---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, June 6, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 111

                           Headlines                            

AFFYMETRIX INC.: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
BEST LIFE: Recalls Viga Supplement for Possible Health Hazards
CALDER'S DAIRY: Recalls Half-and-Half for Possible Health Risks
COCA-COLA: Shareowners File Amended Suit Over 1999 Sales Results

CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Trial in Securities Set March 2004 in FL
DELTA AIR LINES: Supreme Court Won't Intervene In Ticketing Suit
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Settles Suit V. Bulk Graphite Producers

GREAT SOUTHERN: Consumer Class Action Remanded to TX State Court
MERRILL LYNCH: Orix Voluntarily Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
MITSUBISHI PHARMA: Unit Included In Blood Contamination Lawsuit
MOTHERS WORK: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
NEOPHARM INC.: IL Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit

NEW JERSEY: Rights Group Releases Report About Child Care Agency
NTL INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Investors Lodge Securities Suits in E.D. LA
PDS GAMING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over Stock Purchase Offer
POST PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs File Derivative Lawsuit in GA Court

POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Derivative Suit Filed in GA Court
RITE AID: Judge Approves Settlement In Which KPMG Pays $125M
SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Grahams For Undeclared Sulfites
SUPERGEN INC.: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in NE

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Thwarts Plea to Freeze AWI Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Kills Man 50 Years After Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATLA Says Firms, Insurers to Get Good Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Power Station Under Asbestos Probe
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Plan Statement Battles Objections

ASBESTOS ALERT: WA Environment Department Checks Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ironworker Sues Companies for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS ALERT: Asbestos Caused Death of Ex-Vickers Plumber

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANT ENERGY: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI
BLUE RHINO: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA

CYSIVE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in DE Court
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges TX Securities Suit
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Lodges TX Securities Suit
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL.: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in E.D. Texas
DAISYTEK CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in TX

DIVINE INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
DIVINE INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
EUNIVERSE INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
RECOTON CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Stock Lawsuit in FL

RECOTON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Stock Lawsuit in M.D. FL
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Files Lawsuit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Suit in NY

                         *********


AFFYMETRIX INC.: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affymetrix, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The defendants in this case include the Company,
three of its executive officers and one outside director.

The lawsuit relates to the Company's January 29, 2003
announcement of its financial expectations for 2003 and
subsequent announcement on April 3, 2003, updating its financial
guidance for the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the Company's January 29, 2003
financial guidance was misleading and GlaxoSmithKline plc sold
Company shares during the first quarter of 2003 while in
possession of material nonpublic information.

The Company believes that the claims set forth in this lawsuit
are without merit.  However, the Company's failure to
successfully defend itself against these allegations could
result in a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition and results of operations.


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: 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 Airnet Communications Corporation, the
members of the underwriting syndicate involved in its initial
public offering and two of its former officers.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of
a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired shares of
the Company's common stock between December 6, 1999 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In
substance, the allegations are that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering charged commissions in excess
of those disclosed in the initial public offering materials and
that these actions were not properly disclosed.


On July 15, 2002 the Issuers' Committee filed a Motion to
Dismiss on behalf of all issuers and individual defendants.  In
February 2003, the Motion to Dismiss was granted in part (with
respect to AirNet) and denied in part (with respect to all
issuer defendants).  Discovery in this litigation is commencing
while settlement talks between the plaintiffs and the issuers
continue.  The claims against the Company's two former officers
named in the class action lawsuit have been dismissed without
prejudice.

The Company is not able to predict the impact, if any, the
ultimate resolution of this lawsuit may have on its financial
position or future results of operations.  


BEST LIFE: Recalls Viga Supplement for Possible Health Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Life International, Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Food and Drug Administration by warning its consumers not
to purchase or consume the product known as Viga.  This product
which is being marketed as a dietary supplement contains the
unlabeled drug ingredient sildenafil, which may pose possible
serious health risks to some users.  Viga is sold in bottles of
30 tablets, distributed by Best Life International Inc.  This
product is being promoted for increasing desire, confidence and
sexual performance.  The product is sold without medical
prescription.

The interaction between nitrates and sildenafil can result in
profound and life-threatening lowering of blood pressure.  The
use of nitrates in any form is an absolute contraindication for
sildenafil users.  The potential for this product to be taken by
unknowing nitrate user is real, since erectile dysfunction is
often a concurrent condition in patients with diabetes,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smokers and patients with ischemic
heart disease.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: Reparto
Antillano, Calle 1ra # 188, Mayaguez, PR 00680 or by Phone:
1-787-832-3287.


CALDER'S DAIRY: Recalls Half-and-Half for Possible Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the best interests of their customers, Calders Dairy is
requesting the return of any pints of Half-and-Half with the
"sell by date" of May 29, 2003.  Product may not have been
adequately processed and may present a health hazard if
consumed.

This particular dated product did not meet both the State Of
Michigan requirements and the company's highest safety
standards.  The concern was found through routine monitoring
conducted by the State Of Michigan.  No illnesses have been
reported in connection with this problem.

The Company apologized for any inconvenience this may cause and
assured their customers that this is a voluntary recall for the
benefit of their customers.  The product in question has been
removed from store shelves.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(313) 381-8858.


COCA-COLA: Shareowners File Amended Suit Over 1999 Sales Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some Coca-Cola shareowners' have filed an amended class action,
claiming the company improperly inflated the sales results in
1999, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.  The original
lawsuit, filed in October 2000, has been wending its way through
the US District Court in Atlanta, ever since; and, last year,
part of that same lawsuit was dismissed.

However, the process has started afresh with an amended
complaint.  Some things have changed since the lawsuit was first
filed, including the departure of two of the four Coca-Cola
executives named as defendants.  The allegations remain much the
same, and Coca-Cola still dismisses them as unfounded.

The lawsuit alleges that top Coca-Cola leaders forced several
major Coke bottlers to buy more than $400 million in excess
beverage concentrate in 1999.  The lawsuit further alleges this
was intended to boost Coke's revenue, net income, earnings per
share and, ultimately, stock price.  Coke makes money by selling
the concentrate to bottlers, who then use the product to make
the finished beverages.

The amended complaint includes details in support of the
original allegations.  The lawsuit does not identify monetary
damages.

The shareowner lawsuit names Coke as a defendant along with four
officials.  Two of the defendants are no longer employed at Coke
- former Chief Executive Officer Douglas Ivester and former
President Jack Stahl.  The other two are still with Coke -
current Chairman and CEO Douglas Daft and James Chestnut,
President of Coke's Pacific Rim group.

The lead plaintiff is Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of
Philadelphia.  The law firms involved in the case specialize in
class actions - Chitwood & Harley of Atlanta and Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which has offices in several cities.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of anyone who
purchased Company stock between October 21, 1999, and March 3,
2000, the class period.  During that time period, Coke's stock
started at $54.31 and ended up at $49.  On December 3, 1999, it
closed at $68.31, the last trading day before Mr. Ivester
announced his retirement.

The lawsuit claims Coke leaders tried to inflate results to
prevent erosion in the company's stock price.  The lawsuit also
alleges top officials were "irresponsibly bullish" in talking
about company performance.

Many big firms like Coke have been targets of shareowner suits,
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.  They can take years
to go through the courts and generally are tough to win.  Some
succeed; as, witness, Lucent, which agreed, in March, to settle
a large number of shareowner suits for a total of $568 million.


