a
newer, safer product in the United States.  While the company
said it acted responsibly and in line with the best medical
knowledge at the time, Bayer and three other companies that made
the concentrate, settled 15 years of US lawsuits from people who
took the drug, paying about $600 million, the newspaper said.


CYTODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Suit, Must Return $12.5M In Profits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytodyne Technologies, the makers of the ephedra supplement that
was implicated in the death of a Baltimore Oriole pitcher, must
return $12.5 million in profits on the sales of the substance in
California, the Houston Chronicle reports.

The class action accused Cytodyne of deceiving consumers, by
means of false advertising, with claims of uniquely effective
and substantial weight loss.  The verdict represents all of the
profit the company made in California from 1997 to 2001, on its
ephedra product, Xenadrine RFA-1.

Judge Ronald Styn of San Diego Superior Court, found Cytodyne's
advertising was not supported by scientific research.  Judge Sty
ruled that the company's advertising systematically excluded,
misstated and overstated scientific findings and pushed
researchers it had commissioned to cast findings in the most
favorable light.

Cytodyne argue that its claims were supported by its science,
and that the hyperbole of its advertising was simply "puffery"
of a sort commonly indulged in by other manufacturers.  "There
is nothing illegal about 'puffing,' said Mark Mazzarella, the
lawyer for Cytodyne.

Judge Sty has ordered the settlement fund to be put into a pool
for distribution to consumers; he has not specified how the
monies would be distributed.  Illinois passed a ban on the
substance last week, and the California State Assembly is
considering a similar bill.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suit Over Self-Funded Health Plans in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
on behalf of self-funded health plans.

The plaintiff asserts that certain of the Company's business
practices, including those relating to its contracts with
pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on
pharmaceuticals and those related to its retail pharmacy network
contracts, violated fiduciary duties that the Company allegedly
owes to certain of its clients.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company has not yet filed an answer in this case.  It
believes the allegations in the suit are with merit and intends
to vigorously oppose it.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: CO Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado dismissed in part
the class action filed against Graphic Packaging International
Corporation and certain of its shareholders and directors
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
issuance on August 15, 2000, of the Company's Series B Preferred
Stock to the Grover C. Coors Trust.

The court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the Company for
breach of fiduciary duty while allowing the plaintiff to proceed
against the named directors and shareholders, including certain
Coors Family Trusts.  Currently, discovery is being conducted.  
The plaintiffs have moved to certify as a class action.  
Defendants have opposed the certification of a class.  The court
has not yet ruled on whether it will certify as a class and if
it does, what group of shareholders would constitute the class.

The Company believes that the transaction was in the best
interest of the Company and its shareholders.  The Company
intends to continue to provide a vigorous defense to this
action.


HALLIBURTON CO.: Nears Settlement For Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co. said it is close to settling shareholder
lawsuits that accuse the oil-services company of inflating
revenue for major construction projects, although the company
continues to use the same accounting method and has not resolved
a separate investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, The Wall Street Journal reports.

If the settlement is completed, Halliburton has said it will pay
$6 million to settle any liability related to claims from
shareholders who bought its stock between May 1998, and May
2002, the class period.  Vice President Richard Cheney was
chairman and chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.

The claims arose from Halliburton's practice of booking cost
overruns on construction projects as revenue before the has
agreed to pay such cost overruns.  If the client refuses to pay,
that revenue might never materialize, however, and then must be
recorded as an expense.

Halliburton, based in Houston, said it booked about $434 million
of such revenue from 1998 through 2001, after it adopted this
accounting treatment for large, long-term projects.  Halliburton
began disclosing the accounting practice in 1999, and the SEC is
continuing its investigation into the matter.

The agreement would cover about 21 shareholder lawsuits that
were consolidated in a Dallas federal court under a proposed
class action.  Court approval of the settlement is required.

Settling these lawsuits would reduce further the morass of
asbestos and other litigation that has been a drag on
Halliburton's stock for the past couple of years.  In December,
the company agreed with plaintiff shareholders to pay $4
billion, and to put some of its subsidiaries into bankruptcy, to
resolve more than 300,000 asbestos-related lawsuits.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiff To File Amended Stock Suit in IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended securities class action
against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana.

The suit asserted that former members of the pension committee
for the thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs under the Employment Retirement Income Securities Act
by investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of
IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by AES Corporation.

