CAR_Public/030609.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, June 9, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 112

                           Headlines                            


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Thirteen Securities Lawsuits in NY
ANSWERTHINK INC.: To Ask FL Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Lawyers For Victims of Polluted Food Seek Plaintiffs
BABI ITALIA: Voluntarily Recalls Baby Crib for Entrapment Hazard
COLE NATIONAL: Shareholders Sue For Securities Violations in OH

COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Stock Suit Dismissal
CREATIVE KIDS: Recalls 1,400 Art Supply Sets For Laceration Risk
dELiA* INC.: NY Court Extends Discontinuance For Securities Suit
DUKE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Energy Prices in West Coast Market
FAO INC.: Directors Face Suits For Securities Violations in PA

GOODTIMES ENTERTAINMENT: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in CA
HANOVER COMPRESSION: Settles Securities Fraud Suits in TX Court
HOLOCAUST REPARATIONS: Gypsy Suit Says IBM Machines Helped Nazis
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Negotiating To Settle Securities Suit in NY
MARKET WATCH: Settles Consumer Lawsuit Over Advertisements in OR

ON SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in Utah
PENN TREATY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit in PA
PENN TREATY: Seeks Remand of Policyholders' Suit To M.D. Florida
ROBOTIC VISION: Enters Settlement for Securities Lawsuit in MA

THINGS REMEMBERED: Reaches Agreement to Settle Overtime Lawsuit
TRISONIC/EASTERN AMERICA: Recalls Nightlights for Fire Hazard
TRIVETT INDUSTRIES: Recalls 590 Pancake Makers For Burn Hazard
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in CO Court
UNITED LIBERTY: Asks For Summary Judgment in OH Consumer Lawsuit

UNITED STATES: Inspector General's Report Makes DOJ Vulnerable
WEATHER WORKS: Recalls 2,400 Heaters For Electrocution Hazard
WESTMINSTER CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Securities Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE RHINO: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Begins Stock Suit in TX
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit
FISCHER IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CO

RECOTON CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL

                           *********


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Thirteen Securities Lawsuits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. faces thirteen class action
complaints, containing similar allegations, asserting violations
of federal securities laws.  The actions are entitled:

     (1) Purvis, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

     (2) DMS, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Rodney
         Cousens and Gerard Agoglia filed in the U.S. District
         Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn
         Division;

     (3) Nach, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Rodney
         Cousens and Gerard Agoglia filed in the U.S. District
         Court for the Eastern District of New York, Central
         Islip Division;

     (4) Baron, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

     (5) Traube, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

     (6) Hildal, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

     (7) Hicks, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Rodney Cousens
         and Gerard Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for
         the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division;

     (8) Russo, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division;

     (9) Vicino, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

    (10) Sypes, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

    (11) Berman, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division;

    (12) Burk, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Gregory
         Fischbach, Edmond Sanctis, James Scoroposki and Gerard
         Agoglia filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn Division;

    (13) Brake, et al. v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., Rodney
         Cousens and Gerard Agoglia filed in the U.S. District
         Court for the Eastern District of New York, Central
         Islip Division.  

In Purvis, Baron, Traube, Hildal, Russo, Vicino, Sypes, Berman,
and Burk, plaintiffs allege that during the purported class
period between January 11, 2002 and September 19, 2002 we
reported positive earnings statements and gave favorable
earnings guidance, but failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business, operations and management,
thereby causing plaintiffs and other members of the class to
purchase our securities at artificially inflated prices.  
Plaintiffs claim violations under 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In DMS, Nach, Hicks, and Brake, plaintiffs assert that during
the class period between January 22, 2002 and September 19, 2002
we committed certain alleged accounting improprieties, thereby
causing plaintiffs and other members of the class to purchase
our securities at artificially inflated prices.  Plaintiffs
claim violations under 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.

All the complaints seek unspecified damages.  The complaints in
the Purvis, DMS, Baron, Russo, Vicino, Sypes and Berman actions
have been served.  In those actions, the parties have agreed to
extend defendants' time to respond to the complaints until after
a consolidated amended complaint is served.


ANSWERTHINK INC.: To Ask FL Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Answerthink, Inc. intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors

The suit alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934, due to misstatements and omissions concerning
related party transactions during the alleged class period of
February 8, 2000 to April 25, 2002.

In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
the complaint alleges, defendants failed to disclose that the
"record" results included revenues recognized from transactions
with related parties who were near-bankruptcy and lacked the
financial means to finalize the sales.


AUSTRALIA: Lawyers For Victims of Polluted Food Seek Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Victoria who fell ill eating contaminated pork
rolls have been given a last chance to join a class action
against the Vietnamese restaurant where the food poisoning took
place, the Australian Associated Press reports.  Under court
requirements, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, Maurice
Blackburn Cashman has placed advertisements in Victoria's
metropolitan daily newspapers, advising people of their last
chance to opt in or out of the class action.