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Trial in Securities Set March 2004 in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Cyberguard Corporation is set for March 2004 in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during various
periods from November 7, 1996 through August 24, 1998.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that as a result of
accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue
recognition policies, the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading and that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly published these financial
statements which caused the Company's common stock prices to
rise artificially.

The action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Subsequently, the
defendants, including the Company, filed their respective
motions to dismiss the consolidated suit.  On July 31, 2000, the
court issued a ruling denying the Company's and Robert L.
Carberry's (the Company's CEO from June 1996 through August
1998) motions to dismiss.  The court granted the motions to
dismiss with prejudice for defendants William D. Murray (the
Company's CFO from November 1997 through August 1998), Patrick
O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO from April 1996 through October
1997), C. Shelton James (the Company's former Audit Committee
Chairman), and KPMG Peat Marwick LLP (KPMG).

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order.  The court ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration that the previously
dismissed defendants William D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and
C. Shelton James should not have been dismissed from the action
and shall be defendants in this action under the control person
liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
that the plaintiffs may amend the consolidated suit to bring
claims against C. Shelton James under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs filed their second consolidated suit.  On August
14, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and certified the class to include all investors
who acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996
and August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such
stock.  The trial is scheduled for March 2004.  The parties are
currently conducting discovery.

The Company denies the allegations and believes that in the
event that it unsuccessful defends itself, insurance coverage
will be available to defray a portion, or substantially all, of
the expense of defending and settling the lawsuit or paying a
judgment.


DELTA AIR LINES: Supreme Court Won't Intervene In Ticketing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
When the US Supreme Court refused to intervene in a class action
against Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines over so-called
hidden-city ticketing, the lawsuit over such ticketing would be
allowed to proceed, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

The two airlines had appealed the decision last year of the US
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which allowed the class
action status to stand for an antitrust lawsuit seeking more
than $4 billion in damages from US Airways, Delta and Northwest.

The lawsuit is Chase vs. Northwest Airlines, which alleges that
the airlines engaged in anti-competitive activity through rules
that prohibit passengers from booking a connecting flight in
order to use only part of the cheaper ticket to fly to a hub
city.  The suit alleges that airlines often charge a premium for
direct flights to hub cities.

For instance, a traveler intending to fly on Delta from Atlanta
to Dallas on Wednesday, could save almost $100 by booking a
connecting flight to Los Angeles, then getting off the plane in
Dallas.  A round trip ticket to Dallas was $351, vs. $256 for
the flight to Los Angeles with a stop in Dallas.

Most airlines have long barred the practice, saying it violates
the fare contract, distorts flight statistics and wastes seats
on outbound flights.

In certifying the class action status of the lawsuit, however, a
US District Court judge in Detroit said such maneuvers could
amount to "self-help" by customers to avoid an allegedly
unlawful pricing scheme by airlines to take advantage of their
near-monopoly status at hub airports.

The lawsuit may still face some obstacles before it reaches
trial.  Court rules require the plaintiffs to notify
individually the potential class action plaintiffs by mail.  
They could number in the millions.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESS Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
asked the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed on behalf of holders of the Company's shares from
January 23,2002 to September 12,2002.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and failed to
disclose material facts during the alleged class period.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the class and
unspecified costs and expenses.

On March 11, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the federal action pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The
motion is currently set for hearing on May 23, 2003.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. and certain of its
executive officers and directors asked the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against them.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  The alleged claims were
brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section
11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The suit alleges that
the defendants intentionally:

     (1) failed to properly account for revenue accrued from
         Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.,

     (2) failed to properly account for a non-monetary
         transaction, pursuant to which intellectual property
         rights were obtained, in exchange for cash and
         advertising credits; and

     (3) failed to properly record the fair value of technology
         investments and marketable securities acquired in
         connection with the Company's acquisition of TV Guide.

Plaintiffs allege that this had the effect of materially
overstating the Company's reported financial results.  The court
appointed the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana and the
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit as co-lead
plaintiffs, and appointed Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossman, LLP, as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The Advisors plaintiff group filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking to reverse
the lead plaintiff determination.  The issue is now before the
Ninth Circuit.


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Settles Suit V. Bulk Graphite Producers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graftech International Ltd. agreed to settle the consolidated
antitrust class action filed against them and other producers of
bulk graphite in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In the bulk graphite lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege the
defendants violated US federal antitrust law in connection with
the sale of bulk graphite and seek, among other things, an award
of treble damages resulting from such alleged violations.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Consumer Class Action Remanded to TX State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Great Southern Life Insurance
Company was remanded to the First Judicial District Court of
Santa Fe, New Mexico.  

The suit was filed against Great Southern and another entity,
Ohio Life, that is not affiliated with the Company, on behalf of
all current owners of individual insurance policies issued by
the Company who paid premiums on a monthly, quarterly or semi-
annual basis.

The suit alleges that the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive
and illegal practices by allegedly failing to disclose the
dollar amount and effective annual percentage rate of the extra
cost associated with paying premiums on a modal, or installment,
basis.  The plaintiff has requested for herself and the putative
class an award of damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, interest, injunctive relief and declaratory
relief.


MERRILL LYNCH: Orix Voluntarily Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORIX Capital Markets LLC filed a motion to dismiss without
prejudice its securities class action filed in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 1999-C1 and received a Prospectus dated
October 15, 1999 and a Prospectus Supplement to Prospectus dated
October 15, 1999.  

The class period begins with the initial offering of the
Certificates and continues through September 3, 2002.  The suit
names as defendants:

     (1) UBS Warburg, Inc.,

     (2) UBS Warburg Real Estate Securities Inc. (f/k/a Paine
         Webber Real Estate Securities, Inc., and

     (3) UBS PaineWebber, Inc.

The suit arises in connection with a November 1, 1999
transaction in which the former Paine Webber entities
transferred loans to a trust.  The suit alleges that the
Defendants committed securities fraud by making material
misrepresentations and omissions about the quality of the loans
Paine Webber transferred to the trust.  The complaint asserts
claims based on violations of:

     (i) the Exchange Act ss. 10(b) (15 U.S.C. ss.78j) and Rule  
         10b-5 (17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b-5);

    (ii) violation of the Exchange Act ss. 20(a) (15 U.S.C. ss.
         78t);

   (iii) violation of the Securities Act ss. 11 (15 U.S.C.
         ss.77k);

    (iv) violation of the Securities Act ss. 12(a)(2) (15 U.S.C.
         ss.77l); and

     (v) violation of the Securities Act ss. 15 (15 U.S.C.
         ss.77o)

It seeks as relief rescission of the plaintiff class' investment
in the Certificates, or in the alternative, actual damages at
least in the amount of $549,923,000.

ORIX previously posted notice of the federal lawsuit and invited
other members of the alleged Class to provide relevant
information, to join the lawsuit, and/or to move to serve as a
lead plaintiff. To date, no other Class member has expressed an
interest in participating in the federal suit or entered an
appearance in the suit. Further, no Class member has provided
requested information relevant to the lawsuit.

ORIX has filed a motion to dismiss the federal class action case
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and 41(a).  ORIX
will, however, continue to pursue breach of representation and
warranty claims on behalf of the Trust in a pending state court
action.  As part of that suit, ORIX has pending on its own
behalf an individual fraud claim under Texas state law.