In February 2003, the court denied the defendants motion to
dismiss the lawsuit. On May 2, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel advised
of its intent to seek to amend the complaint and extend the
discovery deadline.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted against them and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Investors File Securities Lawsuit in S.D. IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors faces a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The
lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of the class of all
persons who exchanged shares of IPALCO common stock for shares
of AES Corporation's common stock pursuant to the Registration
Statement dated and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 16, 2000.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(a), 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-
9 promulgated thereunder based on statements in or omissions
from the Registration Statement covering:

     (1) certain secured equity-linked loans by AES
         subsidiaries;

     (2) the supposedly volatile nature of the price of AES
         stock; and

     (3) AES' allegedly unhedged operations in the United
         Kingdom

The Company and the individual defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


LOUISIANA: Panel Dismisses Fen-Phen Lawsuit v. Pennington Clinic
----------------------------------------------------------------
A diet drug known as fen-phen, short for a combination of the
drugs fenfluramine and phentermine, was used in a weight-loss
clinic at Pennington, in Louisiana, as well as by doctors and
clinics across the country.  The Food and Drug Administration
took fen-phen off the market in the 1990s after Mayo Clinic
researchers found weight-loss patients who took the drug
combination developed deformed heart valves and lung disease.

There was a flurry of lawsuits nationwide, including at least
one filed in Baton Rouge against the weight-loss clinic at
Pennington, as well as against the pharmaceutical distributor,
the drug manufacturer and Albertson's, The Baton Rouge Advocate
reports.

Fen-phen lawsuits naming Pennington, which used the drug in
weight-loss research, were referred to the state's Office of
Risk Management, said the ORM director J.S. "Bud" Thompson Jr.   
Pennington was made part of the legal action in an attempt to
keep the lawsuit in the state court, Mr. Thompson said.

After a medical review panel in Louisiana dismissed the claim
against Pennington, the lawsuit was made part of a class action
now pending in federal court, Mr. Thompson said.

In a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in May, Wyeth, formerly known as American Home Products
Corporations, reported a payout of $12.8 billion to plaintiffs
in the class action, as well as to others who sued on their own
and won or reached private settlements with the company.

Payments have ranged from reimbursement for the cost of the
weight-loss drug to an average of $400,000 for individuals with
claims of serious heart damage, a Wyeth spokesman said.


MBNA CORPORATION: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York, County of New York granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action against MBNA
Corporation alleging that the Bank's advertising of its cash
promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and
deceptive.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble
and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach
of contract, common law fraud and violation of New York consumer
protection statutes.  

In April 2000, summary judgment was granted to the Company on
the common law fraud claim.  The court also certified a class.  
In November 2001, the court gave preliminary approval to the
settlement of this suit for an estimated $18.0 million,
including fees and costs.  


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Payment of Admin Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois approved interim payment to plaintiffs for
administration costs of the settlement of a securities class
action filed against Nanophase Technologies Corporation, certain
of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering of common stock.

The defendants allegedly violated the federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent material
misstatements of fact in connection with soliciting consents to
proceed with the Offering from certain of the Company's
preferred stockholders.  The supposed misrepresentations
concerned purported mischaracterization of revenue that the
Company received from its then-largest customer.

The complaint further alleged that the action should be
maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain
former preferred stockholders whose shares of preferred stock
were converted into common stock on or about the date of the
Offering.  The complaint sought unquantified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees.

In September 2000, each defendant answered the complaint,
denying all wrongdoing.  Following certain discovery, the
Company agreed to settle all claims against all defendants for
$800,000, plus up to an additional $50,000 for the cost of
settlement notices and administration.  The settlement did not
admit liability by any party.  The court ordered final approval
of the settlement in January 2002 and concurrently dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

In January 2003, the court approved interim payment to
plaintiffs of $17,102 in settlement administration costs.  
Because both the settlement and the settlement administration
costs were funded by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance, neither the settlement nor the settlement
administration costs payment have had a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations.


NEW YORK: Agreement Reached On Neponsit Nursing Home Evacuation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five years ago, some 278 elderly and disabled people were rushed
out of a seaside nursing home in what their families have
described as a chaotic scene, occurring with neither warning nor
explanation.  New York City has agreed to pay $5 million to
settle the class action that claims the bewildered residents of
the nursing home suffered extreme trauma, Associated Press
Newswires reports.  Due to the residents' hasty relocations, and
the facilities' lack of communication, families were unable to
locate some of the disabled for weeks.