Eugene Arocca, an attorney with Maurice Blackburn Cashman, said
he expected up to 30 more people to join the class action, which
is seeking compensation for time taken from work due to illness
from the food contamination, as well as for the pain and
suffering.  The law firm is already acting for 80 people in the
class action, said Mr. Arocca, and has begun proceedings against
Thanh Phu Pty Ltd, which operates the Thanh Phu restaurant, as
well as against its director, Van Hai Nguyen.

Mr. Arocca said many people were hospitalized with varying
degrees of food poisoning, and others sought medical treatment
for lesser symptoms including nausea, fatigue, headaches and
stomach complaints.  To date one man has died and 200 others
have reported gastroenteritis illnesses, including salmonella
poisoning, after eating pork rolls at the Thanh Phu restaurant.

The restaurant also will face criminal charges under the Food
Act under the Sunshine Magistrates Court.


BABI ITALIA: Voluntarily Recalls Baby Crib for Entrapment Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Babi Italia is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to replace crib drop-
side rails for about 2,000 "Tiffany" and "Josephine" model
cribs.  The slats on the drop-side rails can come loose or
detach.  A child's head can get caught in the space left by
loose or missing slats, presenting an entrapment hazard.  In
addition, children can fall through the slat opening.
        
CPSC and the Company have received 41 reports of slats
separating from rails of the crib.  One child became entrapped
between slats that came loose.  Ten children fell out of the
crib when the slats came out of the drop-side rail.  No serious
injuries have been reported.
        
The "Tiffany" and "Josephine" model cribs are made of solid
natural wood with a chest of drawers attached to the footboard.
The cribs can be converted into a toddler bed and an adult bed.
The Tiffany cribs were manufactured from June through October
2001 and the Josephine cribs were manufactured from January
through October 2001.  The crib manufacture date code is located
on the inside bottom of the headboard.  The four middle numbers
inside the eight-digit production number indicate the month and
year of manufacture.  Tiffany cribs with production date codes
(four middle numbers) 0601, 0701, 0801, 0901 and 1001 and
Josephine cribs with production date codes (four middle
numbers) 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401, 0501, 0601, 0701, 0801, 0901,
and 1001 are included in the recall.  
        
Babies R Us sold the recalled cribs exclusively from July 2001
through January 2003 for about $500.
        
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 440-2224
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.babiitalia.com.


COLE NATIONAL: Shareholders Sue For Securities Violations in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole National Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
by its shareholders, alleging claims for various violations of
federal securities laws related to the Company's publicly
reported revenues and earnings.  The suit also names as
defendants certain present and former officers and directors.

The action, which proposes a class period of March 23, 1999
through November 26, 2002 and names the Company and certain
present and former officers and directors, seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages "where appropriate",
costs, expenses and attorneys fees.

Following the announcement in November 2002 of the restatement
of the Company's financial statements, the Securities and
Exchange Commission began an inquiry into the Company's previous
accounting.


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. intend to appeal the
United States District Court in Oregon's decision dismissing the
suit without prejudice.

The suit alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and accompanying
regulations by misleading shareholders regarding such things as
FDA approval and other matters, which the plaintiffs believe
caused significant damage to the shareholders holding shares of
Company common stock at the time of these alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.  The plaintiffs have not
specified their damages as of the date of this document.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  However, defending this
lawsuit has required, and in the future may require, significant
additional legal expenses to defend, may make fund raising more
difficult if not impossible and will distract certain members of
management from day-to-day operations.

On April 17, 2003, this litigation was dismissed without
prejudice by the court.  In a written opinion, the US District
Judge concluded that the statements made by the Company, that
plaintiff's alleged were misleading to investors, were either
not material, not misleading, or not plead by plaintiffs with
sufficient particularity to constitute a claim.  

The court gave the plaintiffs until May 8, 2003 to replead three
of the nine claims.  On May 8, 2003, the plaintiffs informed
Company counsel that they would not replead any claims.  
Instead, plaintiffs expressed their intention to appeal the
court's ruling following entry of the court's dismissal order.  
That order was filed May 13, 2003, and the plaintiffs have 30
days to file their notice of appeal.

If the notice of appeal is filed and the plaintiffs follow
through on their efforts to appeal the order of dismissal, the
Company does not expect to receive a decision from the appellate
court for at least one year.


CREATIVE KIDS: Recalls 1,400 Art Supply Sets For Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Creative Kids, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1,400 Children's Art
Supply Sets.  The sets contain mini-cutters with razor blades
which pose a laceration hazard to young children.  The Company
is aware of an incident where an 8-year-old girl received minor
cuts to her finger when she used the mini-cutter.

