CAR_Public/030610.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, June 10, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 113

                           Headlines                            

A D S FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in MA Court
AUSTRIAN REPARATIONS: Jewish Community Wants Subsidy, Not Loan
CIENA CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
CIENA CORPORATION: Added as Defendant in Consolidated Stock Suit
CIRCUIT CITY: VA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

COMCAST CORPORATION: Court Upholds Charge For Late Cable Fees
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in FL
EL PASO: $1.69B Suit Settlement Proposal Detailed & Made Public
GEVITY HR: Reaches Deal With Investors Over French Bank's Offer
GOLF HOSTS: Trial in Lease Agreement Suit Reset To Unknown Date

GOODY'S FAMILY: GA Court Grants Approval to Racial Bias Lawsuit
MAXWORLDWIDE INC.: To Oppose Interlocutory Appeal in Stock Suit
NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Dismisses Suit Over Pictures
PUBLIC SERVICE: Asks Public Utilities Board To Intervene In Suit

SEAVIEW VIDEO: FL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
SMARTFORCE PLC: NH Court Orders Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
SMARTFORCE PLC: Trial in CA Securities Suits Set September 2003
TALX CORPORATION: MO Court Dismiss in Part Securities Fraud Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Move Quickly To Meet Amnesty Program

WESTERBEKE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit Over Merger
WORLDCOM: SEC Proposes Allocating $500M Settlement To Investors


                  New Securities Fraud Cases   


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges MN Securities Suit
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Alfred Yates Begins Securities Lawsuit in NY
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Vianale & Vianale Lodges FL Stock Suit
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files FL Securities Suit

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in FL
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files FL Stock Suit
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in TX
EUNIVERSE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
EUNIVERSE INC.: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA

MERRILL LYNCH: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
PRO NET LINK: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges NY Stock Suit

                          *********


A D S FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A D S Financial Services Solutions faces a class action filed by
two of its stockholders on behalf of all other Company
stockholders.  The suits also names as defendants each of the
Company's directors.  

The complaint, filed in Massachusetts state court, alleges,
among other things, that the Company and its directors have
breached or may breach fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders in connection with the Company's May 5, 2003
announcement that it had received from certain of its directors
and stockholders a preliminary expression of interest to engage
in a going private transaction.

For more information, contact Paul K. McGrath by Phone:
617/770-3333 or by E-mail: paul.mcgrath@adsfs.com


AUSTRIAN REPARATIONS: Jewish Community Wants Subsidy, Not Loan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Muzicant, president of Austria's Jewish Community,
rejected the Austrian government's recent plan to grant the
organization three annual interest-free loans to overcome the
ever-widening budget gap attending its efforts to meet the
funding of the Jewish Community's religious, social and
educational activities, as well as for necessary infrastructure
and personnel.

When the Jewish Community announced last month that it would lay
off 35 employees - one-third of its staff - the Austrian
government said it would set aside the annual amount of euro
772,000 (US$906,000) in the form of three loans payable over
three years.  The Jewish Community already receives a regularly
paid subsidy of the same amount.

Mr. Muzicant, the Community's president, said the organization
needs an additional subsidy, in the amount of EUR2.7 million
(just over US$3 million) in order to make ends meet.  Mr.
Muzicant said loans were inadequate; he spoke instead of the
Austrian government's historic responsibility and the need to
meet it head on instead of side stepping it with loans.  

"It is high time that the Republic of Austria assumes finally
its historical responsibility and makes the requisite steps.  
The government's (loan) offer sidesteps the actual problem," Mr.
Muzicant said.  He added, "The government again is trying to
shun responsibility."

Mr. Muzicant said that an increase in subsidies was needed "in
order to guarantee Jewish life in Vienna, as well as a just
restitution or compensation for . community property" robbed by
the Nazis.

After Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, the property
of 215,000 Austrian Jews was seized and Jews were deported or
killed.  65,000 Austrian Jews perished in the Holocaust.  Mr
Muzicant said recently that his community's dismal finances
resulted from the fact that after the Nazis, the community had
to rebuild its infrastructure, relying on its own resources.  In
Germany, this was done by the state.

Last year, Austria's government set up the so-called General
Settlement Fund to indemnify the Jewish Community and other
Holocaust victims.  However, the government said it will not
start payouts from the Fund unless the two class action suits
presently pending by Holocaust survivors against Austria are
withdrawn in United States courts.  The Jewish Community is a
"friend of the court " (amicus curiae) in one of them.