Under the terms of the settlement, the displaced people from the
Neponsit Health Care Center, who were evacuated in 1998 and are
still alive, will get $18,000 each.  For the more than 100
evacuees who have since died, the payment will go to their
families.

The city claimed that getting the residents out of Neponsit, a
complex in the Rockaways section of Queens, was urgent because
the four buildings making up the center of the complex were in
danger of collapse.  A court injunction, issued later, stopped
the city from demolishing the buildings.  They remain standing,
and empty.

In addition to the payments, the settlement requires the city to
offer former Neponsit residents the chance to move back in, if
the center is ever restored as a nursing home.  The settlement
also requires the city to give advance notice to the state and
federal governments when it intends to transfer 100 or more
residents from a city-run nursing home.


OHIO: Board To Free Inmates After Court Orders Correct Hearings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four of every five inmates who have received special parole
hearings in the last two months as a result of a recent Ohio
Supreme Court ruling, have been notified that they are being
freed, The Plain Dealer (Ohio) reports.  The special parole
hearings were scheduled after the court ordered the Ohio Parole
Board to stop its practice of placing prisoners in higher
offense categories than were merited by their actual
convictions, with a result that many inmates' requests for
release, made at the permitted time, were refused.

Since March 17, the Ohio Parole Board has decided the cases of
106 prisoners, voting to parole 84 of them, according to board
records.  The other 22 will continue their sentences.  While
those early numbers are encouraging to some of the Parole
Board's critics, the optimism was offset by the board's recent
release of a final list of 2,098 inmates who will receive
rehearings as a result of the Supreme Court's order that the
board cease its practice of placing prisoners in higher offense
categories than justified by their convictions.

Charles Clovis, an assistant state public defender, who
represents an estimated 18,000 inmates in the class action
lawsuit based on the misclassification issue, said the number of
inmates entitled to new hearings should be much higher.

The Parole Board has been deluged with calls since The Plain
Dealer published a board-generated list in April of about 5,500
inmates who appeared to qualify for new hearings.    At the
time, however, board and prison officials did caution that the
list was preliminary, that only 3,000 to 4,000 people would get
rehearings.

The board's decision to pare down the list to 2,098 inmates is
certain to generate another round of calls from disappointed
friends and family members.  Richard Spence, the Parole Board
official responsible for compiling the list, said the board was
having difficulty reaching firm numbers because it had not kept
data on which inmates it placed in higher or lower offense
categories -- a piece of information about the maintenance of
data on major steps taken by the board in the course of its
decision-making processes, that is mind-lurching.

The Parole Board has been accused of usurping the authority of
judges by, for instance, taking a defendant who pleaded guilty
to involuntary manslaughter, considering the crime's
"aggravating" and then placing the defendant in a category
corresponding to murder or aggravated murder.  This process has
tacked many extra years onto prisoners' sentences.  This is the
categorization practice that the Supreme Court ordered the
Parole Board to stop for the future and to go back into its
records to fix.

Because of the many calls the board received after The Plain
Dealer published the first list, Mr. Spence said he wished the
paper had waited until a final list was compiled.  "It did make
fir a lot of additional work for us," he said.

Mr. Clovis and many inmates' families said they were grateful
for the information because the nine-member Parole Board has
cloaked itself in secrecy.  The board has not permitted any
outsiders to review its decisions about who qualifies for a
rehearing.

"There is no law that requires the Parole Board to operate in
total secrecy," Mr. Clovis said.  "Only the Parole Board's self-
imposed policies prevent anyone from really knowing what that
government agency is really doing."

Mr. Spence denied that the board has been secretive and said it
has received few complaints from the public about its openness.  
He said the board has decided to post in the prisons, within two
weeks, rosters of all prisoners who will receive hearings as a
result of the Supreme Court decision.  The posted material, he
said, will include special forms that inmates not on the list
can use to petition for a rehearing.


OKLAHOMA: Tulsa Says $3M Fees Unwarranted In Officers' Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The nearly $3 million sought by plaintiffs' counsel in the
recently settled black officers' racial discrimination class
action, is excessive and unwarranted, argues the city of Tulsa
in court documents, and should be "substantially" reduced by the
court, according to a report by the newspaper Tulsa World.

A settlement conference on the attorneys' fees is scheduled
before US District Court Judge Claire Eagan.  It will not take
place in open court.