The 87-piece art supply sets were sold in solid wood grain
boxes.  The sets contain crayons, markers, scissors, water and
oil paints, brushes, etc.  A label on the box reads "JUMBO ART
CASE 87 pieces" and "Item No. 11519."

Bigg's stores in Ohio and Kentucky sold the items from August
2002 through March 2003 for about $16.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 678-8697
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.creativekidsinc.com.


dELiA* INC.: NY Court Extends Discontinuance For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York extended the order of discontinuance for the
consolidated securities class action filed against dELiA*s, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making material misstatements and by failing to
disclose certain allegedly material information regarding trends
in the business during part of 1998.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle on a
settlement of the action.  That agreement has not yet been
memorialized and will not become effective until a stipulation
of settlement is executed by all parties and finally approved by
the Court, after notice is given and an opportunity to object
and a hearing has been accorded to all interested parties.

On December 9, 2002, the court entered an order discontinuing
the action without prejudice to any party to apply to the court
on five days' notice to restore the action to the trial calendar
if the settlement is not consummated within 45 days.  By Order
dated March 19, 2003, the court extended the order of
discontinuance until 30 days following the date on which the
Court approves the pending settlement.

The parties are continuing to negotiate over certain terms and
conditions of the settlement, and the settlement papers have not
been submitted for Court approval.  There can be no assurances
that the settlement will be completed.  The claim and proposed
settlement are covered under the Company's insurance policy.  
However, if the settlement is not completed, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of any litigation or whether the resolution
of the litigation could have a material adverse effect on our
business.


DUKE CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Energy Prices in West Coast Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation and numerous other energy companies face
a class action filed in state court in San Diego, California on
behalf of purchasers of electric and/or natural gas energy
residing in the states of Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada,
Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana.

Plaintiffs claim that wholesale and retail pricing throughout
the "West Coast Energy Market" is dominated by trading and
pricing in California and allege that defendants, acting
unilaterally and in concert with other energy companies, engaged
in manipulation of the supply of energy into the California
markets, resulting in artificially high electricity prices.

Plaintiffs, also alleging that defendants' actions were in
violation of California's antitrust and unfair business
practices laws, seek actual and treble damages, restitution of
funds acquired by unfair or unlawful means, an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful
activity and other appropriate relief.


FAO INC.: Directors Face Suits For Securities Violations in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fao, Inc.'s directors face two class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging violations of federal securities law.  The suits name
as defendants:

     (1) Jerry R. Welch,

     (2) Fred Kayne and

     (3) Richard Kayne

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on alleged misrepresentations made by the
defendants.  Mr. Steele has filed a proof of claim on behalf of
himself and others for $50.0 million in our bankruptcy case.

On April 3, 2003, another case was filed in the same court,
making the same claims against the same defendants.  The two
cases have been consolidated.  The Company also has not been
named as a defendant nor has there been any claim made for
indemnity though the defendants did file proofs of claim on the
Company's indemnification obligations set forth in its articles
and bylaws.

Management does not believe this claim will result in a material
adverse effect to the Company's business or operations,
financial position or results of operations.


GOODTIMES ENTERTAINMENT: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The East San Jose Community Law Center, the civil clinical
program for the Santa Clara University School of Law, joined the
law firm Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. to file a statewide
class action lawsuit against GoodTimes Entertainment
(GoodTimes), a company that markets products through
infomercials on television.

The company sells weight loss and exercise videotapes, cooking
pans, and other products.  The suit was filed on behalf of
California consumers who were charged for products and/or
services they did not agree to buy.  The plaintiff, Ena Aguirre,
alleged that GoodTimes violated California law by sending her
unsolicited goods and services, and billing her debit card for
the unordered merchandise.

"Ms. Aguirre made numerous attempts to resolve the situation and
stop the unauthorized charges, but the company ignored her
letters and phone calls," said Chris D'Anjou, a certified law
student at Santa Clara University School of Law who filed the
complaint.

"Ms. Aguirre, like many other victims, was forced to close her
debit card account just to stop the unauthorized charges," said
Scott Maurer, a consumer law attorney with the East San Jose
Community Law Center.

The complaint also alleges that GoodTimes sent Ms. Aguirre a
letter to call a toll-free number to make payment arrangements,
but she was billed for the call.  Ms. Aguirre is not alone in
her complaints.  The New Jersey attorney general filed suit
against the GoodTimes Company earlier this year. According to a
press release by the New Jersey Department of Law and Safety,
the action was filed after receiving 330 similar consumer
complaints from the United States and Canada.