CIENA CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the securities class action pending
against CIENA Corporation over its merger with ONI Systems
Corporation.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hugh C. Martin, ONI's former chairman, president and
         chief executive officer;

     (2) Chris A. Davis, ONI's former executive vice president,
         chief financial officer and administrative officer; and

     (3) certain underwriters of ONI's initial public offering

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
initial public offering's registration statement and by engaging
in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of
the Company's common stock after the initial public offering.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
named former officers violated the securities laws on the basis
of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged
compensation arrangements and manipulative practices.  No
specific amount of damages has been claimed.  

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and
all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  Mr. Martin and Mr. Davis have been dismissed from
the action with out prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.

In July 2002, ONI and other issuers in the consolidated cases
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
state a claim, which was denied as to ONI on February 19, 2003.  


CIENA CORPORATION: Added as Defendant in Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs included CIENA Corporation as a defendant in the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against ONI
Systems Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo.  The suit also added as a new
defendant Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Mohr Davidow
Ventures.

The suit was filed because of ONI's merger with the Company and
was brought on behalf of ONI security holders originally brought
against ONI and members of its board of directors.  The suit
alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to ONI in approving the merger with CIENA and seek
declaratory, injunctive and other relief permitted by equity.  
The plaintiffs failed to obtain an injunction against completion
of the merger.


CIRCUIT CITY: VA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Circuit City Stores, Inc., its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and principal accounting
officer, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002, 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 December 6, 2001 and
February 22, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Company securities, according to an earlier Class Action
Reporter story.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements during the class period which failed
to disclose, among other things, that the Company was facing
significant inventory shortages and was experiencing problems
with its internal controls which would result in the Company
having to incur additional expenses associated with the
termination of leases and with the remodeling of almost half of
its retail stores.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Court Upholds Charge For Late Cable Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation's cable television customers in Baltimore
will continue to face monthly late payment charges of $5,
because of a state appeals court decision rendered recently.  An
earlier ruling by a lower court had limited Comcast and
predecessor United Cable Television of Baltimore Limited
Partnership, to a maximum, monthly late-charge assessment of 50
cents per subscriber, The Baltimore Sun reports.

In September 2002, however, the Baltimore City Circuit Court
granted a company request to set aside that limitation, and
allow the reinstatement of the $5 late charge for late cable
payment fees.  Lawyers representing the cable subscribers
appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals.

The Court of Special Appeals ruled recently in favor of Comcast,
which had been charging the higher fee since September.  
Washington attorney Philip S. Friedman, who represents cable
subscribers in this and a number of other civil suits throughout
the state, said he was disappointed and might appeal the
decision to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Comcast was not the original party to the civil action, which
the Court of Special Appeals in its ruling took note of for its
"long history."  At its inception the case involved United Cable
Television of Baltimore, which was acquired by Comcast from TCI
Communications as part of a $500 million deal in 2001.

In 1995, the cable subscribers brought a class action against
United Cable Television, challenging the company's $5-a-month
late fee.  Two years later, in 1997, the city Circuit Court
ruled that the $5 late fee was not permissible under state
statutes.  It limited the company to a maximum monthly late fee
of 50 cents and assessed damages against United Cable for nearly
$7 million.  United Cable, in 1997, also was enjoined from
charging the $5 fee to tardy city subscribers.

In 2001, United Cable went to court and asked that the 1997
injunction be set aside, arguing that the law had changed in the
interim.  In March, last year, the Circuit Court granted United
Cable's motion, but held off on entering a final judgment until
after it could hold another hearing and hear from all interested
parties.

That final judgment was entered in September 2002.  The
injunction was lifted, and United began assessing the higher
late fee.  Subscribers appealed eight days later to the Court of
Special Appeals, which as indicated above, has ruled in favor of
Comcast's $5 late fee.  Washington attorney Philip S. Friedman,
who represents the cable subscribers, is weighing whether to
appeal the latest decision to the Maryland Court of Appeals.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRYO-CELL International, Inc. faces two class actions filed by
certain shareholders in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  The suit also names as defendants
certain current and former Company officers and directors, and
two of the Company's former accounting firms.

Each complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of improper recognition of revenue in the
financial statements included in certain public reports of the
Company.  None of the plaintiffs have not yet served the
complaint on the Company or its affiliates.

In the class action that was filed first with the court, there
are two named plaintiffs.  One of these individuals contacted
the Company in January 2003, requesting that both of these
individuals be named to the Company's Board of Directors.  In
March 2003, in connection with a review of a number of possible
director candidates, the Nominating Committee of the Board of
Directors declined to recommend that either individual be
elected to the Board of Directors.


EL PASO: $1.69B Suit Settlement Proposal Detailed & Made Public
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made public El
Paso Corporation's detailed proposal of a broad $1.69 billion
settlement to resolve all allegations against the pipeline of
market manipulation before and during the California energy
crisis, Reuters News reports.  The settlement will terminate a
class action against El Paso in state court, as well as
antitrust lawsuits in federal court and a state attorney general
investigation.