Tulsa attorney Joel Wohlgemuth, representing the city, said the
city will participate in the settlement conference in good faith
and will attempt to resolve the issue.  However, it appears that
each side will have to compromise dramatically if any agreement
is to be reached.

The city says it thinks plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to
"reasonable" fees and expenses.  The city of Tulsa says it
concurs with plaintiffs that the settlement creates the sort of
"material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties"
required by the US Supreme Court for such recovery.

However, Tulsa's attorneys say the approximately $3 million
sought by seven plaintiffs' attorneys for the almost 10,500
hours they claim to have spent working on the class action is an
"enormous" and unwarranted amount.

"A fee application in a case like this should not present an
opportunity to extract fees based upon unrealistic hourly rates
and statements of time expended which are not representative of
actual time reasonably required for the litigation," said Mr.
Wohlgemuth.

According to a filing, plaintiffs' lead attorney Louis Bullock
4,103.5 hours on the case, while other lawyers devoted between
119 and 1,877 hours.  The document says the hourly rates sought
range from $150 to $300 per hour.  The city says these are not
prevailing or reasonable hourly rates for lawyers in the Tulsa
community.


OKLAHOMA HEALTH: Lawsuit Challenges Fee Scale For Pediatric Care
----------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Claire Egan, in Tulsa, certified as a
class action the lawsuit challenging the Oklahoma Health Care
Authority's (OHCA) fee scale for pediatric care under the
Medicaid program, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Judge Egan decided to expand the plaintiff class to include all
Oklahomans younger than 21 "who have been, or will be, denied or
deprived" of medical assistance as required under the Medicaid
program.  According to the lawsuit, such deprivation will take
place because the fee scale set by OHCA violates federal law,
because it does not match the market rate for services for
patients under 21.  This fee scale, set by the Health Authority,
has resulted in pediatricians limiting or refusing to accept
Medicaid patients under 21.

The agency (OHCA), which distributes the federal money for
Medicaid patients, also failed to develop a coordinated system
of care for Medicaid patients, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs filing the lawsuit on behalf of the patients under
age 21 include the Community Action Project of Tulsa County, the
Oklahoma Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, and 13
children.

The OHCA representatives said that since it has been forced to
cut about $29 million from its budget for the next year--- and
unless more money is appropriated for the agency's budget--- it
cannot raise the amount of monies allocated on the fee schedules
for pay outs to pediatricians for care of Medicaid patients under
21.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003.

The suit alleges that the defendants misstated or omitted
material information concerning the safety and efficacy of
AXOKINE, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Damages are sought in an unspecified amount.

The Company's management believes that the lawsuits are without
merit.  The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot presently
be determined.  Accordingly, no provision for any liability that
may result upon the resolution of these matters has been made in
the accompanying financial statements.


SIRNA THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Okays Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Colorado approved the
settlement proposed by Sirna Therapeutics, Inc. for the
consolidated securities class actions filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock on November 16 and 17,
1999.  The lawsuits, which were substantially identical, alleged
that the Company violated certain federal securities laws based
upon its having made an allegedly misleading announcement on
November 15, 1999.

On November 7, 2002, the Company announced that an agreement
had been reached with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  By
Order filed April 8, 2003, the court approved the settlement,
dismissed all claims in the action with prejudice, and directed
that judgment be entered dismissing the case.


SL INDUSTRIES: NJ Residents Sue Over Groundwater Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
SL Industries, Inc. and SL Surface Technologies, Inc.
(SurfTech), a subsidiary of the Company, faces a class action
filed in Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County.  The
suit also names approximately 37 other defendants in this
action.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiffs
suffered personal injuries as a result of consuming water
distributed from the Puchack Wellfield in Pennsauken, New Jersey
(which supplies Camden, New Jersey).  The suit alleges that
SurfTech and other defendants contaminated ground water through
the disposal of hazardous substances at industrial facilities in
the area.  SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating facility in
Pennsauken, New Jersey.

As with the administrative actions, the Company believes it has
significant defenses against the class action plaintiff's claims
and intends to pursue them vigorously.  Technical data generated
as part of remedial activities at the SurfTech Site have not
established offsite migration of contaminants.  Based on this
and other technical factors, the Company has been advised by its
outside counsel that it has a strong defense against the claims
alleged in the class action plaintiffs' complaint.


SPORT-HALEY INC.: CO Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Colorado refused to dismiss
the securities class action filed against Sport-Haley, Inc. and
three of its officers and directors.  