The New Jersey action seeks relief on behalf of all consumers
who have filed complaints.  The California action seeks
restitution on behalf of all California residents who were
charged for unauthorized products, whether or not the consumers
have a complaint on file.  The California suit also seeks
statutory penalties and damages under California's Unfair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

"Consumers should be very cautious about giving out their credit
or debit card numbers to companies they have not dealt with
before," said Mr. Maurer.  "Consumers should review every credit
and debit card statement for possible unauthorized charges."

Mr. Maurer advised consumers to dispute any unauthorized charges
with the bank that issued the card to the consumer, in addition
to disputing the charge with the retailer.  The lawsuit also
names Quadrangle Capital Partners, LP, which recently acquired
GoodTimes.


HANOVER COMPRESSION: Settles Securities Fraud Suits in TX Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Compression Limited Partners agreed to settle various
securities litigations pending against it in Texas federal and
state courts.

Commencing in February 2002, approximately 15 putative
securities class actions were filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  
These suits were consolidated into one case, naming as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Michael J. McGhan,

     (2) William S. Goldberg and

     (3) Michael A. O'Connor

The complaints asserted various claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought
unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs,
including legal fees.  The court entered an order appointing
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits
Trust and others as lead plaintiffs on January 7, 2003 and
appointed Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP as lead
counsel.

On January 24, 2003, Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local 137 Pension
Fund and John Petti filed a putative securities class action
against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which is the Company's
auditor.  The alleged class was all persons who purchased the
equity or debt securities of Hanover from March 8, 2000 through
and including October 23, 2002.  On February 13, 2003, the court
consolidated this action with the one described above.

Commencing in February 2002, four derivative lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, two derivative lawsuits were filed in state district
court for Harris County, Texas (one of which was non-suited and
the second of which was removed to Federal District Court for
the Southern District of Texas) and one derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County.  

These derivative lawsuits, which were filed by certain of
Hanover's shareholders purportedly on behalf of Hanover,
alleged, among other things, that Hanover's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders and sought unspecified
amounts of damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.  
The derivative actions in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas were consolidated on August 19
and August 26, 2002.  Motions are currently pending for
appointment of lead counsel in the consolidated derivative
actions in the Southern District of Texas.

On March 26, 2003, three plaintiffs filed separate putative
class actions collectively against the Company, Michael McGhan,
Michael O'Connor, William Goldberg and Chad Deaton (and other
purportedly unknown defendants) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The alleged class is
comprised of persons who participated in or were beneficiaries
of The Hanover Companies Retirement and Savings Plan, which was
established by Hanover pursuant to Section 401(k) of the United
States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.  

The purported class action seeks relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) based upon Hanover's and
the individual defendants' alleged mishandling of Hanover's
401(k) Plan. The three ERISA putative class actions are
entitled: Kirkley v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1155; Angleopoulos
v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1064; and Freeman v. Hanover, Case No.
H-03-1095.

On May 12, 2003, Hanover reached agreement, subject to court
approval, to settle the securities class actions, the ERISA
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions described
above.  The terms of the proposed settlement provide for Hanover
to:

     (i) make a cash payment of approximately $30 million (of
         which $26.7 million is to be funded by payments from
         Hanover's directors and officers insurance carriers),

    (ii) issue 2.5 million shares of common stock, and

   (iii) issue a contingent note with a principal amount of $6.7
         million.

The note is payable, together with accrued interest, on March
31, 2007 but can be extinguished (with no monies owing under it)
if Hanover's common stock trades at or above the average price
of $12.25 for 15 consecutive days at any time between March 31,
2004 and March 31, 2007.  As part of the settlement, Hanover has
also agreed to implement corporate governance enhancements,
including allowing large shareholders to participate in the
process to appoint two independent directors to Hanover's Board.
Hanover and HCLP's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is not a
party to the settlement and will continue to be a defendant in
the consolidated securities class action.


HOLOCAUST REPARATIONS: Gypsy Suit Says IBM Machines Helped Nazis
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Switzerland has dismissed a lawsuit by Gypsy
plaintiffs who alleged that IBM expertise helped the Nazis
commit mass murder more efficiently, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  Plaintiffs' lawyer, Henri-Philippe Sambuc,
told The Associated Press that the Geneva court ruled that it
lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the case.  Mr. Sambuc
said he planned to appeal the Geneva court's ruling within 30
days.

Mr. Sambuc said he was surprised that the court rejected claims
that IBM's World War II-era Geneva office was the information
technology multinational's hub for trade with the Nazis.  The
Gypsies filed the lawsuit in Geneva because IBM's wartime
European headquarters were in the city.  Mr. Sambuc also noted
that Geneva official archives contain documents showing that in
1936, IBM opened an office under the name "International
Business Machines Corporation New York, European Headquarters."

"It is well documented in Edwin Black's book, 'IBM and the
Holocaust,' that all the IBM activities in the territories
occupied by the Nazis were managed through the Geneva
administrative center," Mr. Sambuc said.

The group represented by Mr. Sambuc, Gypsy International
Recognition and Compensation Action, sued IBM for "moral
reparation" and US$20,000 each in damages on behalf of four
Gypsies from Germany and France and one Polish-born Swedish
Gypsy.  All five plaintiffs were orphaned in the Holocaust.

The plaintiffs, through GIRCA, began planning the lawsuit after
US author Edwin Black claimed in a book published in February
2001 that IBM punch-card machines enabled the Nazis to make
their killing operations more efficient.  Around 600,000 Gypsies
are believed to have been killed by the Nazis, although Gypsy
groups say the number could have been as high as 1.5 million.

IBM has said its German subsidiary, Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen
GmbH, was taken over by the Nazis before World War II, and it
had no control over operations there after the takeover.

According to Mr. Black's book, the punch-card machines were used
to codify information about people sent to concentration camps.  
The number 12, for example, represented a Gypsy inmate, while
Jews were recorded with the number 8.  D4 meant a prisoner had
been killed.

IBM's German division has paid into Germany's government-
industry initiative to compensate people forced to work for the
Nazis during the war.  In April 2001, a class action against IBM
in New York was dropped after lawyers said they feared it would
slow down payments from the German Holocaust fund.  German
companies sought freedom from legal actions before committing to
the fund.


LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Negotiating To Settle Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation is working on a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its former officers and directors, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering in the Untied States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock during the time period beginning on
March 15, 2000 and ending on December 6, 2000, alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on the allegation that
there was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's
underwriters in connection with its initial public offering and
the allegation that the underwriters entered into undisclosed
arrangements with some investors that were designed to distort
and/or inflate the market price for the Company's common stock
in the aftermarket following the initial public offering.

Presently, all claims against the former officers have been
withdrawn without prejudice.  The Company, along with the many
other issuer defendants, moved to dismiss the claims in the
complaint.  By decision dated February 19, 2003, the court
denied the Company's motion.  

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims made in the complaint. The plaintiffs have made a
settlement proposal to the defendants.  The Company has
indicated a willingness to support the proposal, subject to
review and acceptance of a definitive settlement agreement.  


MARKET WATCH: Settles Consumer Lawsuit Over Advertisements in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Market Watch Corporation settled the class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Oregon in Multnomah County against it and
Fields Technologies.  The plaintiff alleges, among other causes
of action, that the defendants sent or caused to be sent
unsolicited facsimile advertisement in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff sought to have the case certified as a class
action and is looking for damages caused by wear and tear of his
facsimile machine and use of phone lines, toner, ink, paper,
etc.  This matter was settled in September 2002 for a nominal
amount.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against On Semiconductor Corporation, certain of
its current and former officers, current directors and the
underwriters for its initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in its initial public offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration
statement.  The amended complaint alleges violations of both the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the cases
against the Company have all been transferred to a single
federal district judge for purposes of coordinated case
management.

Accordingly, on July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer
defendants, the Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the
consolidated, amended complaints against the issuers on various
legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  
The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss
the claims against them.  In addition, the parties have
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the
Company's individual current and former officers and directors
who were named as defendants in our litigation, and they are no
longer parties to the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow
plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims.  As to the
claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

While the Company can make no promises or guarantees as to the
outcome of these proceedings, it believes that the final result
of these actions will have no material effect on its
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court, District of
Utah 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
suits also name as defendants:

    (1) Thomas Motter,

    (2) Mark Miehle, and

    (3) John Hemmer

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, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

The Company is in the process of reviewing the complaint, which
appears to be focused on alleged false and misleading statements
pertaining to the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) and concerning a
purchase order from Valdespino Associates Enterprises and
Westland Corporation.


PENN TREATY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Treaty American Corporation and certain of its key
executive officers reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by its
shareholders, on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated shareholders who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock from July 23, 2000 through and
including March 29, 2001.

The consolidated amended class action complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount for losses allegedly incurred as a result
of misstatements and omissions allegedly contained in the
Company's periodic reports filed with the SEC, certain press
releases issued by the Company, and in other statements made by
the Company's officials.

The alleged misstatements and omissions relate, among other
matters, to the statutory capital and surplus position of its
largest subsidiary, Penn Treaty Network America Insurance
Company.

On July 1, 2002, the defendants filed an answer to the
complaint, denying all liability.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification on August 15, 2002, which is currently
pending.  

On February 26, 2003, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the litigation for $2,300, to be paid
entirely by the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance carrier.  The settlement remains subject to
documentation and court approval.


PENN TREATY: Seeks Remand of Policyholders' Suit To M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Treaty American Corporation sought the remand of the class
action filed against it and its subsidiary, Penn Treaty Network
America Insurance Company from the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division to the Fifth Judicial
Circuit of the State of Florida in and for Marion County, Civil
Division, where it was initially filed.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of Florida long-term
care policyholders.  Plaintiffs claim wrongdoing in connection
with the sale of long-term care insurance policies to the
plaintiffs and the class.  Plaintiffs allege claims for
reformation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
restitution.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, lack of personal jurisdiction against the Company, and to
strike certain allegations of the complaint as irrelevant and
improper.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand on March 7, 2003.  
Briefing is continuing on all of these motions.  While the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this case, it could have a
material adverse impact upon its financial condition and results
of operations.  


ROBOTIC VISION: Enters Settlement for Securities Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against it, Pat V. Costa, Chief Executive Officer,
and Frank Edwards, former Chief Financial Officer.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged false and misleading
statements made prior to the Company's announcement that it
would restate its financial results in fiscal year 2000 and the
first quarter of fiscal year 2001.  The parties to this action
have agreed in principle to settle this matter, subject to the
parties drafting and executing appropriate settlement documents,
conducting certain limited confirmatory discovery and obtaining
court approval.

A preliminary settlement order was signed on April 14, 2003 and
a hearing thereon is scheduled on July 11, 2003.  The Company
expects the settlement amount to be covered by proceeds from its
directors and officers liability insurance policy.


THINGS REMEMBERED: Reaches Agreement to Settle Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Things Remembered reached an agreement to settle the class
action filed in the Superior Court of San Francisco, by a
purported class of approximately 200 Company employees.  The
suit alleged that the members of the putative class were
improperly denied overtime compensation in violation of
California law.  The action sought unspecified damages,
interest, restitution, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

On February 3, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the lawsuit for $562,500. The settlement is
subject to court approval.


TRISONIC/EASTERN AMERICA: Recalls Nightlights for Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trisonic/Eastern America Trio Products voluntarily recalled
12,000 Trisonic Nightlights.  The nightlight poses a serious
electrocution, electric shock, burn and fire hazard to
consumers.  The Company has received a report of a nightlight
exploding, resulting in laceration injuries to a consumer.

The recalled nightlights have a yellow exterior shaped like a
smiley face.  A label on the back of the nightlight reads,
"Trisonic, 4W/120Vcustom made in China for Trisonic, Queens, NY,
TS-45431"

Dollar stores in the eastern portion of the United States sold
the items between April 2001 through March 2003 for about $1.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 11-11 131st St.,
P.O. Box 527018, Flushing, NY 11352, for a full refund plus the
cost of postage by Phone: (800) 434-8155 between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.  


TRIVETT INDUSTRIES: Recalls 590 Pancake Makers For Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trivett Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily
recalling 590 Pancake Express Pancake Makers.  The handles on
the pancake makers are unable to withstand the heat of the
device, causing the handle to fail to provide support because of
melting or breaking.  The Company is aware of one incident
involving a consumer who received minor burns when the handle
melted and separated from the pancake maker.

These "Pancake Express" pancake makers are two-sided stove top
skillets constructed of aluminum with black plastic handles.  
The product is labeled "Pancake Express" and "Made in China."

Acme, Wal-Green's, Hy-Vee and Osco Drug stores nationwide sold
the items from May 2002 through July 2002 for about $20.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 433-4842
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in CO Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimate Electronics, Inc. and three of its officers and
directors face a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 13, 2002 and August 8, 2002.

The complaint claims damages for alleged violations of Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the 1934 act.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend these claims and
believes that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


UNITED LIBERTY: Asks For Summary Judgment in OH Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Liberty filed a motion for summary judgment in a class
action filed in an Ohio state court brought by two
policyholders, referring to a particular class of life insurance
policies that the Company issued over a period of years ending
around 1971.

The suit alleges that the Company's dividend payments on these
policies from 1993 through 1999 were less than the required
amount.  It does not specify the amount of the alleged
underpayment but implies a maximum of about $850,000.  

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company is liable to pay
punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.  The action has been
certified as a class action on behalf of all policyholders who
were Ohio residents and whose policies were still in force in
1993.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint.  
Pre-trial discovery is continuing.  The Company has filed a
motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed by
both parties and will be argued to the court on May 29, 2003.  

At the Company's request, an initial mediation session has been
completed and negotiations are continuing.  As a prerequisite
for the mediation, the Company offered to settle the matter for
payments over time, which would include attorneys' fees, and
which would be contingent upon an exchange or reformation of the
insurance policies currently owned by the members of the class.  
At this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to
determine whether an unfavorable outcome of the action is likely
to occur or, alternatively, whether the chance of such an
outcome is remote.


UNITED STATES: Inspector General's Report Makes DOJ Vulnerable
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US Justice Department (DOJ), and its top officials, could be
open to lawsuits by former immigration detainees for everything
from wrongful detention to physical abuse, and the best evidence
may be coming from the Justice Department itself.  Because, now,
the department's own Inspector General's Office, which functions
as an internal watchdog unit, has shed light on what it
characterizes as a flawed process under which 762 foreigners
were detained without bond or any criminal charges being
introduced against them, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

As a result, there probably will be some tough questions put,
which will be seeking answers, about whether Congress has ceded
too much authority to the Justice Department over surveillance
and immigration since September 11.  At the very least, this
"very damning report" - so characterized by David Cole, a
Georgetown University law professor - may bring more attempts at
legal action against the DOJ.  Professor Cole himself is co-
counsel in a class action on behalf of former detainees.

Critics say the report could give new credence to allegations of
civil rights violations.  "It confirms what we were claiming:  
They (the government) had a conscious policy to hold people
without sufficient showings they were dangerous or connected to
terrorism, and a conscious policy to hold people long after an
immigration policy was resolved," said Professor Cole.

The report charges that the Justice Department failed to
distinguish between those detained due to terror-related leads
and those arrested by "virtue of chance encounters" with law
enforcement.

The inspector general's report confirms some allegations
previously made by detainees' lawyers: of detentions for days or
weeks under the highest security conditions without any
individual risk assessment; of being locked in cells 23 hours a
day with lights always on and virtually no contact with lawyers
or relatives; of physical and mental abuse ranging from being
slammed against walls to ethnic taunts and interrupted prayers.

In addition, the report suggests that the DOJ was aware its
actions might violate legal strictures.  The inspector general,
Glenn Fine, finds INS lawyers had warned that delays in releases
were creating an "increased risk of litigation."  When detainees
did challenge their detentions, the DOJ avoided addressing the
substantive legal issues surrounding its policies with the
detainees' representatives by quickly obtaining FBI clearance
for their release, the report suggests.


WEATHER WORKS: Recalls 2,400 Heaters For Electrocution Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weather Works, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
2,400 Weather Works Ventilaire Electric Heaters.  The electric
heater can overheat internal plastic components and damage the
wiring, posing a fire and electrocution hazard to consumers.  
The Company has received one report of a heater smoking and
starting a fire, though no injuries were reported.  

The portable electric heater is beige, constructed of a plastic
housing, and has the "Weather Works" logo printed on the front
side of the fan.  On the base of the unit is a sticker reading,
"Model No. CH-601, AC 120V - 60Hz, 1500 Watts, Made in China,
4H39."

Retail chain stores in Florida, such as The Andersons, Chase-
Pitkin Home & Garden, and Florida Hardware, sold the items from
June 2002 through March 2003 for about $20.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: 2340 NW 102nd
Place, Miami, FL 33172 by Phone: (888) 269-9247 between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


WESTMINSTER CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster Capital, Inc. agreed to settle the complaint filed
against it and each member of its board of directors in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County, by a
shareholder of the Company.

The lawsuit was filed in response to the Company's tender offer
to purchase any and all outstanding shares of its common stock
at a price of $2.80 per share.  The plaintiff brought this
action individually and as a purported class action on behalf of
all 23 shareholders of the Corporation.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleged that the Company
and the members of its board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders.  Specifically
the complaint alleged:

     (1) Westminster's shareholders were denied the opportunity
         to make a fully informed judgment on a major corporate
         transaction in which they had to select among their
         options to hold or tender their stock;

     (2) the Offer was structured in such a way that it was
         coercive; and

     (3) the Offer benefited the fiduciaries at the expense of
         Westminster's public shareholders.

The complaint sought, among other things, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from
proceeding and implementing the Offer and, if the Offer was
completed, an order rescinding the Offer and awarding damages to
the purported class.  On May 8, 2002, the Delaware Court of
Chancery denied the motion for expedited proceedings filed by
the plaintiff and refused to schedule a hearing on the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to
enjoin the Company's Offer.  The Offer was closed without
resolving the lawsuit.

Although Westminster and its directors denied and continue to
deny any allegations of wrongdoing, Westminster continued to
engage in settlement discussions with the plaintiff following
completion of the Offer.  On January 7, 2003, a Stipulation of
Settlement was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 7, 2003, the Court of Chancery held a hearing to
consider the Settlement.  To date the Court of Chancery has not
ruled on the Settlement.  The Settlement, if approved, will
provide:

     (a) Westminster would pay each shareholder that tendered
         common stock in the Offer an additional $0.20 per share
         (less a pro rata share of attorneys' fees);

     (b) Westminster would purchase the common stock owned by
         Barry Blank, which is represented to be approximately
         349,300 shares, for $3.00 per share (less a pro rata
         share of attorneys' fees); and

     (c) William Belzberg, Hyman Belzberg, Greggory Belzberg and
         Keenan Behrle (Continuing Shareholders) would
         contribute their shares of common stock to a newly
         formed company which would then own in excess of 90% of
         Westminster's outstanding common stock and the new
         company would then merge with and into Westminster, and
         each of the shareholders of Westminster (other than the
         new company) would be entitled to receive $3.00 per
         share for their shares of common stock (less a pro rata
         share of attorneys' fees) and the shareholders of the
         new company (i.e. the Continuing Shareholders) would
         receive shares of stock of Westminster.

Upon completion of the merger, Westminster would be privately
held by the Continuing Shareholders.  If any of Westminster's
shareholders entitled to receive cash for their shares in the
merger object to the price, they may exercise appraisal rights
as provided under the Delaware General Corporation Law.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BLUE RHINO: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of Blue Rhino Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO) between,
August 15, 2002 and February 5, 2003 inclusive in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Blue Rhino
securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that ten distributors acquired by the Company were not
         healthy, highly profitable, and independent of the
         Company as portrayed by Blue Rhino;

     (2) that the Company misrepresented the purchase price of
         the acquisition of the ten distributorships by more
         than $10,000,000.00;

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


CIT GROUP: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against defendants CIT Group, Inc.
(NYSE:CIT), Albert R. Gamper, Jr. (CEO and President) and Joseph
M. Leone (CFO), on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
CIT in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
(IPO) commenced on or about July 1, 2002, and who have been
damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because CIT's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained materially false and misleading statements
of fact.  The complaint specifically alleges that the Prospectus
falsely represented that CIT's reserves for losses in its
telecommunications finance portfolio were "adequate" despite
recent declines in the sector, which were expected to continue
and characterized as adequate its reserves for credit losses in
general.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially
false because they failed to disclose that the Company's loan
loss reserves for its finance portfolio in the
telecommunications industry, and its loan portfolio in general,
were materially deficient in light of material credit losses
that had already been incurred.

On July 23, 2002, CIT announced that it took a $200 million
charge to strengthen the telecommunications loan reserves that
it represented were adequate only three weeks previously.  On
April 8, 2003, the price of CIT common stock closed at $17.40
per share, which is 24% lower than the IPO price of $23 per
share.

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


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Begins Stock Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter 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 (NasdaqNM: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 that defendants were improperly
accounting for uncollectible customer accounts receivables and
vendor rebates receivables to inflate the Company's financial
results and its stock price.

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.

After this announcement, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53.  
The Company subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO
and its CFO.

For more details, contact John G. Emerson, Scott E. Poynter or
Tanya Autry by Mail: 1509 Louisiana, Suites C & D, Little Rock,
AR by Phone: (800) 663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Daisytek International Corporation
(NasdaqNM:DZTK) from November 9, 2001 through April 28, 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 November 9, 2001 and
April 28, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Daisytek securities.

During the class period, the Company was faced with the
predicament of needing to secure capital financing in order to
maintain business operations.  As such, the Company issued
statements that failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         financial results through its improper accounting of
         uncollectible receivables and vendor rebate
         receivables;

     (2) that the Company's accounting practices were in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         (GAAP);

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

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

On April 28, 2003, the truth emerged about the Company's
financial condition when Daisytek issued a press release, after
the close of the market, announcing that the Company expected
significant losses in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003.  
News of this shocked the market.  Shares of Daisytek fell 70.88%
on increased volume and closed at $0.53 on April 29, 2003.

After the close of the class period, the Company announced that
its CEO and CFO, defendants James R. Powell and Ralph Mitchell,
respectively, had resigned from the Company on May 5, 2003.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or 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


FISCHER IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of Fischer Imaging Corporation
(NasdaqNM:FIMG) between February 14, 2001 and April 1, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, against the Company, Morgan
Nields, Gerald Knudson, and Louis Rivelli.

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

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, Defendants represented that the Company had adequate
internal controls and accurately reported its financial results.  
However, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts:

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

     (2) that the Company improperly booked revenue;

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

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

The Class Period ends on April 1, 2003, the day Fischer Imaging
announced in a press release that based on a review being
conducted by the Company in conjunction with a change in
independent auditors, the Company would delay the filing of its
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.
The Company noted that based on its preliminary findings,
Fischer believed it would be necessary to restate its financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2002 and the years
ended December 31, 2001 and 2000.

The news shocked the market and investor reaction was severe.  
The value of the Company's common stock plummeted by 18.36% in
one day of trading, to $4.40 on April 2, 2003 from a close of
$5.39 on April 1, 2003.

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


RECOTON CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Recoton
Corporation (Other OTC:RCOTQ.PK) between November 15, 1999 and
August 19, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, against former officers and directors of the
Company.

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


                             *********

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  * * *