For more details, contact E. Lawrence Vincent, Texas State Bar
No. 20585590 by Mail: 901 Main Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas
75202-3775 by Phone: 214-754-1900 or by Fax: 214-754-1933


MITSUBISHI PHARMA: Unit Included In Blood Contamination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Mitsubishi Pharma Corporation is one of seven
companies being sued for selling contaminated blood products in
a class action recently filed in a San Francisco federal court,
Kyodo News reported from Los Angeles, according to Dow Jones
International News.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 15 European hemophiliacs, but
their lawyer, Robert Nelson, said thousands of Japanese also
could be named as potential plaintiffs for having contracted
hepatitis C from unheated blood products sold by Mitsubishi
Pharma subsidiary, Alpha Therapeutic Corporation, as well as
Bayer Corporation, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and its
subsidiary, Kyodo reports.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation for damages
they suffered, but Mr. Nelson did not disclose an amount.  The
plaintiffs also accuse the companies of negligence and
fraudulent concealment.

Although 16 Japanese hemophiliacs who contracted hepatitis C
through tainted blood products filed a lawsuit against the
Japanese government and three drug makers, including Mitsubishi
Pharma, in October 2002, no Japanese are named in the American
suit.  However, plaintiffs' lawyer, Robert Nelson, hopes
Japanese hemophiliacs will join the worldwide class action.

The companies also are accused of continuing to distribute blood
products in Japan, other parts of Asia and Latin America, in
1984 and 1985, despite ceasing to sell the products in the
United States due to HIV and hepatitis risks.  The lawsuit was
filed in California, because defendants such as Alpha
Therapeutic Corporation are based and conduct business in the
state.


MOTHERS WORK: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mothers Work, Inc. reached a settlement in the class action
filed against it in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County.  The complaint alleged that, under California
law, certain former and current employees should have received
overtime compensation, meal breaks and rest breaks.

In March 2003, the Company, without admitting liability, entered
into a settlement agreement in connection with this action.  The
agreement is subject to court approval.  The Company, as
previously disclosed, incurred a charge of approximately
$800,000 relating to this settlement during the three months
ended March 31, 2003.


NEOPHARM INC.: IL Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division dismissed in part the consolidated
securities class action filed against Neopharm, Inc. alleging
various violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's public statements during the period from
September 25, 2000 through April 19, 2002 as they relate to the
Company's LEP drug.  The suit names as defendants:

    (1) John N. Kapoor, Chairman of the Company,

    (2) James M. Hussey, the Company's President and CEO, and

    (3) Dr. Imran Ahmad, current Chief Scientific Officer and
        Senior Vice President of Research and Development

The Company moved to dismiss the suit on November 4, 2002, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in February 2003.  
Dr. Kapoor was dismissed from the lawsuit at that time.  No
trial date has been set.

In the opinion of management, resolution of this litigation is
not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on the
results of operations or financial position of the Company, as
the Company currently maintains insurance covering its officers
and directors.


NEW JERSEY: Rights Group Releases Report About Child Care Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------
State officials and management at the New Jersey Division of
Youth and Family Services (DYFS) have known about problems at
the agency for years, but never took action to correct them,
according to a report released recently by a children's rights
group, Children's Rights Inc., Associated Press Newswires
reports.

Children's Rights Inc. also has a class action pending against
the state, which seeks reforms at DYFS.  Two weeks ago the group
released findings that said the agency routinely put children at
risk because of botched investigations by the internal unit that
looks into reports of abuse.

The recently released report was based on management data turned
over to Children's Rights as part of the lawsuit and depositions
given by top DYFS managers.  The information was reviewed for
the group by Ira Schwartz, Temple University provost and an
expert in child welfare.  Mr. Schwartz titled his report, in
turn, New Jersey's Indifference, and said children in foster
care are abused and neglected by DYFS-sanctioned caretakers at
"an alarming rate."

Mr. Schwartz's report also said that children in DYFS custody
languish in foster care for years without adequate planning for
permanent placement, and are denied even basic services to
address their needs.

"This review concludes that all of these problems are a result
of egregious management ineptitude and indifference," Mr.
Schwartz's report said.

A spokesman for the state Department of Human Services said
officials took exception to Mr. Schwartz's claim that nothing
was being done to fix the problems.  The spokesman said the
report made recommendations that already are being implemented.

"As we have said before, the transformation will not happen
overnight," said the spokesman Joe Delmar said.

The agency has been under intense pressure for reform since
January when the decomposed body of a 7-year-old boy was found
in a storage bin in a Newark home.  Faheem Williams died after
his case was closed by DYFS and reports of problems in the home
were not investigated.

Governor James McGreevey formed an 18-member panel to evaluate
the effectiveness of reforms at DYFS, make recommendations and
release bimonthly public reports.


NTL INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against NTL, Inc. and certain
of its officers have been consolidated in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.  The suit was
filed on behalf of purchasers of its securities between August
9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive.  

The suit 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 9, 2000 and
November 29, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities, according to an earlier Class Action
Reporter story.

The suits generally allege that the defendants failed to
accurately disclose NTL Europe's financial condition, finances
and future prospects in press releases and other communications
with investors prior to filing its Chapter 11 case in federal
court.


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Investors Lodge Securities Suits in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. faces several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from November 14, 2002 to March 18,2003.  
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., the Company's Chairman
         of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., the Company's Chief
         Operating Officer, and

     (3) Thomas J. Sandeman, the Company's Chief Financial
         Officer

In each of these complaints, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company and the other defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, by allegedly making false and misleading statements
about practices affiliated with OrthAlliance, and by recognizing
revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles, in order to inflate the market price of the
Company's common stock.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees.


PDS GAMING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over Stock Purchase Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against PDS Gaming
Corporation voluntarily withdrew the suit, which was pending in
the District Court, Clark County, Nevada in connection with the
proposal submitted by a management group consisting of Johan P.
Finley, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lona
M.B. Finley, the Company's Executive Vice President, Secretary
and Chief Administrative Officer, and Peter D. Cleary, the
Company's President, Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer to
acquire all of the approximately 69% of the outstanding shares
of the Company's common stock not already owned by the
Management Group.

The complaint alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors violated their fiduciary duties in approving the
Letter of Intent with respect to the proposal submitted by the
Management Group, and sought to enjoin the Management Group from
acquiring the shares.  

On April 25, 2003, the Company announced the voluntary dismissal
of this lawsuit by the plaintiff.  Another similar lawsuit is
still pending in the same court.


POST PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs File Derivative Lawsuit in GA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative and purported class
action against Post Properties, Inc. asked the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia for voluntary expedited
discovery in the suit.  The suit also names as defendants
members of the board of directors of the Company, including John
Williams.

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

The defendants have not yet filed an answer.  Management of the
Company believes that any resolution of pending proceedings or
liability to the Company which may arise as a result of the
suit, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial position.


POST PROPERTIES: Shareholder Derivative Suit Filed in GA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post Properties faces a shareholder derivative and purported
class action filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia.  The suit also names as defendants certain
members of the board of directors of the Company.  Mr. Williams
was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control
and corporate waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.

The defendants have not yet filed an answer.  Management of the
Company believes that any resolution of pending proceedings or
liability to the Company which may arise as a result of these
proceedings, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations or financial position.