The action, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly
overstating the Company's financial results, thereby causing its
stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaint further
alleges that the individual defendants are liable by virtue of
being controlling persons of the Company, pursuant to Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The allegations arise out of the Company's restatements of its
financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1999
and 1998, which Sport-Haley previously reported.  The court
appointed a group of investors to act as lead plaintiffs in the
action.

The defendants believe that the action is without merit and
intend to continue their vigorous defense of the lawsuit.  As
previously reported, in December 2001, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the action.  In February 2002, the plaintiffs
filed their first amended complaint, alleging the same
claims.  The defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint in February 2002.

On March 25, 2003, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  No discovery has been conducted in the case to date.  
Based upon information that is currently available, management
is not able to estimate the amount of damages, if any, that
might be awarded to the plaintiffs and the class if the action
were certified by the court as a class action and if the lawsuit
were determined in favor of the plaintiffs.


ST. PAUL COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate CA Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against The St. Paul
Companies filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court in California on behalf of purchasers of its
securities between November 5, 2001 and July 9, 2002, inclusive.

The suits, which also name as defendants Chief Executive Officer
J.S. Fishman and Chief Financial Officer Thomas A. Bradley,
uniformly allege 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 Company securities.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants failed
to make adequate disclosures or take adequate reserves
concerning litigation filed in 1993 in California state court
known as Western MacArthur Co. et al. v. United States Fidelity
& Guaranty Co., et al, Case No. 721595-7 (consolidated with Case
No. 828101-2, Superior Court of California, Alameda County), an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

The Company views these lawsuits as without merit, but cannot,
at present, give any assurance that the court will issue a
judgment in their favor.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: MA Court Consolidates Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Massachusetts consolidated
the securities class actions filed against Transkaryotic
Therapies, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer, Richard F
Selden, and its Chairman of the Board of Directors, Rodman W.
Moorhead, III.

The complaints generally alleged that, during the period from
January 2001 through January 2003, the Company made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information concerning the status and progress for obtaining US
marketing approval of Replagal.  The suits seek equitable and
monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with
interest, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Company expects that expenses related to this litigation
will be significant.  It will defend against the suit
vigorously.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.'s board of directors
face a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in Middlesex
Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The suit
also names as defendant the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer, and the Company.

The complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its
stockholders by disseminating false and misleading statements
to the market concerning the status and progress for obtaining
US marketing approval of Replagal and causing or allowing the
Company to conduct its business improperly.

The Company expects that expenses related to this litigation
will be significant, and intends to vigorously defend the suit.


SUPREME COURT: Justices Save Several Key Cases For Final Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years ago this month, as the court was crafting its
landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California vs.
Bakke, a decision that allowed affirmative action on campuses
but outlawed racial quotas, Justice Lewis Powell sent a personal
note to his colleagues.  "I have tried my hand at a statement,"
Justice Powell said, in order to explain to the reporters
"what in the world the court has done!"  

Now, as the justices enter the last month of their annual term,
their last group of key cases includes a University of Michigan
dispute that will determine whether that 1978 ruling remains the
law of the land, USA Today reports.

Besides the dispute over the University of Michigan's admission
policies that favor minority applicants, the court is weighing
cases that test:

     (1) Whether states may ban intimate relations between
         people of the same sex;

     (2) Whether Congress can require libraries to install
         computer filters that block access to pornographic Web
         sites;

     (3) Whether states can penalize corporations for public-
         relations statements that are misleading;

These are among 24 cases awaiting resolution.  Decisions will be
handed down, typically three to five at a time, mostly on
Mondays.  The court already has issued 51 signed opinions for
the term that began in October.

The most closely watched disputes often come down to the wire in
June because they are the most difficult to resolve.  
Frequently, the justices' struggle is not in deciding who should
win the case, but in settling on the legal rationale that will
become law.  Further, a June deadline forces the justices to
firm up votes that might have been tentative when cast as the
court first privately discussed the case.

The justices have said that they are more inclined to change
their minds, and their votes, at the end of the term, when they
must finally stop the process of circulating draft opinions
among their colleagues and put it all on the line in a ruling
for the public.

At the same time, the justices writing the majority opinions
work hard to "hold five," that is, keep at least five of the
nine justices together as drafts are circulated and legal
rationale is set.