The proposed settlement covering El Paso's activities from
September 1, 1996, through March 20, 2003, was filed recently
with FERC.  The agency, along with a federal district court and
California state court, must approve the settlement before it
can take effect.  A FERC judge ruled last year that El Paso
withheld large amounts of natural gas capacity from California
during its power crisis of 2000-2001.


The following are some of the highlights of the proposed
settlement filed by El Paso with FERC:

     (1) El Paso must make available 3,290 million cubic feet
         (MMcf) per day of firm pipeline capacity to California
         delivery points during a five-year period;

     (2) El Paso cannot add any firm incremental load to its
         system which would prevent it from satisfying its
         obligation to make 3,290 MMcf/day of firm capacity
         available to California;

     (3) El Paso must construct its Line 2000 Power-Up expansion
         project, which would provide 320 MMcf/day of new
         capacity to El Paso's chippers without any extra
         reservation charges.  This $173 million project was
         approved earlier in the week by FERC;

     (4) El Paso must clarify the rights of northern California
         shippers to recall portions of a block of 614 MMcf/day
         capacity to serve markets in PG&E Corporation's service
         territory.  The pipeline must post the capacity
         information on its Website for shippers;

     (5) El Paso must bar any of its affiliate companies from
         acquiring extra firm capacity on the pipeline system
         during the five-year settlement period;

The cost of the settlement to El Paso will be "approximately
$1.69 billion in nominal dollars through a variety of
mechanisms," the company said.  The settlement will terminate a
class action against El Paso in state court, antitrust lawsuits
in federal court and a state attorney general investigation.


GEVITY HR: Reaches Deal With Investors Over French Bank's Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
A four-year-old, shareholder class action against Gevity HR's
leadership is nearing a close, now that the staffing firm has
reached a $1.8 million tentative settlement deal with the
stockholders who sued the Company in 1999, claiming its board of
directors failed to act in the shareholders' best interest when
the board rejected the buyout offer of the French bank Paribas,
according to a report by The Bradenton Herald.

A Sarasota shareholder, Lawrence E. Egle, filed the original
complaint after the failed attempt was made to buy Gevity (known
at the time as Staff Leasing) by the US investment arm of
Paribas.  The buyout offer was $382 million, translating into
$17.50 a share.  At the time, Staff Leasing stock traded in a
52-week range of $8.50 to $33.50.  The lawsuit claims the board
members did not adequately consider the buyout offer and put
their own jobs ahead of the shareholders.

Shareholders at the time of the Paribas offer will get a $1.8
million split among them, but that expense will not affect
earnings because it is covered by insurance, said Gregory
Nichols, senior vice president and general counsel of Gevity.


GOLF HOSTS: Trial in Lease Agreement Suit Reset To Unknown Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class action against Golf Hosts, Inc. has been
reset.  The suit alleges breaches of contract, including
breaches in connection with the Rental Pool Master Lease
Agreement.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
declaratory judgment stating that the plaintiffs are entitled to
participate in the rental pool if one exists, a restriction of
golf course access to persons who are either condominium owners,
members, their accompanied guests, or guests of the resort and a
restriction of the total number of club memberships.

Deposition of class members and others, including depositions of
prior executives of Golf Host Resorts, have been taken and
additional discovery remains.  The previously scheduled trial
date of February 3, 2003 has been postponed by the court; a new
trial date has not yet been set.

As this litigation is still in progress, the Company is not yet
able to determine whether the resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations although the Company believes
it has successful defenses based upon consultations with legal
Counsel.


GOODY'S FAMILY: GA Court Grants Approval to Racial Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a
class action filed against Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. and
Robert M. Goodfriend, its Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, by 20 named plaintiffs, generally alleging
that the Company discriminated against a class of African-
American employees at its retail stores through the use of
discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by
maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that the
Company maintained a racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed consent decree was filed with
the court for its preliminary approval.  The proposed consent
decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the racial bias
suit.  Ultimately, class action certification was sought in the
lawsuit only with respect to alleged discrimination in promotion
to management positions and the proposed consent decree is
limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees.

The Company expects that $3.1 million of the payment will be
covered by its insurance.  The proposed consent decree
explicitly provides that it is not an admission of liability by
the Company and the Company continues to deny all of the
allegations.  On April 30, 2003, the court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed consent decree, and has scheduled a
hearing on June 30, 2003 regarding the adequacy and fairness of
the proposed settlement.

At such hearing, any objections to the proposed settlement would
be heard and the court would consider whether to grant final
approval.  There can be no assurance that final approval to the
consent decree will be granted or that the settlement will not
be overturned on appeal.


MAXWORLDWIDE INC.: To Oppose Interlocutory Appeal in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MaxWorldwide, Inc. intends to oppose the motion for
certification of the interlocutory appeal in the securities
class action initially filed against Homestore.com, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The Company was named as a defendant.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company knowingly
participated in Homestore's scheme to defraud the investing
public by entering into improper transactions with Homestore in
the second and third quarters of 2001.  The complaints seek an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased
Homestore.com's common stock during the purported class period.

In March 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice with
respect to the Company and it was not required to pay any
damages.  On April 14, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the case
filed a motion for certification to gain the court's permission
to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the court’s dismissal
of the claims against the Company.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the securities class
action filed against NVIDIA Corporation and certain of its
current and former officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of our announcement on February 14,
2002 of an internal investigation of certain accounting matters.

Additionally, three related derivative actions were filed
against the Company, certain of its current and former executive
officers, directors and our independent auditors, KPMG LLP, in
California Superior Court and in Delaware Chancery Court.  The
two related derivative actions filed in California Superior
Court have been consolidated and are currently stayed pursuant
to a voluntary stipulation agreement.

The suits allege claims in connection with various alleged
statements and omissions to the public and to the securities
markets and seek damages together with interest and
reimbursement of costs and expenses of the litigation.  The
derivative actions also seek disgorgement of alleged profits
from insider trading by officers and directors.  The suits are
in the preliminary stages.

On March 28, 2003 the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint as to all claims
and defendants with forty-five days leave to amend.  The Company
has also filed a motion to dismiss the derivative action filed
in Delaware.  A hearing on this motion was held April 23, 2003.  
On May 5, 2003, the Delaware Court granted the Company's motion
and dismissed the derivative action with prejudice.

The Company is unable, however, to predict the ultimate outcome
of the suits.  There can be no assurance the Company will be
successful in defending the suits, and if we are unsuccessful we
may be subject to significant damages.  Even if the Company is
successful, defending the actions is likely to be expensive and
may divert management's attention from other business concerns
and harm our business.


PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Dismisses Suit Over Pictures
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois dismissed the class
action filed against Penthouse International, Inc. and
subsidiary General Media, Inc., alleging that the defendants
published photographs of a woman topless in the June 2002 issue
of Penthouse Magazine, falsely representing them to be pictures
of tennis star Anna Kournikova.  The suit alleges:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of express warranty and

     (3) consumer fraud

Management cannot give an opinion as to the effect the suit will
have on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.  There can be no assurance, however, that the
ultimate liability from these proceedings will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition and results
of operations.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Asks Public Utilities Board To Intervene In Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The location of gas lines came under scrutiny recently and
resulted in a class action claiming thousands of gas supply
lines and meters used by Public Service Electric & Gas are
dangerously close to driveways, the Associate Press Newswires
reports.

The examination of the location of these lines and meters -
which in some cases are just inches away from the driveways of
town houses and condominium - has come about after a Mount
Laurel, New Jersey woman's car skidded on the ice and severed
her gas line, on February 24.  The subsequent explosion and fire
destroyed three homes and damaged two others in the housing
complex.  The driver was not injured.

Housing complex residents filed the lawsuit against PSE&G in
March, demanding that the utility move or shield gas meters in
dangerous locations.  The utility then asked the Board of Public
Utilities (BPU) to intervene because it has specific knowledge
of the issues involved.

The state BPU has asked the judge presiding over the class
action to allow it to intervene.  Keith Sheehan, a deputy state
attorney general representing the BPU made the request in legal
papers recently filed in Burlington County.  He said the BPU
should be allowed to intervene because the suit is a matter of
public importance that affects natural gas customers statewide.  
A hearing on the request has not been scheduled.


SEAVIEW VIDEO: FL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida approved the settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against Seaview Video Technology and
and Richard McBride, former chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs thereto claimed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs also alleged, among
other things that from March 30, 2000 to March 19, 2001, the
defendants:

     (1) misstated Company sales and revenue figures;

     (2) improperly recognized revenues;

     (3) misrepresented the nature and extent of the Company's
         dealer network;

     (4) falsely touted purported sales contracts and agreements
         with large retailers;

     (5) misrepresented the Company's ability to manufacture, or
         to have manufactured, its products; and

     (6) misrepresented our likelihood of achieving certain
         publicly announced sales targets

The consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2001.  
As amended, the consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and
other damages, and costs and expenses associated with the
litigation and now also seeks relief against James Cox on the
same grounds as the claims against the Company and Mr. McBride.

In February 2002, the Company filed its motion to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss in early April
2002.  On May 17, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding,
to settle the suit.

In the settlement, the Company will issue 6,000,000 shares of
its common stock to the class participants.  Upon satisfaction
of the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the shares
may be resold without regard to Rules 144 or 145(c) of the
Securities Act if the holders are not affiliates of any party to
the settlement or the registrant and will not be affiliates of
the registrant after the settlement shares are distributed.  If
the holders are affiliates of any party to the settlement prior
to the settlement or are affiliates of the registrant prior to
or subsequent to the settlement, then the resale of the
securities distributed in the settlement may only be
accomplished in the manner provided by Rule 145 of the
Securities Act.  In addition, the Company will pay, up to a
maximum of $125,000, for costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the
litigation, plus the costs of settlement notice and
administration.

During the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2002, the Company and the
plaintiffs' counsel agreed to prepare and execute a definitive
Stipulation of Settlement and jointly seek preliminary and final
court approval.  The Settlement would be conditional upon
receiving final judicial approval of the Stipulation,
among other things.

At the end of the Company's 2nd fiscal quarter of 2002,
management had determined that the impending settlement was
highly probable.  On December 17, 2002, the joint motion for
preliminary approval of settlement and the amended stipulation
of settlement was filed with the United States District Court of
Florida, and approved by the residing justice.  There were no
significant amendments to the nature or terms of the Stipulation
as outlined above.


SMARTFORCE PLC: NH Court Orders Consolidated Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Hampshire ordered
consolidated six securities class actions filed against
Smartforce PLC d/b/a Skillsoft and:

     (1) William McCabe,

     (2) Gregory M. Priest,

     (3) Patrick E. Murphy,

     (4) David C. Drummond,

     (5) John M. Grillos,

     (6) John P. Hayes and

     (7) Patrick E. Murphy

The lawsuits allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted
to state material facts in its SEC filings and press releases
regarding its revenues and earnings and failed to correct such
false and misleading SEC filings and press releases, which are
alleged to have artificially inflated the price of the Company's
ADSs.  These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages,
including punitive damages together with interest, costs, fees
and expenses.

These lawsuits have all been assigned to Chief Judge Paul J.
Barbadoro.  On March 26, 2003, Judge Barbadoro consolidated the
lawsuits under the caption "In re SmartForce Securities
Litigation," Civil Action No. 02-544-B, appointed as lead
plaintiffs the Teacher's Retirement System of Louisiana and the
Louisiana Sheriff's Pension & Relief Fund, and approved the lead
plaintiffs' choice of lead counsel and local counsel.  The
Company is awaiting plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint.  


SMARTFORCE PLC: Trial in CA Securities Suits Set September 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class actions filed against Smartforce PLC is set
for September 2003 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The suits also name as
defendants one of the Company's subsidiaries and certain of its
former and current officers and directors, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

It has been alleged in these lawsuits that the Company
misrepresented or omitted to state material facts regarding its
business and financial condition and prospects in order to
artificially inflate and maintain the price of its ADSs, and
misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in its
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
its merger with ForeFront, which also is alleged to have
artificially inflated the price of its ADSs.  

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
actions.  Although the Company cannot presently determine the
outcome of these actions, an adverse resolution of these matters
could significantly negatively impact the Company's financial
position and results of operations.


TALX CORPORATION: MO Court Dismiss in Part Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Talx Corporation and:

     (1) William W. Canfield,

     (2) Craig N. Cohen,

     (3) Richard F. Ford,

     (4) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and

     (5) A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.

The case purportedly is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001 including as
part of the secondary offering.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that certain statements in the registration
statement and prospectus for the secondary offering, as well as
other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual
Defendants during the class period, were materially false and
misleading because they allegedly did not properly account for
certain software and inventory, did not reflect certain write-
offs, and did not accurately disclose certain business
prospects.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants,
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
the Company, the Individual Defendants and the underwriters, and
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Mr. Canfield.

The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, an award
of unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses
and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as
a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief as the court deems proper.

On May 20, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuits, and the underwriter defendants filed a separate motion
to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motions to dismiss on June 19, 2002.  The defendants' reply
memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss were filed on
July 9, 2002.  The court issued a Memorandum and Order on March
31, 2003 granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court's order dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended consolidated
complaint on or before May 30, 2003.

The Company denies the plaintiffs' claims. However, an
unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's business, financial condition and results of
operations.


UNITED STATES: Immigrants Move Quickly To Meet Amnesty Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, Daniel Kane, spokesman for the
Bureau Of Citizenship and Immigration Services in Washington,
D.C., said, "This is the last day; there is no prolonging."  Mr.
Kane was speaking about the race of last-minute applicants to
meet the deadline for an amnesty program that gives some
undocumented immigrants a second chance for legal status in the
United States, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

These late amnesty cases involve people who claimed that they
were wrongly denied legal status through a general-amnesty
program offered in the 1980s.  To qualify, applicants had to be
part of three class actions relating to legal status.

Eighteen people visited Catholic Charities' Fort Worth
immigration counseling office asking about the program, which is
called Life Legalization.  For those people, it was too late to
make the deadline.  "They had no documentation with them.  Some
did not know whether they had ever signed on to the lawsuits,"
said Janie Hermosillo, director of immigration consultation
services.

Eligible applicants for the second-chance amnesty program have
had a year to apply.  According to national figures from the
immigration bureau, 515,000 people have applied since the
program began last summer.  Of these 308,000 people were
approved.

The late amnesty was not automatic.  Immigrants had to submit
proof, such as documentation showing that they arrived in the
United States before January 1, 1982, and lived illegally
through May 4, 1988.  More than 60,000 applications were denied
nationwide.  Some are still pending.

Some people did not venture forward to apply and find out
whether they qualified because of lack of documentation, fear of
authorities and lack of money, said Luz Elena Guerrero, 48, of
Arlington, who became a legal resident under the 1986 program.


WESTERBEKE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westerbeke Corporation faces a class action filed over the
definitive merger agreement it forged with Westerbeke
Acquisition Corporation.  Under the terms of the merger
agreement, each of the approximately 850,000 shares of
Westerbeke common stock not owned by Acquisition Corporation
will be converted upon completion of the merger into the right
to receive $3.00 per share in cash.  The suit also names the
Company's directors as defendants.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed
merger is being advanced through "unfair procedures" and the
consideration offered in the merger is "grossly unfair,
inadequate and provides value to Company stockholders
substantially below the fair or inherent value of the Company"
and "does not constitute maximization of stockholder value."

The complaint also alleges breaches by the defendants of their
fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger.  The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the merger or, if it is consummated, to recover damages.  


WORLDCOM: SEC Proposes Allocating $500M Settlement To Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed
distributing to WorldCom's investors a $500 million settlement
of a $10 billion accounting fraud, while excluding top company
officials or anyone connected with the firm's accounting fraud,
Dow Jones Business News reports.

The SEC plan was outlined in documents filed in federal court in
Manhattan.  It would provide some relief to to those who
invested WorldCom Inc. on or after April 29, 1999, and held the
stocks or bonds continuously until June 25, 2002, when the
accounting scandal became public.  Typically, the agency does
not fine corporations in fraud cases, believing that only
punishes shareholders who already have taken a financial hit.

The SEC proposed making payments proportional, with bigger
distributions to those who invested when WorldCom's earnings
misstatements were at their height.

Investors lost $200 billion on WorldCom, far more than the
company is worth today.  The SEC said a bigger fine is not
realistic or appropriate given WorldCom's cooperation with
regulators in the last year, while a lower one might undermine
investor confidence.

Former WorldCom Chief Executive Bernard Ebbers would not be
included in the proposed deal, nor would any past or current
WorldCom executives and directors.  Any WorldCom employees fired
because of their role in the accounting scandal would be
excluded from payments to shareholders as well under the SEC
plan.

WorldCom employees, officers or directors who are criminally
charged in connection with the fraud also would be excluded
under the SEC proposal, along with anyone named in a class
action stemming from the fraud, unless they are found to be not
liable.  Investors who made a net profit on trading in WorldCom
stock would not be eligible for relief either, the SEC said.

The SEC defended the plan in its court filing, saying the
settlement will prevent a costly trial and provide a $500
million penalty, which the agency's lawyers called tough but
reasonable.  It would be a record, dwarfing the $10 million fine
paid by Xerox Corporation, and a $150 million penalty on
Citigroup Inc.'s Salomon Smith Barney unit to resolve the
allegations of analyst conflicts.

The agency's plan is subject to court approval.  A hearing is
scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, 2003.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases   


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of employees and former employees who participated in ADC
Telecommunications, Inc.'s (NasdaqNM:ADCT) 401(k) retirement
plan from November 2, 2000 to the present day.  

The complaint charges ADCT and certain of its officers for
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The complaint
further alleges that the defendants failed to manage the plan
appropriately, failed to adequately monitor and review the
performance and suitability of investment options, failed to
provide timely, accurate and complete information regarding the
present and future prospects of the Company and exerted undue
influence on ADCT plan participants to buy Company stock within
the plan.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein, by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415 by
Phone: 800/404-7770 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Alfred Yates Begins Securities Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Allou Healthcare
Inc., (AMEX:ALU) between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 2003
inclusive, and who suffered damages thereby.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between June 22, 1998
and April 9, 2003.  In particular, the complaint alleges that:

     (1) Allou was materially overstating its account
         receivables by at least $75 million, thereby
         overstating its revenues and earnings;

     (2) Allou was materially overstating its inventory by      
         approximately $35 million, thereby overstating its net
         worth;

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP;
         and

     (4) Mayer Ripsler, Arthur Andersen and KMPG did not conduct
         their audits in accordance with GAAS as they knew of,
         or recklessly disregarded, the accounting fraud at
         Allou.

These material misstatements and omissions had the cause and
effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive
assessment of Allou and its business, prospects and operations,
thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued and
artificially inflated at all relevant times.

Several of the Company's operating subsidiaries filed an
involuntary petition for bankruptcy with the Bankruptcy Court in
the Eastern District of New York on April 9, 2003.  The petition
was consented to by the Company shortly after it was filed.  The
American Stock Exchange ("AMEX") halted trading in Allou stock
on April 9, 2003; the last listed trading price was $1.07 per
share, which is 91.92% below the Class period high of $13.25,
reached on April 21, 1999.

On April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it believes that "the
level of assets collateralizing loans were substantially
overstated in recent reports submitted by the Company to its
senior leaders" and that the preliminary results of a Company
investigation indicate that "inventory was overstated by
approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000."

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
800/391-5164, 412/391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Vianale & Vianale Lodges FL Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cryo-Cell
International, Inc. (NasdaqSC:CCELE) between March 16, 1999 and
May 20, 2003 inclusive.  The action was filed in the US District
Court, Middle District of Florida (Tampa), against the Company,
several of its present and former officers and directors, and
Cryo-Cell's former auditors.

Cryo-Cell, based in Clearwater, Florida, cryogenically stores
human stem cells.  According to plaintiffs, Cryo-Cell's
financial statements were materially false and misleading
because the Company improperly recognized revenues on its sales
of licences to other companies permitting them to market Cryo-
Cell's cryogenic-storage services outside the U.S. Cryo-Cell
also intentionally or recklessly overstated the value of its
investment in Cryo-Cell Italia, S.r.l.

In addition, Cryo-Cell's former auditors are alleged to have
issued several "clean" audit opinions in prior years,
disregarding several red flags pointing to the Company's
fraudulent financial transactions.  Cryo-Cell recently admitted
that its investment in Cryo-Cell Italia, S.r.l. is impaired.  On
May 20, 2003, the Company's newly-appointed auditor resigned and
Cryo-Cell announced it was working with its former auditors on
restating the Company's financial statements to correct its
improper recognition of revenue.

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


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (NasdaqSC:CCELE)
from March 16, 1999 through May 20, 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 16, 1999 and May
20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell
securities.  During the class period, 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
         earnings, net income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company continually recognized revenue in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         (GAAP) and the Company's own internal accounting
         principles with respect to related-party transactions,
         revenue sharing agreements and revenue recognition for   
         the sale Area Licenses;

     (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 Company's financial results were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On April 15, 2003, the Company issued a press release wherein it
disclosed that it may be necessary to restate its financial
results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because of improper
recognition of revenue.  Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2003,
the Company issued a press release announcing the resignation of
its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP and the Company's continued
assessment of certain revenue recognition accounting policies.
On news of this, Cryo-Cell shares fell 14%.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files FL 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 Cryo-Cell
International, Inc. (NasdaqSC:CCELE) between May 16, 1999 and
May 20, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company, several of its present and former officers and
directors, and Cryo-Cell's former auditors.

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


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CCELE) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 16, 1999 through May
20, 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 16, 1999 and May
20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell
securities.  During the class period, 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
         earnings, net income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company continually recognized revenue in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         (GAAP) and the Company's own internal accounting
         principles with respect to) related-party transactions,
         revenue sharing agreements and revenue recognition for
         the sale Area Licenses;

     (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 Company's financial results were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On April 15, 2003, the Company issued a press release wherein it
disclosed that it may be necessary to restate its financial
results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because of improper
recognition of revenue.  Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2003,
the Company issued a press release announcing the resignation of
its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP and the Company's continued
assessment of certain revenue recognition accounting policies.
On news of this, Cryo-Cell shares fell 14%.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
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


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files FL Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Cryo-Cell International, Inc.
(NasdaqSC:CCELE) securities between May 16, 1999 and May 20,
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 May 16, 1999 and May
20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell
securities.

The complaint alleges that the Company repeatedly recognized
revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), including the Company's own internal accounting
principles; maintained worthless assets on its balance sheets as
collectible receivables; and failed to disclose related party
transactions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that beginning on March 16,
1999, with the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year 1998 (for
fiscal year ended November 30, 1998), each and every periodic
and annual report filed with the SEC contained materially false
financial statements, for at least the following reasons:

     (1) the Company failed to disclose a related party
         transaction in connection with its revenue-sharing
         agreement with defendant Nyberg;

     (2) the Company failed to timely write-off the value of
         receivables from two investors in a revenue-sharing
         agreement related to the Company's anticipated revenues
         in New Jersey; and

     (3) the Company improperly recognized revenue on several
         transactions in connection with its granting of
         licenses to third parties to market the Company's
         services in areas outside the United States, including
         area licenses for Europe, the Middle East/Turkey and
         Mexico.