RITE AID: Judge Approves Settlement In Which KPMG Pays $125M
------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell approved a legal
settlement in which the accounting firm KPMG will pay $125
million to resolve allegations that its audits of the Rite Aid
Corporation misled investors, Dow Jones International News
reports.  Current and former stockholders in Rite Aid, lost
millions of dollars when the company revealed that it had
misstated its earnings by $1.6 billion.   KPMG's audits failed
to catch the discrepancies.  The accounting firm, which was not
charged in the case, said it would be difficult for any auditor
to uncover misdeeds by a company intentionally manipulating its
records.

Attorney Sherry R. Savett said, "It won't be everything they
lost.  It will just be a percentage, but not an insignificant
one."

Judge Dalzell approved $31.7 million in legal fees for Ms.
Savett's Philadelphia firm, Berger & Montague, and its partner
in the case, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.  Final
approval of KPMG's settlement had been held up by a stockholder
who argued that the legal fees, which the court said amounted to
nearly $2,500 per hour, were too high.

Rite Aid already has agreed to pay stockholders $207 million to
settle a related class action.  The law firms also were awarded
a 25 percent fee in that case.

Federal prosecutors charged Rite Aid's former chairman Martin L.
Grass, and other top executives, with conspiring to inflate
profits and understate losses at the nation's third-largest
drugstore company.  Mr. Grass has agreed to pay $1.45 million to
settle the civil allegations.   He is scheduled to stand trial
this month on the criminal charges, to which he has pleaded
innocent.


SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Grahams For Undeclared Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. has voluntarily removed from sale at
all Shaw's and Star Market store locations the 16oz. box of
Shaw's Chocolate Grahams.

Shaw's issued the recall because the Chocolate Grahams may
contain excessive quantities of Sodium Metabisulfite.  
Consumption of this product may cause a serious reaction in
persons with sulfite sensitivity.

The UPC on the box of Chocolate Grahams is 045674 26249.
Customers who purchased the Shaw's Chocolate Grahams may bring
the product back to the store for a full refund.  Customers who
have questions or concerns about the recall can contact Shaw's
Consumer Response Center's toll free number, 1-888-431-7429.


SUPERGEN INC.: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supergen, Inc. and its President and Chief Executive Officer
faces several class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking
unspecified damages.

The suits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period
of April 18, 2000 through March 13, 2003, inclusive (except that
one complaint specified the period as between April18, 2000
through March14, 2003).  The complaints allege that during such
period, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose certain key information
regarding Mitozytrex.

The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought.  The
complaints have not yet been consolidated, the Company has not
yet answered any of the complaints, discovery has not commenced,
and no trial date has been established.  The Company denies the
allegations.  Although it believes that the lawsuits will not
have a material impact on its financial condition, the Company
cannot predict their outcomes with any certainty.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in NE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. faces several securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska, in connection with the re-audit and
restatement of the Company's prior period financial statements.

Based on the two complaints which are publicly available, the
Company understands that the plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that certain of the
Company's Exchange Act reports and press releases contained
untrue statements of material facts, or omitted to state facts
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, with
regard to the Company's revenues and expenses during the class
period.

The complaints allege that during the purported class periods,
the Company and the named officers and directors misrepresented
the Company's historical financial condition, results of
operations and its future prospects, and failed to disclose
facts that could have indicated an impending decline in the
Company's revenues.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
damages, interest, fees, costs and rescission.  The class
periods stated in the two complaints are January 21, 1999
through November 18, 2002 and December 29, 1999 through August
14, 2002.

The Company and four of the individual defendants have been
served with process with respect to one case only.  The Company
and the individual defendants that have been served plan on
filing a motion to dismiss on or before their required answer
dates.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Thwarts Plea to Freeze AWI Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Randall J. Newsome decided to let Armstrong World
Industries go on with its own formulas to solve its asbestos
problems.  Judge Newsome denied the request of Eugene R. Joseph,
an Armstrong shareholder, to freeze action on Armstrong's
proposed reorganization until Congress acts on an asbestos
legislation.

The bankruptcy judge, by rejecting that motion as well as
approving a key document that must be prepared for creditors and
claimants who will vote on the plan, paved the way for their
vote this summer.  If the plan is approved by creditors and
claimants, as expected, then the plan will come before the
bankruptcy court for approval at a confirmation hearing,
tentatively scheduled for mid-November.  Court approval of the
plan is the last step before emerging from bankruptcy.

"If I had a crystal ball, or if I had 40 crystal balls, I
wouldn't know what Congress is going to do," Judge Newsome told
Mr. Joseph, a computer scientist and entrepreneur who owns
52,000 Armstrong shares.

"So, the answer to your objection is, no, I'm not going to wait
to see what happens in Congress.  But, as a practical matter,
we're going to have to wait, because of the timing of the
confirmation hearing," the judge said.

Under bill proposed by US Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah
Republican, Armstrong apparently would pay more than
$900,000,000 into the fund, over 27 years, although this could
not be confirmed Friday with the company, Sen. Hatch's office or
the Judiciary Committee said.  If true, that would be about half
of the value of the cash, notes and stock that Armstrong would
set aside to pay asbestos victims under its own bankruptcy
reorganization plan.  However, under certain circumstances, the
Hatch bill would allow a company in bankruptcy such as Armstrong
to go forward with its own plan for paying asbestos victims.

Armstrong was pushed into bankruptcy in December 2000 by the
soaring cost of settling tens of thousands of claims from people
alleging personal injury from exposure to the company's asbestos
insulation.  Last November, Armstrong announced its solution --
a complex and consensual plan, negotiated with representatives
of the asbestos victims and the company's unsecured creditors.  
The plan calls for dissolving the current Armstrong Corporation,
canceling its current stock and replacing them with a new
corporation and new stock, most of which would be owned by a
newly formed trust.  All asbestos claims against Armstrong would
be channeled to the trust for payment, thereby permanently
freeing Armstrong of that multi-million-dollar expense.

Last week, Armstrong cut the proposed sums it would set aside
for the trust, the company's unsecured creditors and its current
shareholders, citing weak recent profits and a dimmer outlook.  
Mr. Joseph, in an interview after the hearing, said he sought to
delay action on the Armstrong plan because the Hatch bill would
cost Armstrong less and not require canceling the current
Armstrong stock.

"I believe that the company is fundamentally sound," said Mr.
Joseph, 52, a Montreal-area resident.  Mr. Joseph, who launched
and took public a software company named Virtual Prototypes,
whose products automatically generate instrument-panel displays
in cars and planes, estimated he's lost $300,000 on his
Armstrong stock.  

Another motion from Mr. Joseph, asking the court to postpone
action on the Armstrong plan until a committee of independent
shareholders could be appointed to review the validity of the
asbestos "pool" size, also was rejected by Judge Newsome.  
Instead, Judge Newsome went forward with giving final approval
to a key document named the "disclosure statement" that will go
to the voters weighing whether to support the plan.  The
disclosure statement, required by bankruptcy law, must contain
adequate information for a reasonable person to make an informed
decision about the plan.

The contents of the dense, 118-page disclosure document, plus
exhibits, have been the focus of three earlier hearings, with
much of the time spent on adding language that describes the
fate of Armstrong's asbestos-insurance policies.  Following a
few more courtroom exchanges Friday among attorneys for
Armstrong and its insurers, culminating in more additions of
text, Judge Newsome approved the document.

Next, according to a tentative timetable proposed by Armstrong
at the hearing, ballots and disclosure statements will be sent
to voters in about three weeks.  The tentative deadline for
voting is Sept. 18, leading to the confirmation hearing in mid-
November.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Kills Man 50 Years After Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Leeke, 71, died of an industrial disease that has always
been linked to asbestos.  Mr. Leeke was diagnosed of a cancer
caused by asbestos exposure when he was working on Crewe's
railways more than 50 years ago.  Marie Leeke, his widow, spoke
after it was discovered that the father-of-two had died from
mesothelioma.

Mr. Leeke was popular in Crewe as a salesman.  He became the
company director of Websters, a motorcycle firm on Mill Street
but it was his job at the British Rail's engineering works at
Crewe that exposed him regularly to asbestos.  

Mrs. Leeke, of Westgate Park, Hough, said her husband was
diagnosed with mesothelioma after having difficulty breathing in
2000 but she said he had no idea his 12 years working at Crewe's
rail works in the 1940s and 50s had effectively sealed his fate.  
Mrs. Leeke said her husband was very angry and eventually became
bitter with the way things turned out.

She added, "When you are fit and well and somebody tells you
there's no treatment and you're going to die you have to go
through all the stages of anger and disbelief . But he was a
very strong person, very independent, and fought on bravely
until the end."

Mrs. Leeke spoke of her pride in her husband of 19 years, who
was a well-liked and respected figure around Crewe.  A talented
artist, Mr. Leeke had been advised to go on to art college when
leaving school, but chose instead to "find a trade" and became
an apprentice fitter with British Rail in 1946 when he was 14.  
His employment saw him working with steam locomotives that were
lined with asbestos and having to move asbestos lagging.  No
breathing equipment was given to workers to protect them.

The family was advised to take legal advice immediately after
Mr. Leeke was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2000, and
compensation was agreed and paid out before his death.  Cheshire
coroner Nicholas Rheinberg recorded a verdict of industrial
disease of mesothelioma, which he described as a "wicked
disease."

Mr. Rheinberg said, "At the time British Rail was a huge
employer in the area and your husband gives an all too familiar
description . Asbestos was used so extensively as a lagging
material that anyone working in that vicinity would have had
exposure to it."

Mrs. Leeke complimented staff at Leighton Hospital and St Luke's
Hospice who helped her and her husband through the difficult
times.  She said: "I can't praise the hospital and the GPs who
helped us too much."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATLA Says Firms, Insurers to Get Good Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companies sued for asbestos and their insurers "will laugh all
the way to the bank" under the asbestos bill proposed by Sen.
Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America (ALTA).

ATLA presumes the bill introduced by Sen. Hatch, is just a
discussion draft and that Hatch expects it to change, comments
Carlton Carl, an ATLA spokesman.  For a number of years, ATLA
has said a trust fund could be reasonable if it were adequately
funded and assured fair compensation to all current and future
asbestos victims.

"As it is written, Hatch's bill does none of those things," Carl
said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, is holding a hearing on the
bill, S. 1125, which Hatch introduced after months of
negotiations with the affected parties, including insurers,
business, labor and attorneys.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney undermines the bill, saying it is
merely a vehicle to relieve businesses and insurers of hundreds
of billions of dollars of liability while significantly
shortchanging asbestos victims of the fair compensation due
them.

Hatch's bill is titled the "Fairness in Asbestos Injury
Resolution (FAIR) Act of 2003."  The trial lawyers revised the
acronym to: "Forgiving Asbestos Industry Responsibility (FAIR)
Act."  Among the provisions in Hatch's bill is the establishment
of a $108,000,000,000 trust fund to pay future asbestos claims.
The insurance industry would contribute $45,000,000,000.  

An estimated 1,900,000 to 2,400,000 asbestos claims could come
from injured workers in the future, according to ATLA
information released the day before the Judiciary Committee
hearing.  These estimates don't include current exposures;
asbestos still is being used in the United States, workers still
are being exposed, and the government estimates 30,000,000
pounds of the fibers are being imported into the country each
year, ATLA said.

"An estimate of a trust fund adequate to address the likely
number of claims could be as high as $245 billion (adjusted for
inflation) or perhaps more," ATLA said.

Asbestos defendants and insurers are getting "The Deal of the
Century" as Hatch's bill currently is written, ATLA said.  
According to ATLA's example, insurers would pay the
$45,000,000,000 in "nominal" yearly amounts over time. Since
they don't pay the entire amount at once, they can earn interest
on the balance.  Individual company amounts haven't yet been
determined.

Insurers can afford as much as $120,000,000,000, based on their
statutory surplus, non-asbestos reserves and limited
contributions from future earnings, and foreign insurers could
put up as much as $80,000,000,000, ATLA said.

The Hatch bill also allows insurers to recover their fund
contributions from their reinsurers, substantially reducing the
$45 billion they are supposed to pay.  If the Hatch bill won't
require reinsurers to contribute to the fund, then it should at
least require that all rights to reinsurance proceeds be
assigned to the trust fund, ATLA said.

The amount asbestos defendants would pay under the Hatch bill is
based on what they have already had to pay, instead of what they
would most likely have to pay in litigation, ATLA said.  The
worst offenders with the highest revenues--those that have paid
out $75,000,000 or more and aren't in bankruptcy--would pay only
$25,000,000 a year, according to ATLA.  Under Hatch's bill,
entire communities whose asbestos exposure occurred outside the
workplace would lose all rights and be ineligible for
compensation under the trust fund, ATLA said.

Every existing and future asbestos claimant would be required to
navigate a new, untested federal bureaucracy that doesn't yet
exist and has no employees or funding, ATLA said.  The logjam
created upon enactment would likely delay any claimant
compensation for two years or more, according to ATLA.  With the
exception of Social Security and veterans' benefits programs,
there has never been a compensation program this large.

"There is no reason to believe the federal government can
efficiently run such a program," ATLA said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Power Station Under Asbestos Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of solicitors calls on people who have worked on the
construction of Hinkley Point nuclear power station to come
forward to help establish the usage of asbestos fibers in the
heat exchanges between 1960 and 1962.

John Pickering and Partners wants to check if asbestos has
caused the respiratory problems of its client whose identity was
not disclosed.  Ruth Davies, one of the attorneys, said, "I am
looking for people who worked with my client.  He has an
asbestos-related disease causing him a breathing problem."

Workers moved to the Bridgwater area from across the country to
build Hinkley Point but some will have stayed when the contract
was over.  So far two people have come forward.  Anyone who did
work on the heat exchanges should contact Ms. Davies by Phone:
0808 144 0959.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Plan Statement Battles Objections
---------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning (OWENQ) aims for a bankruptcy court approval of an
amended disclosure statement but faces objections from various
camps.  The plan statement outlines the terms of its Chapter 11
restructuring.  Most of the objections said Owens Corning's
disclosure statement failed to provide enough pertinent
information on the return to creditors and the company's
financial projections for creditors to decide whether to support
the company's reorganization plan.

Asbestos claimants of Owens Corning said the disclosure
statement didn't provide answers to basic questions about how
much creditors would receive if the plan is confirmed compared
with what they would get if it were rejected.  In its objection,
the committee of Owens Corning's secured creditors said the
disclosure statement is lacking in many respects and it "would
be a gross waste of resources to solicit acceptances because the
most recently filed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization is not
confirmable."

The committee argued that the company's estimate of its asbestos
liability at $16,000,000,000 wasn't supported by any "known data
or conceivable methodology," according to the objection.  
Affiliates of the Hartford insurance companies, which provides
some insurance to Owens Corning, said in their objection that
the disclosure statement doesn't provide enough information
about the creation of trusts to pay asbestos property damage
claims.

Credit Suisse First Boston said the company, in bankruptcy since
2000, shouldn't distribute a disclosure statement now because of
legislation recently introduced in Congress to establish a
national trust to compensate people sick from asbestos exposure.  
The new legislation could "reduce Owens Corning's tort exposure
by literally billions of dollars," the financial company's
objection said.

Building products company Owens Corning, which filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection to manage billions of dollars in
asbestos liabilities, filed a response covering many of the
objections Tuesday.  It stated that the company would amend the
disclosure statement to address some of the objections.  The
company indicated other objections didn't needed further
attention or were more suited to be heard at a confirmation
hearing for the proposed reorganization plan, court papers said.

Owens Corning and 17 affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection
Oct. 5, 2000, to address multibillion-dollar asbestos
liabilities.  The liabilities were related to asbestos-
containing products allegedly made, sold or installed by Owens
Corning or one of its units.



ASBESTOS ALERT: WA Environment Department Checks Asbestos Find
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suspected dump of blue asbestos south of the Western
Australian Pilabra town of Roebourne prompts a call on the
Department of Environment to do a probe.  The asbestos was
discovered on the southern flanks of Mount Welcome.

Greens' MP Robin Chapple says photographs on his website show
piles of the material and windblown fibers across an extensive
area.  Mr. Chapple says the material appears to be one of the
most dangerous forms of asbestos.

"We need to have this stuff immediately fenced off, immediately
dealt with and bagged in the appropriate manner, buried or
relocated, because you just cannot have this material laying on
the surface as it does there close to a community," he said.

The DE says the Department of Housing and Works has
responsibility for clearing the asbestos as part of the
Roebourne enhancement scheme.  Tenders have closed for the
removal of the materials after scoping work by an environmental
consultant for Housing and Works.  Removal of the asbestos is
expected to begin early next month.

The department says the asbestos was left on vacant Crown land
near Roebourne from the transportation of the material between
Wittenoom and Port Samson.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ironworker Sues Companies for Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Lowmaster, 55 who was exposed to asbestos as an
ironworker from 1953-1959 at various commercial and industrial
sites has sued more than 100 companies and groups in a single
lawsuit.

The Indiana County laborer of Watson Road, Banks Township,
alleged he inhaled asbestos dust and fibers in his workplace.  
Lowmaster said he now suffers from mesothelioma, a rare form of
cancer, and severe pain and discomfort.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Asbestos Caused Death of Ex-Vickers Plumber
-----------------------------------------------------------
A 76-year-old plumber succumbed to mesothelioma after having
been allegedly left repeatedly at risk in his workplace.  Former
Vickers worker, John Robert Fleming, St Lukes Street, Barrow,
who started in Vickers in the late 1940s and worked on over 30
different ships and submarines, was said to have remembered
asbestos sprayed in the boiler room.

Clarissa Kavanagh, of Worcester Street, Barrow, said her father
had moved into the planning office and then drawing office
towards the end of his career.  She added he had always been
very fit but died very suddenly.

Pathologist Dr. Vijay Joglekar said the cause of death was
cancer in the lung spreading throughout the rest of the body.  
Furness coroner Ian Smith ruled that Mr. Fleming died as a
result of an industrial disease.

He said, "There is clear evidence that he was exposed to
asbestos, having worked for many years in the shipyard . He
worked in an atmosphere where he could not escape it.  He was
not given any kind of protective equipment and there was no
ventilation or extraction facility on board."

The coroner added that he was pretty well convinced the exposure
to asbestos led to his death.  The defendants named in the suit
are responsible for Lowmaster's exposure, since they've known of
scientific data since 1929 that indicates the dangers of
asbestos, the suit alleges.

Lowmaster's wife, Greta, also is named as a plaintiff in the
suit. Each claimed damages in excess of $25,000 against the
defendants, jointly and severally.  The Lowmasters also are
claiming medical monitoring and exemplary and punitive damages
in the same amount against the companies.

The Lowmasters named four counts against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in the suit, each count claiming damages of $1
million. The suit alleges the insurance company "assumed a duty"
to provide workers with adequate information about asbestos and
did not carefully do so, making it negligent.

Metropolitan Life also committed "fraudulent concealment and/or
a fraudulent misrepresentation," which ultimately caused
Lowmaster injury.

Notable names in the lawsuit include: Allied Glove Corporation,
American Standard Inc., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Honeywell
Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Pfizer Inc., USX Corporation and
Viacom Inc.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANT ENERGY: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action filed against Alliant Energy Corporation
(NYSE:LNT) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.  The shareholder lawsuit is on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased Company securities between January
29, 2002 and 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:

     (1) its non-regulated businesses were suffering from
         serious problems;

     (2) 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

     (3) 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 Carol V. Gilden by Phone:
(800) 470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


BLUE RHINO: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Blue Rhino Corporation
(NasdaqNM:RINO) from August 15, 2002 through February 5, 2003,
inclusive.  The case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company
and certain of its senior officers and directors.

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 common stock and inflicting damages on investors.

The complaint further charges 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 that the 10 distributors acquired on November 22,
2002, which included Platinum Propane L.L.C. (Platinum) and Ark
Holding Co., L.L.C. (Ark), 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, the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
that:

     (1) Platinum was in violation of its debt covenants for
         2001;

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

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

     (4) 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 David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
CornerStone Propane Partners, LP (OTC:CNPP.PK) common units
during the period between July 29, 1998 and February 11, 2003.

The complaint charges CornerStone, its general partner
NorthWestern Corporation and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. CornerStone was the fifth (and is now the sixth) largest
wholesale and retail marketer of propane in the United States
and also engages in propane appliance sales and servicing.  
Through its Coast Energy Group subsidiary CornerStone also
supplies, purchases, processes and markets natural gas.

The complaint alleges that on July 29, 1998, the beginning of
the class period, CornerStone announced "record results" for its
fiscal year ending June 30, 1998 and continued throughout 1998,
1999, and 2000 to announce increasing earnings based on sales
attributed to increased retail gallon sales made possible by
acquisitions.  Meanwhile, the Partnership's massive debt-load,
necessitated by the acquisition financing, was steadily
increasing, putting CornerStone into precarious financial
condition.  Eventually, NorthWestern, which began guaranteeing
CornerStone's debt financing on June 20, 2000, cut-off
CornerStone's financial backing in November 2002, causing
CornerStone to default on a $5.6 million bond payment and nearly
forcing the Partnership into bankruptcy.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants continued reporting false and misleading financial
results and making other false statements concerning
CornerStone's financial status and business condition, and
failed to disclose:

     (1) that Cornerstone had been systematically concealing
         that it was overpaying for acquisitions made as early
         as 1997 by improperly misallocating portions of the
         purchase price to physical assets which should have
         been allocated to goodwill;

     (2) that it was materially overstating its earnings before
         interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, its net
         income and its earnings per unit; and

     (3) that CornerStone lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain or report the true
         financial condition of the Partnership.

On September 11, 2002, CornerStone announced that it had not yet
completed its fiscal 2002 financial statements (for the period
ending June 30, 2002), stating it would need to conduct a
detailed analysis of the appropriate value of its goodwill and
other intangible assets in order to take a substantial write-
down of the previously reported goodwill before restating its
previously reported financial results.

On February 11, 2003, CornerStone announced that its auditor,
Deloitte & Touche, could not reaudit CornerStone's previous
financial filings, citing irreconcilable errors and missing
supporting documents.

CornerStone's common units traded at as high as $22 per share
during the class period but declined to $0.35 per share by the
end of the class period, erasing over $360 million in market
capitalization.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
CornerStone Propane Partners, LP (Other OTC:CNPP.PK) common
units during the period between July 29, 1998 and February 11,
2003, and who have been damaged thereby.

The action is pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California against the Company and:

     (1) Northwestern Corporation - South Dakota corporation,

     (2) Keith G. Baxter - Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) Ronald J. Goedde - Chief Financial Officer,

     (4) William L. Woods - Vice President of Acquisitions,

     (5) Charles J. Kittrell - Chief Financial Officer,

     (6) Richard G. Nye - Vice President of Finance,

     (7) Merle D. Lewis - Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
         of the Board of North Western and Chairman of the Board
         of the Managing General Partner,

     (8) Richard R. Hylland - President and Chief Operating
         Officer of North Western and as Vice Chairman of the
         Board of the Managing General Partner and

     (9) Daniel K. Newell - Senior Vice President, Managing
         Director and CEO of North Western Growth Corporation
         and as a director of the Managing General Partner.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout the
class period, July 29, 1998 and February 11, 2003, defendants
continued reporting false and misleading financial results and
making false statements concerning CornerStone's financial
status and business condition, and failed to disclose:

     (i) that Cornerstone had been systematically concealing
         that it was overpaying for acquisitions made as early
         as 1997 by improperly misallocating portions of the
         purchase price of physical assets which should have
         been allocated to goodwill;

    (ii) that it was materially overstating its earnings before
         interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, its net
         income and its earnings per unit; and

   (iii) that CornerStone lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain or report the true
         financial condition of the Partnership.

Finally, on February 11, 2003, CornerStone announced that its
auditor, Deloitte & Touche, could not reaudit Cornerstone's
previous financial filings, citing irreconcilable errors and
missing supporting documents.  CornerStone's common units traded
as high as $22 per share during the class period but declined to
$0.35 per share by the end of the class period, erasing over
$360 million in market capitalization.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross or Deborah R. Gross by
Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of CornerStone
Propane Partners LP (Other OTC:CNPP.PK) between November 2, 1999
and February 11, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CYSIVE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated on behalf of Chapman
Capital LLC, a California-based investment advisor to Chap-Cap
Partners, LP (Chap-Cap), filed a securities class action in the
Chancery Court for the State of Delaware in New Castle County
charging Nelson A. Carbonell, Jr. and other directors of Cysive,
Inc. (NasdaqNM:CYSV) with breach of fiduciary duties to Cysive
shareholders in connection with their approval of a buyout offer
from an entity controlled by Cysive CEO, President and Chairman
of the Board, Nelson Carbonell Jr.  The other Cysive directors
being sued as follows:

     (1) Daniel F. Gillis (former CEO of SAGA Systems, Inc.),

     (2) John R. Lund (CFO of Cysive),

     (3) Kenneth H. Holec (interim CEO of PeopleClick, Inc. and
         former CEO of ShowCase, Inc.) and

     (4) John S. Korin (Executive Director, Strategic
         Development for Northrop Grumman Information Technology
         division of Northrop Grumman Corporation)

On May 30, 2003, Cysive announced that it entered into an
Agreement for the company to be acquired by Snowbird Holdings,
Inc., an entity owned by Carbonell, for $3.22 in cash.  Together
with Snowbird, Carbonell is currently the beneficial owner of
more than 35% of Cysive's common shares outstanding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Carbonell/Snowbird offer represents
grossly inadequate compensation to Cysive's public shareholders.
In a May 7, 2003 announcement, Cysive estimated that on June 30
it would have $121 million to $125 million in cash, or $4.25 to
$4.39 a share.  At $3.22 per share, the Snowbird/Carbonell offer
amounts to a steep discount to the company's cash position
(without even considering the value of other company assets,
including Cysive's Cymbio product line, the future revenues of
which Carbonell often and recently has vaunted).  Furthermore,
the deal was announced just 17 days after the company announced
it was considering a sale.

The lawsuit alleges that Cysive's board could not possibly have
shopped the company in good faith to prospective third party
buyers in such a short time period.  Moreover, the deal seems to
place no value on the estimated $10-20 million in income taxes
that Carbonell and related entities may avoid by precluding the
wholesale liquidation of Cysive's assets and subsequent
distribution to all shareholders that inevitably would follow.

Chap-Cap is the owner of over 1.6 million common shares (5.7%)
of Cysive stock and as such is a long-term shareholder of the
Company, with Chap-Cap making its first investment in Cysive
shares in August 2001.  Chapman Capital is committed to ensuring
that the rights of all of Cysive's public shareholders are
safeguarded from any potential breach of fiduciary duty by those
individuals entrusted with maximizing the value of such
shareholders' investment.  Chap-Cap, a Delaware limited
partnership, seeks above-average risk-adjusted returns while
minimizing downside through a disciplined program of value
investing, arbitrage and short selling/special situations
investing.

For more details, contact Roger W. Kirby or Ira M. Press by E-
mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-mail:
ipress@kmslaw.com


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Daisytek
International Corporation (NasdaqNM:DZTK) securities between
November 9, 2001 and April 28, 2003, inclusive.  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, against the company and certain key officers
and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the class period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone:
215-886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Lodges TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Daisytek
International Corporation (NasdaqNM:DZTK) between November 9,
2001 and April 28, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL.: Milberg Weiss Files Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Daisytek
International Corporation (NASDAQ:DZTK) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 9, 2001 and April
28, 2003.

The complaint charges Daisytek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operating
performance and prospects.  Specifically, defendants were
improperly accounting for uncollectible customer accounts
receivables and vendor rebates receivables to inflate the
Company's results.

Daisytek is a global distributor of computer and office supplies
and professional tape products.  Due to Daisytek's favorable
reported results, defendants were able to secure financing
essential to the Company.  The Company subsequently disclosed it
would record "significant" write-downs of customer and vendor
receivables and inventory and large restructuring charges.  On
this news, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53.  The Company
subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO and its CFO.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


DAISYTEK CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Daisytek International Corporation (Nasdaq: DZTK) publicly
traded securities during the period between November 9, 2001 and
April 28, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Daisytek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operating
performance and prospects.  Specifically, defendants were
improperly accounting for uncollectible customer accounts
receivables and vendor rebates receivables to inflate the
Company's results.

Daisytek is a global distributor of computer and office supplies
and professional tape products.  Due to Daisytek's favorable
reported results, defendants were able to secure financing
essential to the Company.  The Company subsequently disclosed it
would record "significant" write-downs of customer and vendor
receivables and inventory and large restructuring charges.  On
this news, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53.  The Company
subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO and its CFO.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Candace Randle by E-mail: P.O.
Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944
by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com


DIVINE INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of divine,
inc. (OTC:DVINQ.PK) securities between November 12, 2001 through
and including February 18, 2003 against defendants Andrew J.
Filipowski and Michael P. Cullinane.

The complaint charges defendants Andrew J. Filipowski (Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors) and
Michael P. Cullinane (Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President) with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

Throughout the class period, defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between November 12,
2001, and February 18, 2003, which served to artificially
inflate the price of divine securities.  As alleged in the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts:

     (1) divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its
         revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing
         employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to
         offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in
         advance -- months before payments were due to
         publishers -- even though divine had no plan to pay its
         obligations to publishers;

     (2) divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million
         from RoweCom's operations;

     (3) divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls
         with respect to its RoweCom operations; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, divine lacked a
         reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end
         or an ability to maintain its operations without
         bankruptcy protections.

For more details, contact Howard T. Longman by Phone:
1-800-337-4893 by E-mail: tsvi@aol.com


DIVINE INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of divine, inc.
(Other OTC: DVINQ.PK) between November 12, 2001 and February 18,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, against certain directors of divine.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


EUNIVERSE INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of eUniverse, Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI)
between July 30, 2002 and May 5, 2003, inclusive.  The case was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
senior officers.

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 July 30, 2002 and May
5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of eUniverse
common stock and 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.  The Company 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 David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action
against Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (NasdaqSC:PMED) and
certain of its officers on behalf of persons who purchased
Paradigm common stock from April 25, 2001 through May 14, 2003,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District
of Utah.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting that it
had received a common procedure terminology code from the
American Medical Association for use of the Company's Ocular
Blood Flow Analyzer (BFA), which would allow physicians to
receive reimbursement for medical procedures performed using the
BFA.

The complaint further alleges that the Company misrepresented
that it had received a $105 million purchase order, when no such
purchase order existed.  As a result of these
misrepresentations, the price of PMED common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, or Liz Hutton by
Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, by Phone:
(800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134, or by E-mail:
cases@shulaw.com.


RECOTON CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Recoton Corporation
(OTC BB:RCOTQ.OB) between November 15, 1999 and August 19, 2002,
inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, against defendants:

     (1) Arnold Kezsbom,

     (2) Robert L. Borchardt,

     (3) Stuart Mont and

     (4) Tracy Clark

The complaint charges that the Company violated federal
securities laws by falsely assuring the marketplace that it had
adopted a "strategic business plan designed to improve operating
efficiencies," as required by the Company's creditors as a
condition to restructuring the Company's debt.  Beginning in
November 1999, the Company repeatedly reaffirmed that it had
implemented its "strategic plan" and emphasized its success at
improving operating efficiencies.  The Company also stressed
that it had established "a more incentive-based method of
compensation" and "stringent financial controls."

On May 8, 2002, however, the Company partially disclosed that it
"did not anticipate the full implementation of the strategic
plan until the end of May 2002."  On August 19, 2002, the end of
the class period, the Company revealed information showing that,
contrary to its earlier statements on awarding only incentive-
based compensation to management, bonuses had been paid to
executives in advance of the Company's achievement of certain
goals.  The Company also revealed that it had granted additional
price concessions to customers "on products previously
purchased."

The complaint alleges that defendants materially overstated
revenue during the class period and failed to timely take
material write-downs of inventory.

For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale by Mail: 5355 Town
Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, Florida 33486 by Phone:
561-391-4900 or by E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


RECOTON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Stock Lawsuit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Recoton Corporation (OTC: RCOTQ.PK) between November 15, 1999
and August 19, 2002, inclusive against defendants:

     (1) Arnold Kezsbom,

     (2) Robert L. Borchardt,

     (3) Stuart Mont and

     (4) Tracy Clark

The complaint charges that the Company violated federal
securities laws by falsely assuring the marketplace that it had
adopted a "strategic business plan designed to improve operating
efficiencies," as required by the Company's creditors as a
condition to restructuring the Company's debt.  Beginning in
November 1999, the Company repeatedly reaffirmed that it had
implemented its "strategic plan" and emphasized its success at
improving operating efficiencies.  The Company also stressed
that it had established "a more incentive-based method of
compensation" and "stringent financial controls."

On May 8, 2002, however, the Company partially disclosed that it
"did not anticipate the full implementation of the strategic
plan until the end of May 2002."  On August 19, 2002, the end of
the class period, the Company revealed information showing that,
contrary to its earlier statements on awarding only incentive-
based compensation to management, bonuses had been paid to
executives in advance of the Company's achievement of certain
goals.  The Company also revealed that it had granted additional
price concessions to customers "on products previously
purchased."

The complaint alleges that defendants materially overstated
revenue during the class period and failed to timely take
material write-downs of inventory.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983, by Fax:
212-490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.ssbny.com.  


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 common stock of
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqNM:REGN) from March 28,
2000 through March 30, 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 March 28, 2000 and
March 30, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Regeneron securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's weight loss drug AXOKINE and its effectiveness in
treating obese patients.  In particular, the Complaint alleges
that defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company knew that AXOKINE had immunogenic
         problems such that patients developed antibodies to
         AXOKINE after continued use;

     (2) that the Company knew of this fact and manipulated its
         clinical results to portray that AXOKINE did not cause
         significant amounts of clinical patients rejecting the
         drug;

     (3) that the Company's account of AXOKINE published in PNAS
         failed to provide an accurate portrayal of the effects
         of the drug;

     (4) that the Company sought to suppress the immunogenic
         problems that were associated with it by developing a
         pegylated version of AXOKINE;

     (5) that the Company knew that AXOKINE's effect on clinical
         patients were similar to the effects of prescription
         obesity drugs that were already on the market; and

     (6) that the overall magnitude of the weight loss from
         AXOKINE was small; a fact that was manipulated by
         defendants in its published clinical results.

On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study. News of the Company's
announcement shocked the markets. On March 31, 2003, Regeneron's
stock fell from $17.31 per share to $7.52 per share, on
unusually high 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.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: REGN) publicly traded securities
during the period between March 28, 2000 to March 30, 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 March 28, 2000 and
March 30, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Regeneron securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's weight loss drug AXOKINE and its effectiveness in
treating obese patients.  In particular, the Complaint alleges
that defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company knew that AXOKINE had immunogenic
         problems such that patients developed antibodies to
         AXOKINE after continued use;

     (2) that the Company knew of this fact and manipulated its
         clinical results to portray that AXOKINE did not cause
         significant amounts of clinical patients rejecting the
         drug;
  
     (3) that the Company's account of AXOKINE published in PNAS
         failed to provide an accurate portrayal of the effects
         of the drug;

     (4) that the Company sought to suppress the immunogenic
         problems that were associated with it by developing a
         pegylated version of AXOKINE;

     (5) that the Company knew that AXOKINE's effect on clinical
         patients were similar to the effects of prescription
         obesity drugs that were already on the market; and

     (6) that the overall magnitude of the weight loss from
         AXOKINE was small; a fact that was manipulated by
         defendants in its published clinical results.

On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study. News of the Company's
announcement shocked the markets. On March 31, 2003, Regeneron's
stock fell from $17.31 per share to $7.52 per share, on
unusually high 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.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Candace Randle 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 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Files Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:REGN) between March 28, 2000 and March 31, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its senior officers and directors.

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.

As further alleged in the complaint, 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, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study.  As a result, 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 David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Suit in 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 heaving 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 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

                          *********

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  * * *