UNITED STATES: Detainees Allegedly Mistreated After September 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Justice Department's inspector general has confirmed the
accusations of civil-rights advocates and defendants' lawyers,
saying the government mistreated hundreds of routine immigration
violators with no connection to terrorism after the September
11, 2001 attacks on the United States, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

Many were held needlessly under severe discipline usually
reserved for the most violent prisoners.  Some were roughed-up
by guards, and more was revealed in a 198-page report issued
recently by the inspector general.  According to the report,
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents made little effort to
distinguish which of 762 illegal aliens were suspected of
terrorist ties.  The Justice Department did little to ensure
prisoners unconnected to terrorism were deported or released
quickly or had access to lawyers or their families, the report
found.

"While recognizing the difficult circumstances," law-enforcement
agencies faced after the terrorist attacks, "we found
significant problems in the way the September 11 detainees were
treated," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine wrote.  For example,
many of the aliens arrested, most of whom had overstayed their
visas, were kept in confinement for months after they had been
ruled deportable, the report said.

Civil-rights advocates welcomed the report.  The Justice
Department officials all but dismissed its concerns.  "We make
no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the
American public from further terrorist attacks," spokeswoman
Barbara Comstock said in a statement.  "The consequences of not
doing so could mean life or death."

This report from the Justice Department's own auditors fueled
the criticism of immigrant-rights advocates and Democrats who
long have accused the Justice Department of trampling the rights
of aliens caught up in the September 11 investigation.

"This report confirms my worst fears about the unaccountable
Ashcroft Justice Department, that its war on terrorism is just a
war on the Constitution and basic human dignities," said Rep.
John Conyers of Michigan, the House Judiciary Committee's senior
Democrat.

The report "basically substantiates what our allegations were:  
that the immigration system is being used to deny constitutional
protections, and that was being sanctioned by the higher-
ups," said Steven Watt, a spokesman for the Center of
Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that filed suit
last year on behalf of seven detainees.  The lawsuit, pending in
a Brooklyn, New York, federal court, seeks class action status
on behalf of all September 11 immigration detainees.

The report found that in New York where the dragnet focused,
officials locked up any illegal alien they came across in the
course of investigation, regardless of whether any links to
terrorism could be shown.  Detainees often were held for weeks
without being told of the charges against them, the inspector
general's report found.

The report, after detailing many charges and allegations, urged
the Justice Department to make changes to ensure it protects
rights of detainees, such as requiring specific reasons for
putting prisoners into maximum-security detention and giving
prisoners a written explanation of jail policies and complaint
procedures.


USA INTERACTIVE: WA Court Consolidates Suits V. Expedia Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court in Washington consolidated six
securities class actions filed against USA Interactive, Expedia,
Inc. and the members of the boards of directors of Expedia.

From March 20 to April 2, 2003, five purported class actions
were filed on behalf of Expedia shareholders, alleging, in
essence, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's public shareholders by entering into and/or
approving the merger agreement, which allegedly does not reflect
the true value of the Company.  The complaints seek to enjoin
consummation of the transaction or, in the alternative, to
rescind the transaction, as well as damages in an unspecified
amount.

In addition, on March 20, 2003, the plaintiffs in a consolidated
action in King County Superior Court in the state of Washington,
which had consolidated eight purported class actions on behalf
of Expedia shareholders filed against Expedia, the Company's,
and members of the board of directors of Expedia as a result of
the Company's announcement in June 2002 of its intention to
enter into an Expedia acquisition transaction and had been
dismissed without prejudice in November 2002, filed a notice of
reinstatement of the action in the wake of the March 19, 2003
announcement of the USA/Expedia merger agreement.  

On April 17, 2003, the court, upon consent of the defendants,
issued an order reinstating the consolidated action.  On
May 5, 2003, the court in the reinstated consolidated action
issued an order, upon consent of the parties to the consolidated
action and the parties to the five recently filed purported
class actions, consolidating those five actions into the
consolidated action.


USA INTERACTIVE: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Hotels.com Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
USA Interactive faces several securities litigation over its
announced merger agreement with Hotels.com.

The first suit was filed on behalf of Hotels.com shareholders
was filed in the Court of Chancery, New Castle County, State of
Delaware, against Hotels.com, the Company, and members of the
board of directors of Hotels.com.