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 by E-
mail: CCELE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Daisytek
International Corporation (NasdaqNM:DZTK) common stock during
the period from November 9, 2001 through April 28, 2003,
inclusive.

The action charges the Company and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the class period -- of artificially
inflating the price of Daisytek's shares.

Daisytek issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial condition during the
class period.  Specifically, Daisytek failed to disclose:

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

When this news hit the market on April 28, 2003, Daisytek share
price fell over 70%.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


EUNIVERSE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of eUniverse
Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) common stock during the period from July
30, 2002 to May 5, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges eUniverse and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the class period -- of artificially
inflating the price of eUniverse's shares.

eUniverse issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial condition during the
class period.  Specifically, eUniverse failed to disclose:

     (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

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

When this news hit the market on May 6, 2003, 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 Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail:
emui@kmslaw.com


EUNIVERSE INC.: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
securities of eUniverse, Inc. (Nasdaq: EUNI) between July 30,
2002 and May 5, 2003 inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants eUniverse, Inc., Brad D. Greenspan and Joseph L.
Varraveto.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of eUniverse securities.

The complaint alleges that eUniverse, issued false and
misleading press releases and SEC filing on July 30, 2002,
October 16, 2002, December 10, 2002, January 30, 2003 and April
16, 2003 concerning its publicly reported sales and earnings. In
particular, it is alleged that defendants overstated the
Company's revenues and net income for the second and third
quarters, and possibly the first, of the Company's fiscal year
ended March 31, 2003.  Before the market opened on May 6, 2003,
eUniverse issued a press release announcing that it intends to
restate its financial statements for the second and third
quarters, and possibly the first, of fiscal 2003, and that the
restatement will result in a material adverse change to its
previously reported financial results.

For more details, contact Damon Williams or Nancy Kaboolian by
Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 800-889-3701 or by e-mail:
dwilliams@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com  


MERRILL LYNCH: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tyco International
Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) between September 9, 1999 and May 28, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated and Phua Young engaged in a scheme to defraud Tyco
investors in violation of SEC Rule 10b-5.  According to the
complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court (03cv4080)(Sweet,
J.), Mr. Young issued numerous misleading research reports on
Tyco while supposedly working as an "independent" Merrill Lynch
managing director.  Mr. Young voiced opinions in his research
reports on Tyco that were flatly contradicted in his own private
emails, where he expressed his true outlook on Tyco.  

For example, Mr. Young's emails, which turned up in the NASD's
investigation of him, show that he didn't believe his own
publicly-issued research reports concluding that Tyco's
subsidiary, CIT Group, could be sold for as high as $7-8
billion.  Mr. Young privately expressed his true view that CIT
would fetch much less, if a buyer could be found at all.  In
other emails, Mr. Young made it plain that Tyco "effectively
bought and paid for" him as the complaint alleges (paragraph 3),
when he candidly described himself in a private email as "LOYAL
TYCO EMPLOYEE."  Mr. Young routinely sent his draft Tyco
research reports to Tyco's Investor Relations Department for
review, comment and editing.  With respect to one of his
reports, Mr. Young asked Tyco: "did I not sound pumped up
enough?"  Mr. Young is also accused of passing insider tips to
his institutional clients in advance of at least one Tyco deal
involving Siemens and accepting unlawful gifts from Tyco.

For more details, contact Kenneth 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


PRO NET LINK: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Pro Net Link Corporation (OTC BB:PNLKQ.OB) securities
between August 8, 2000 and July 1, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between August 8, 2000 and July
1, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pro Net
Link securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
certain officers and directors of the Company knew and failed to
disclose that the Company had no intention of:

     (1) continuing to develop its "unique" Internet
         broadcasting facility;

     (2) adding personnel to its broadcast staff during fiscal
         year 2001;

     (3) operating the Company's broadcast operations beyond
         January 2001 and had planned to transfer it to Zagoren;

     (4) renewing the marketing services contract with Zagoren's
         alter ego, Zagoren?Zozzora, Inc., which was scheduled
         to expire on February 15, 2001; and

     (5) broadcasting the International Aid & Trade show,
         planned for June 2001.

Further, the complaint alleges that the Company's auditors knew
or recklessly disregarded that it was required to adhere to
standards and principles of GAAS, including the requirement that
the financial statements comply in all material respects with
GAAP.

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: PNLKQ.PK@bernlieb.com.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:REGN) between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Federal
Securities laws 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.

Specifically, 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.

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.

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.


                              *********

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  * * *