The plaintiff in a purported shareholder derivative action on
behalf of Hotels.com against certain officers and directors of
Hotels.com, which was pending in the District Court of Dallas,
Texas, 160th Judicial District, prior to the announcement of the
merger transaction and had originally asserted derivative claims
relating to Hotels.com's pre-merger earnings guidance, filed an
amended complaint to include class allegations regarding the
merger transaction.

In addition, on April 17, 2003, the plaintiffs in a consolidated
action pending in the Court of Chancery, New Castle County,
State of Delaware, which had consolidated a number of purported
class actions filed against Hotels.com, the Company, and members
of the board of directors of Hotels.com as a result of the
Company's announcement in June 2002 of its intention to enter
into an Hotels.com acquisition transaction, filed a consolidated
and amended class action

The complaints in the two Delaware actions and the class
allegations in the complaint in the Texas action allege, in
essence, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Hotels.com's public shareholders by entering into and/or
approving the merger agreement, which allegedly does not reflect
the true value of Hotels.com.

On April 18, 2003, the Texas action was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  On
May 2, 2003, the plaintiff in this action filed a motion to
remand the case to state court.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases   

ALLIANT ENERGY: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE:LNT) between January
29, 2002 through July 18, 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 material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Alliant securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
inaccurately boasted of the performance of its non-regulated
businesses and represented that those businesses would enhance
the Company's 2002 financial outlook.  Defendants knew or should
have known that its non-regulated businesses were suffering from
serious problems; that its non-regulated businesses operated as
a financial strain on the Company's overall financial results
and could not compensate for any weaknesses in its regulated
businesses; and that the Company, in earnest, still heavily
relied on its utilities businesses for earnings even though the
Company reported otherwise.

On July 18, 2002, the Company, unexpectedly, issued a press
release titled: "Alliant Energy Updates 2002 Adjusted Earnings
Guidance, Affirms Dividend Commitment And Issues Initial 2003
Adjusted Earnings Guidance."  Therein, the Company announced
that it was lowering its 2002 adjusted earnings guidance to a
range of $1.35 - $1.55 per diluted share from its previous
guidance of $2.10 - $2.30.  Market reaction to this news was
swift.  Alliant's stock experienced a sharp 23% decline and
closed at $18.22 per share on July 19, 2002. After the close of
the class period, the Company, on November 22, 2002, issued a
press release wherein it stated that it would shift its
operations to less aggressive growth targets primarily driven by
its utility operations and sell many of its non-regulated
businesses.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.  


eUNIVERSE INC.: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
eUniverse, Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) between July 30, 2002 and May 5,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges eUniverse certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning eUniverse's financial
performance caused eUniverse's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

eUniverse operates a network of entertainment-related Web sites
focused on music, film, and interactive entertainment.  The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented, among other things:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

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

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

On May 6, 2003, before the opening of trading, eUniverse shocked
the market by announcing that it ``intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters of the
year ended March 31, 2003,'' and possibly the first quarter of
fiscal 2003, and attributed the need for restatement to
``incorrect processing of certain transactions within the
Company's accounting system.''  

The Company also told investors not to rely on its reported
financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003,
and that the restated financial results will differ materially
from the previously reported results.  Following this
announcement, the Nasdaq halted trading in eUniverse shares and
stated that trading will remain halted until the Company has
supplied additional information.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
Phone: (310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Lodges Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ:REGN) between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003,
inclusive against Regeneron and certain officers of the Company.

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 March 28, 2000 and
March 30, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Regeneron common stock.  

During the class period, Regeneron initiated and completed Phase
II and Phase III clinical studies of its drug AXOKINE for the
treatment of obesity.  Defendants claimed that the Phase III
study would demonstrate that patients in the study who were
administered AXOKINE over a one year period would lose more
weight than those patients administered a placebo.  Defendants
led the public to believe that as a consequence, AXOKINE would
be more effective in treating obesity than other competing
products and would generate sales of more than $500 million
annually.

However, 73.5% of the patients taking AXOKINE developed
antibodies.  The consequence of the antibodies was to neutralize
or reduce the effectiveness of AXOKINE, thereby dramatically
reducing the number of potential patients that could possibly be
treated by AXOKINE.

On March 31, 2003, as a result of the market's awareness that
antibodies had significantly impacted the efficacy and
marketability of AXOKINE, the price of Regeneron shares dropped
immediately and closed down 56.5% from the previous day.  Over
the next few weeks Regeneron shares would settle having declined
64%, for a market capitalization loss of approximately $464
million.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983, or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com

                              *********

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

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

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora
Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *