CAR_Public/030617.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, June 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 118

                           Headlines                            

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Gov. Keating's Remarks Chafe CA Cardinal
CITIGROUP INC.: Investor Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in NY
DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
DIGITAL IMPACT: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit in FL
ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: Guilty of Fraud on Stent-Graft Device

ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: K.B. Moll To Commence Injury Lawsuit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Suits Over Printer Cartridges in Various Stages
HEWLETT PACKARD: Certification For Consumer Suit Set This Month
HEWLETT PACKARD: Named as Defendant in NY Apartheid Litigation
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed

IMPERIAL TOY: CPSC Initiates CA Suit Over Unsafe Children's Toys
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging CA Labor Code Violations
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Suit in Ontario Court
ZOOCATS INC.: TX Attorney General Stops Animal Exhibit Operation

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Texas
ADMINISTAFF INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ADMINISTAFF INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files TX Securities Suit
ALLIANT ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WI
ALLIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI

AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
BARRICK GOLD: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
BARRICK GOLD: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BARRICK GOLD: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in TX
eUNIVERSE INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in CA
FEDERAL HOME: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in IN
SARA LEE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

                          *********


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Gov. Keating's Remarks Chafe CA Cardinal
---------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized former Oklahoma
Gov. Frank Keating over a statement the governor made this week
comparing some unnamed members of the church hierarchy to the
Mafia, the Associated Press reports.  

Gov. Keating is the head of a national panel reviewing priest
abuse allegations.  He had earlier told the Los Angeles Times,
"I certainly have concluded that a number of serious officials
in my faith have very clay feet.  To act like La Cosa Nostra and
hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy."

Cardinal Mahony said Gov. Keating's statements outraged him and
that he may ask his fellow bishops to consider removing him from
the panel.  

"All I can say is, from the bishops I've listened to - and
several called me this morning - this is the last straw,"
Cardinal Mahony told the Los Angeles Times.  "To make statements
such as these - I don't know how he can continue to have the
support of the bishops. I don't know how you back up from this."

However, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley
lauded Gov. Keating's remarks, saying the archdiocese has been
"aggressively resisting" turning over subpoenaed church
documents relating to investigations.  Gov. Keating "apparently
has been as frustrated as we have been in our efforts to secure
information," he told the Associated Press.

Atty. Cooley's office is investigating allegations of sexual
abuse by the clergy.  His office has charged eight current or
former priests and a former seminarian with sexually abusing
children and expects more charges.

Church lawyers have refused to disclose documents containing
communication between Cardinal Mahony and the suspected priests,
arguing those documents are protected by the First Amendment.  
The issue is pending before a judge, AP states.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' president
Bishop Wilton Gregory of Illinois appointed Gov. Keating to head
the National Review Board last year to survey all 195 US
dioceses and determine how many priests had been accused of
sexual abuse since the scandal surfaced in January 2002.

Cardinal Mahony's initial resistance to that survey led to
conflict between Gov. Keating and the cardinal, who heads the
nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese.  Gov. Keating
accused Cardinal Mahony of listening "too much to his lawyer and
not enough to his heart."

"I appreciate he's watching out for the best interests of his
diocese," Gov. Keating told the Los Angeles Times this week.  
"But we have a mandate for transparency, full disclosure and
openness.  That's what we're carrying out."

Cardinal Mahony called the former governor's remarks
"irresponsible and uninformed," AP reports.  Archdiocese
spokesman Todd Tamberg said Mahony has never met, spoken to nor
corresponded with Gov. Keating.


CITIGROUP INC.: Investor Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court in Manhattan, New York by an investor who bought
more than $400,000 in Class "B" shares of three mutual funds
sponsored by Smith Barney, a Citigroup unit, Reuters reports.  

Investor Kathleen Fitzgerald alleged that she was defrauded into
putting her money into the funds, which cost too much.  Ms.
Fitzgerald charged Salomon Smith Barney, as the unit was then
known, with failing to inform her that investors with more than
$100,000 might avoid "unnecessary" fees by instead buying Class
"A" or "L" shares, which have different fee structures.

The suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who invested at
least $100,000 in B shares of Smith Barney funds and might
otherwise have qualified for a load reduction on A shares, since
July 1998.  It seeks unspecified compensatory damages plus
litigation costs.

"We did an extensive amount of financial analysis on the
investments that she made and other mutual fund investments
offered by Salomon Smith Barney," Joel Bernstein, a partner at
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP in New York, who
represents Ms. Fitzgerald, told Reuters in an interview.  "It
appeared that there is no economic sense, especially for those
who invest $100,000 or more, to invest in Class B shares at
all."

A Citigroup spokeswoman declined to comment, saying she had not
seen a copy of the complaint, Reuters reports.


DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Digital Impact, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors and certain investment bank underwriters
for the Company's initial public offering (IPO).  

The suit alleges, among other things, that undisclosed and
improper practices concerning the allocation of the Company's
IPO shares, violated the federal securities laws, and seek
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during the period from November 22, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.

Other actions have been filed in New York making similar
allegations regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other companies.  
All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No.21-MC-92.

Each of these companies, including the Company, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaints in the Southern District of New York
in July 2002.  In October 2002, the complaints against the
individual current and former directors and officers were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the motion to
dismiss was denied in part and granted in part.  The court did
not dismiss any claims against the Company.

However, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims against it and will defend itself vigorously.  In the
opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel and
based on currently available information, the ultimate
disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or
results of operations.


DIGITAL IMPACT: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Impact, Inc. was named as a defendant in a securities
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The complaint names as defendants over forty companies
and their respective directors and officers, including the
Company and two of its officers.

The lawsuit plaintiff is not alleged to have bought or sold
Digital Impact stock.  The Company anticipates that this new
case will be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and coordinated with the
existing IPO-related litigation.


ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: Guilty of Fraud on Stent-Graft Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Indianapolis-
based Guidant Corporation, pleaded guilty to covering up
malfunctions that may have led to 12 deaths during aneurysm
treatments, the Associated Press reports.  

The medical devices manufacturer could be liable for $92.4
million in penalties after it pleaded guilty to 10 felonies
relating to its Ancure "stent-graft" device, used during
operations to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms. The offenses
include shipping misbranded products and making false statements
to government regulators.  Executives of the Company may also
face charges.

"Because of the company's conduct, thousands of patients
underwent surgeries without knowing the risks they faced," US
Attorney Kevin Ryan said at a news conference, AP reports.  
"These actions were criminal."

The stent-graft device was voluntarily recalled in March 2001,
before it was reintroduced five months later.  The device,
inserted through the groin, was designed to let doctors patch
the aneurysm without requiring risky surgery to open the
abdomen.  The Food and Drug Administration first approved the
device, which resembles a fishing pole, in 1999.  An aneurysm is
a weak spot in the wall of the aorta - the body's largest blood
vessel - that bulges like a balloon until the pressure of
pounding blood bursts it, the Associated Press reports.

In a statement after the device was reintroduced, the Company
assured that the issues have been resolved.  The company said
none of the more than 18,000 patients who have Ancure Endograft
implants is at risk because the problems highlighted by the case
occurred during the procedure.

In court documents unsealed Thursday, federal prosecutors said
that the Ancure device often malfunctioned and that company
representatives asked doctors to use it in ways not approved by
the government, AP states.

The Company allegedly failed to report more than two thousand
malfunctions of the device, thus hiding the risks from the
public.  The Company also allegedly failed to disclose that
other, more invasive operations were required after the device
failed.


ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: K.B. Moll To Commence Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. intends to file a class
action based on claims that a device that treats abdominal
aortic aneurysms, which was developed and manufactured by
Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Guidant Corporation (Guidant), has led to numerous deaths and
serious injuries.

According to Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., Guidant
developed, manufactured and distributed a medical device known
as the Ancure Endograft System (Ancure Device), which is used to
treat abdominal aortic aneurysms.  Guidant was aware of numerous
malfunctions of its product, but failed to file thousands of
MDR's with the FDA.  In fact the full extent of the malfunctions
were knowingly concealed from patients, physicians and the
public.

According to the Chicago-based firm, the Ancure Device was
approved for commercial distribution in the United States in
September 1999, and withdrawn from the market on March 15, 2001.  
During this period, Guidant filed 172 MDR's with the FDA, but
later admitted during the criminal investigation that it failed
to file an additional 2,628 MDR's, out of the 7,632 devices that
were sold during that period.  

Among the unreported incidents, there were at least 12 deaths
and at least 57 unreported emergency procedures in which the
physician had to convert the operation into a more invasive
procedure, according to the firm.

According to the firm, more than 18,000 patients worldwide have
been implanted with Ancure devices.  With a failure rate of over
one third there could be over 6,000 failed devices. On June 12,
2003, Guidant announced that it pled guilty to a US Department
of Justice Criminal Investigation charging it with nine counts
of introducing misbranded medical device into interstate
commerce, and one count of making false statement to the FDA.  
As part of a recent plea agreement and a civil settlement
agreement, Guidant will pay $92.4 million.

Kenneth B. Moll states that "the primary goals of the lawsuit
will be to inform the public of the egregious conduct of this
manufacturer and to provide complete compensation to each and
every victim of the failed devices."

For more details, contact Kenneth B. Moll or Arlene N. Farolan
by Phone: 312/558-6444 by Fax: 312/558-1112 by E-mail:
lawyers@kbmoll.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kbmoll.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Suits Over Printer Cartridges in Various Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hewlett Packard Company faces several class actions filed in
different jurisdictions all over the country by customers who
claim that they purchased printers with half-full or "economy"
ink cartridges instead of full cartridges.

The first suit was commenced in the Superior Court of California
in Riverside County in July 2000.  Suits in 32 additional states
followed.  The various plaintiffs throughout the country claim
to have purchased different models of HP inkjet printers over
the past four years.  Plaintiffs claim that HP's advertising,
packaging and marketing representations for the printers led the
consumers to believe they would receive full cartridges.  These
actions seek injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees under
various state unfair business practices statutes and common law
claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The Company obtained summary judgment against plaintiffs in the
California action, which the plaintiffs are appealing.  The
Company also obtained summary judgment in Wisconsin, Kansas and
Arizona.  The matter has been certified as a class action in
North Carolina state court, and a trial date has been set for
August 25, 2003.  The Ohio and New York litigation has been
dismissed.  In Connecticut, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action.  In Oregon and
Washington, the case has been dismissed without prejudice.  The
litigation is in various stages in other jurisdictions.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Certification For Consumer Suit Set This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing in the consumer class action filed
against the Hewlett Packard Company has been set for June
30,2003 in Texas state court.

Two suits were initially filed against the Company.  The first
suit, Alvis v. HP was filed in United States District Court in
Jefferson County, Texas by a resident of eastern Texas.  A
similar suit captioned LaPray v. Compaq was filed in United
States District Court in Jefferson County, Texas.  On the motion
of plaintiffs' counsel, the matters were dismissed in the United
States District Court and refiled in Texas state court in
Beaumont, Texas.

These actions are part of a series of similar suits filed
against several computer manufacturers.  The basic allegation is
that the Company and Compaq Computers sold computers containing
floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain
floppy disc controller errors.  That failure is alleged to
result in data loss or data corruption.  The plaintiffs in both
suits seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, rescission and
attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.  
Compaq has filed a petition for review by the Texas Supreme
Court.  On June 5, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to
review the trial court's certification of a class and requested
oral argument on a date to be determined.  A class certification
hearing has been set for June 30, 2003 in the suit.

On June 4, 2003, two other suits were each filed in United
States District Court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with
factual allegations similar to those in first two suits
concerning computers sold by HP and Compaq, respectively.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, class certification,
declaratory relief, damages and attorneys' fees.

In addition, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice,
the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General
and other Federal agencies are conducting an investigation of
allegations that the Company made or caused to be made false
claims for payment to the United States for computers known by
the Company to contain defective parts or otherwise to perform
in a defective manner relating to the same alleged floppy disk
controller errors.  The Company also continues to provide
information to state attorneys general in California and
Illinois in response to similar inquiries.  The Company is fully
cooperating with these inquiries.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Named as Defendant in NY Apartheid Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hewlett Packard Company was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former South
African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and
oppression under the apartheid regime.  The suit also names
numerous other multinational corporations as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and other companies helped
perpetuate, and profited from, the apartheid regime during the
period from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to
agencies of the South African government.  Claims are based on:

     (1) the Alien Tort Claims Act,

     (2) the Torture Protection Act,

     (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
         and

     (4) a variety of other international laws and treaties
         relating to violations of human rights, war crimes and
         crimes against humanity

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  This matter is in the early
stages of litigation.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York upheld two related securities class actions and
sustained allegations against ImClone Systems, Inc. and Harlan
Waksal.  These cases are private actions seeking to recover
damages on behalf of purchasers of Company securities from March
27, 2001 to January 28, 2002.

The complaints charge the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
publicly traded securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued multiple press
releases highlighting the successful progress of its "Fast-
Track" application to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for approval of IMC-C225, its blockbuster drug used for the
treatment of colorectal cancer and also known as Erbitux, and
the positive impact that the drug's approval would have on the
Company's revenues.

The suit further alleges that defendants filed their
application, despite lacking the skill and expertise to make a
proper filing, in order to convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to
purchase at least $1 billion in Company stock, of which
approximately $150 million was tendered by insiders, including
the individual defendants, and to convince Bristol-Myers to make
an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company.

On December 28, 2001, the Company disclosed that the FDA had
refused to accept its deficient and defective application for
approval of Erbitux, confirming almost two weeks of speculation
that had already driven down the price of Company stock by 21%,
from a class period high of $73.83 per share on December 5, 2001
to $55.25 per share at the close of regular trading on December
28, 2001.

Immediately following this shocking revelation, however, Company
shares dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after
hours trading, or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share.
On December 31, 2001, shares continued to trade lower, and
closed at $46.46 per share.

David R. Scott, Managing Partner at Scott + Scott, LLC, co-lead
counsel for plaintiffs in the suit, stated that the Court's
decision was not unexpected.  "This is the first step and we are
pleased with this decision," Mr. Scott said.  "The case can now
move forward."

William C. Fredericks, a partner at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes
& Lerach LLP, co-lead counsel, stated  "that in light of this
decision, the case will now move swiftly into the discovery
phase of the litigation."  He also stated, that "he is quite
pleased with how the proceedings have moved along thus far."

For more information, contact David Scott by Phone: 800/404-7770
or by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or Neil Rothstein by Mail:
800/404-7770 or 619/251-0887 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-
scott.com or contact Steven G. Schulman by Phone: (800) 320-5081
or by E-mail: sgs@mwbhlny.com


IMPERIAL TOY: CPSC Initiates CA Suit Over Unsafe Children's Toys
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
filed suit against Imperial Toy Corporation, of Los Angeles,
California, and the Company's president, Fred Kort, alleging
that the Company repeatedly imported and sold children's toys
that violate federal safety standards and pose serious choking
hazards.

The suit, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, seeks a civil penalty
and a court order preventing the Company from committing any
further illegal actions.

The complaint charges that in May 1998, Imperial imported 4,300
candy-filled plastic trucks, called "Candy Road Machines," that
were intended for children under 3 years old, but failed to
comply with the federal small parts regulations.  Tests
conducted by commission staff resulted in small pieces breaking
off the toy trucks, which young children could place in their
mouths and choke on.  After recalling the "Candy Road Machines"
in October 1998, Imperial allegedly sold another 22,000 units on
numerous occasions, even though the toys were known to present a
hazard to young children.

In October 2000, Imperial allegedly imported 5,700 "Cuddles
Feeding Set" toys, knowing that the products were dangerous to
young children, based on two previous recalls (in 1990 and 1995)
of the same toys.  The baby doll feeding sets, which were also
sold as "My Dolly's Meal Time" and "Cuddles Meal Time," failed
the commission's small parts test.  It is illegal to sell
products intended for children under 3 years old that violate
the small parts regulations of the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act.  

The US Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation is
representing the Commission in federal court.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging CA Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles by Donald
Brown, Thomas Lamour, and Sau Yeung, acting on behalf of
themselves and the general public.  The suit also names as
defendants a number of employers, including Aaron Brothers,
Inc., a wholly owned Company subsidiary.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated California
Labor Code provisions that prohibit employers from requesting
job applicants to disclose prior criminal convictions for
specified marijuana-related infractions or participation in
certain criminal diversionary programs.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

The suit asserts various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to actions prior
to the Company's announcement on November 7, 2002, that, among
other things, it had revised its outlook for the fourth fiscal
quarter of 2002, adjusting downward its guidance for annual
earnings per diluted share.  

The complaints charge that, prior to that announcement, the
Company and certain of the other defendants made
misrepresentations and omitted to disclose negative information
about the financial condition of the Company while the
individual defendants were selling shares of the Company's
common stock.


MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Suit in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. and Michaels of Canada, ULC, its wholly
owned subsidiary, face a class action filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by James Cotton, a former store
manager of Michaels of Canada and Suzette Kennedy, a former
assistant manager of Michaels of Canada.  The suit was filed on
behalf of themselves and current and former employees employed
in Canada.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation.  The claim also alleges that this
conduct was in breach of the contracts of employment of those
individuals.  The claim seeks a declaration that the defendants
have acted in breach of applicable legislation, payment to
current and former employees for overtime, damages for breach of
contract, punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest,
and costs.

Although the Company believes it has certain meritorious
defenses, given the early stage of the proceedings, it is
premature at this time for it to comment on issues of liability
and damages.


ZOOCATS INC.: TX Attorney General Stops Animal Exhibit Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott obtained an emergency court
order in Kaufman County, an action taken to prevent harm to the
public from a traveling hands-on exhibit featuring wild jungle
cats and cubs.  These include tigers, leopards, lions and
cougars, which nonprofit ZooCats Inc. of Kaufman has advertised
as theme exhibits at children's birthday parties, weddings,
commercial and media events, and educational settings.

In addition, the charitable assets of ZooCats and related
nonprofits, as well as operator Marcus Cline-Hines Cook, are
frozen as the result of the temporary restraining order issued
by District Judge Howard Tygrett.  The judge also named Dallas
attorney Robert Trimble as temporary receiver.  He will oversee
placement of the wild cats and other animals in the professional
care of the International Exotic Feline Sanctuary in Boyd,
northwest of Fort Worth.

"This operator deliberately downplayed the potential danger of
these animals, as well as the group's safety record and trainer
qualifications, letting children and adults touch and hold them
without regard for disease or possible physical harm," said
Attorney General Abbott in a public appearance at the sanctuary
last week.  "This dangerous deception against the public, and
the organization's false assertions about its charitable
intentions, led our legal experts to conclude that we needed to
act quickly."

ZooCats has exhibited the animals at the Mesquite Rodeo, Six
Flags Over Texas, the Dallas ArtFest and various private
schools.  It has also set up show booths at a number of events
in North Texas where children and adults may hold and feed the
animals and have their pictures taken for a fee.

The principal facility housing the animals, which also include
wolf pups, a bear and a zebra, is near Kaufman.  ZooCats obtains
its animals through donations from zoos, sanctuaries and
refuges, but the group also purchases them from exotic breeders.

Operator Cook has made public claims about his group's perfect
safety record.  To the contrary, ZooCats has been cited numerous
times by the US Department of Agriculture for violations such as
failing to keep the adult animals under the control of a trained
animal handler and for failure to maintain structurally sound
facilities to prevent escape.

The organization also falsely claims to be distributing
charitable funds it collects for its services.  It purports to
represent, and donate funds to, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Save the Tiger Fund, and wildlife programs
underwritten by ExxonMobil.  These organizations claim no
affiliation with ZooCats and have not given Mr. Cook permission
to use their logos or trademarks in exhibits.  Mr. Cook also has
falsely claimed an affiliation with the Dallas World Aquarium.  
The Attorney General also suspects that Mr. Cook has
misappropriated charitable assets for personal use and will ask
the court to correct this abuse of public funds.  

The state will request civil penalties under the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Texas Nonprofit Corporations Act.  Also
requested are attorneys' fees and reimbursement of investigative
costs associated with the case.

ZooCats-related nonprofits, which are also named in today's
lawsuit, include Zoological Studies Group, ZooCats Zoological
Systems, Specialized Species Humane Society Inc., Zoo America
Inc., and Technology Specialities and Research Group Inc.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Administaff, Inc. (NYSE: ASF) publicly traded securities during
the period between April 3, 2001 to July 31, 2002, 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 April 3, 2001 and July
31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Administaff securities.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing
         and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating
         pricing for clients that experienced declines in
         average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and
         cost for health insurance on new and renewing client
         contracts; and

     (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on
         the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly
         recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's
         worksite employee payroll costs against revenues.

On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002,
reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2
million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call
estimates of $0.04 earnings per share.  Market reaction was
swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close
of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002,
or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading.

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


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Administaff, Inc. (NYSE: ASF) publicly traded securities during
the period between April 3, 2001 to July 31, 2002, 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 April 3, 2001 and July
31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Administaff securities.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing
         and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating
         pricing for clients that experienced declines in
         average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and
         cost for health insurance on new and renewing client
         contracts; and

     (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on
         the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly
         recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's
         worksite employee payroll costs against revenues.

On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002,
reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2
million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call
estimates of $0.04 earnings per share.

Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock
falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of
$4.20 on August 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy
trading.

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


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all purchasers of
Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:ASF) securities from April 3, 2001
through July 31, 2002, 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 April 3, 2001 and July
31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Administaff securities.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing
         and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating
         pricing for clients that experienced declines in
         average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and
         cost for health insurance on new and renewing client
         contracts; and

     (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on
         the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly
         recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's
         worksite employee payroll costs against revenues.

On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002,
reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2
million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call
estimates of $0.04 earnings per share.  Market reaction was
swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close
of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002,
or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading.

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: (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


ALLIANT ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) between January 29,
2002 to July 18, 2002, inclusive.  The action, is pending
against the Company and:

     (1) Erroll B. Davis, Jr. (CEO, President and Chairman),

     (2) Thomas M. Walker (CFO) and

     (3) John E. Kratchmer (Chief Accounting Officer,
         Controller)

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 January 29, 2002
to July 18, 2002.

The complaint alleges that the Company falsely touted the
performance of its non-regulated businesses and represented that
those businesses would compensate for expected 2002 weakness in
its utilities operations.  The complaint further alleges that
the Company also represented that its unregulated businesses
were integral to the Company's operations and were key to the
Company's expected annual growth rate of 7%-10%.

Such statements were materially false and misleading when made,
the complaint alleges, because defendants knew, or were reckless
in not knowing, that the unregulated businesses were suffering
from serious problems, that such businesses were a material
drain on the Company overall and could not compensate for any
weaknesses in the regulated businesses and that the Company
could not meet its 2002 earnings targets by the results of its
utilities businesses alone.

On July 18, 2002, the Company announced that it was cutting its
2002 earnings expectations by over 35%. Investors, conditioned
by defendants class period statements, reacted by selling-off
the stock, which fell by 23% in one day, from $23.78 per share
on July 18, 2002, to $18.22 per share on July 19, on unusually
heavy trading volume.  

A few months after the end of the class period, the Company
announced that it would sell many of its non-utility assets as
part of an effort to re-focus its business around the Company's
utilities operations.

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


ALLIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) from January 29, 2002
through July 18, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Alliant and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business condition.  Specifically,
Alliant represented that its non- regulated businesses were
having a substantial positive effect on the Company's earnings.  
Throughout the class period, defendants concealed that Alliant's
non-regulated businesses were not contributing to the Company's
earnings; rather such businesses operated as a drain on its
earnings.

On July 18, 2003, Alliant issued a press release announcing that
it was lowering its adjusted earnings guidance to a range of
$1.35 to $1.55 per diluted share from its previous guidance of
$2.10 to $2.30.  On this news, Alliant fell 23% from its
previous day's close of $23.78 per share to close at $18.22 per
share.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, PC by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.  


AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE: AVY) from July 24,
2001 through April 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Avery and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that Avery
failed to disclose that its financial results during the Class
Period were a product of a tacit and illegal anti-competitive
scheme with its leading competitor, UPM-Kymmene, OYJ (UPM),
whereby the Company and UPM manipulated the labelstock supply
market.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Avery's
shares.  The statements disseminated by the defendants during
the Class Period failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that Avery was engaged in an illegal anti-competitive
         scheme with UPM to drive a more stable price
         environment within the labelstock industry;

     (2) that the Company's financial results were a product of
         its anti-competitive behavior;

     (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
         behavior could possibly subject the Company to
         regulatory scrutiny in the future if such anti-   
         competitive behavior was discovered; and

     (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive
         behavior.

On April 14, 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
issued a press release wherein it announced that it intended to
file a civil antitrust lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago to block
UPM from acquiring Morgan Adhesives Company (MACtac).  

Among the reasons given for filing the suit, the DOJ stated that
its investigation had revealed that the merger between UPM and
MACtac was one in which Avery and UPM sought to coordinate.  
Additionally, on April 14, 2003, Avery announced that the DOJ
had started a criminal investigation into competitive prices in
the labelstock industry and would shortly issue a subpoena to
the Company in connection with that investigation.  On April 15,
2003, the DOJ filed its complaint against UPM.  Therein, the DOJ
alleged that UPM and Avery were in ``positions of marketplace
dominance and had significant incentives to engage in explicit
competitive coordination.''

The DOJ also alleged that evidence of competitive coordination
was enhanced by a ``longstanding strategic paper supply
relationship'' between UPM and Avery.  The DOJ further alleged
that ``the supply relationship provided UPM and Avery with the
motivations, opportunities, and means to coordinate on price,
monitor adherence, punish cheating, and engage in side payments
that could be hidden in label paper transactions.''

News of Avery's anti-competitive behavior shocked the market.  
On April 15, 2003, Avery's stock fell $4.19 on unusually high
trading volume to close at $55.94.

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


BARRICK GOLD: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Barrick Gold
Corporation (NYSE:ABX) between February 14, 2002 and September
26, 2002, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


BARRICK GOLD: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX - News) between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive.  The action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and:

     (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12,
         2003),

     (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and

     (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002.  

For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the
markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its
production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn
$0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the
phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which
increases costs) in several of its mines.

These representations were materially false and misleading,
according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that
the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above
the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per
ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to
increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated
assurances that production and costs would continue to improve
in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
(which, the Company misleadingly represented during the class
period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002).  In
reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the
Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock
fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to
$15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800)320-5081 by E-mail: barrickcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX) between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive.  The action, is pending
against the Company and:
  
     (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12,
         2003),

     (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and

     (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002.

For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the
markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its
production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn
$0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the
phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which
increases costs) in several of its mines.

These representations were materially false and misleading,
according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that
the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above
the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per
ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to
increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated
assurances that production and costs would continue to improve
in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
(which, the Company misleadingly represented during the Class
Period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002).

In reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the
Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock
fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to
$15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BARRICK GOLD: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Barrick Gold
Corporation (NYSE: ABX) publicly traded securities during the
period between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12,
         2003),

     (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and

     (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO)

The defendants allegedly 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 February 14, 2002
and September 26, 2002.  

For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the
markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its
production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn
$0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the
phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which
increases costs) in several of its mines.  

These representations were materially false and misleading,
according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that
the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above
the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per
ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to
increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated
assurances that production and costs would continue to improve
in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
(which, the Company misleadingly represented during the class
period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002).  In
reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the
Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock
fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to
$15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Daisytek International Corporation securities
(NasdaqNM:DZTK) during the period from November 9, 2001 to April
28, 2003, both dates inclusive.  The complaint names James R.
Powell, Ralph Mitchell, and Peter Wharf as defendants.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning Daisytek's financial results
during the class period which artificially inflated the price of
Daisytek securities.

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants improperly
accounted for uncollectible accounts receivables and vendor
rebates receivables in order to inflate the Company's financial
results. As a result of their misconduct, the Individual
Defendants were able to sell their personal holdings in the
Company's stock for over a million dollars in proceeds.  
Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, the individual defendants permitted the Company to enter
into a $200 million credit facility, raise additional capital,
and caused Daisytek to benefit economically from their wrongful
course of conduct.

On April 28, 2003, Daisytek announced that it expected
significant losses as a result of a write-down of customer and
vendor receivables on inventory and large restructuring charges.  
Subsequently, Daisytek announced the resignation of both its
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-
mail: email@rabinlaw.com


eUNIVERSE INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District Of California, on behalf of all open market purchasers
of securities of eUniverse, Inc. (NASDAQ:EUNI) during the period
July 30, 2002 through May 5, 2003, inclusive.  The named
defendants are the Company, Brad D. Greenspan and Joseph L.
Varraveto.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  eUniverse operates a network of web-sites and e-mail
newsletters that provide users with high-tech products and
services.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
eUniverse issued false and misleading financial statements that
caused members of the class to purchase eUniverse securities.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that eUniverse issued press
releases and filed statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) that materially overstated the Company's net
income and earnings per share.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true
value of the Company before issuing and filing the above
mentioned press releases and SEC statements.

On May 6, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing
that it intended to restate its financial statements for the
second and third quarters of the year ended March 31, 2003 and
possibly also for the first quarter of fiscal 2003.  The Company
also told investors not to rely on its reported financial
results for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003.  The
Company attributed the need for the restatement to incorrect
processing of transactions within the Company's accounting
system.  Following the May 6 announcement the NASDAQ halted
trading in eUniverse shares and the SEC initiated an informal
inquiry into the Company's announced restatement.

For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park
Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
212/907-0700 by E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.glrslaw.com


FEDERAL HOME: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of Federal Loan Mortgage
Corporation (NYSE:FRE) securities between January 27, 2003 and
June 9, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Freddie Mac's financial results and business prospects.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Freddie Mac failed to
disclose the following facts:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         personnel expertise;

     (2) the Company failed to follow accounting rules that
         require derivative securities to be marked to market;

     (3) the Company ``smoothed out its earnings'' using
         accounting techniques to lower results in good times
         and lift results when business conditions deteriorates;      
         and

     (4) the Company provided investigators with doctored
         records to conceal improper accounting techniques.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities were
artificially inflated during the class period.  On June 9, 2003,
however, the Company shocked the market when it announced it had
fired defendant David Glenn concerning ``serious questions about
the timeliness and completeness of his cooperation and candor
with the board's audit committee counsel."

Moreover, on June 11, 2002, various news sources reported that
the US Attorney's office for Eastern Virginia and the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were
investigating the Company.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or
(212) 983-9330 or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Indiana on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) securities between August 17,
2001 and June 12, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between August 17, 2001 and
June 12, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Guidant securities.  The complaint alleges that:

     (1) the Company's ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System (used to prevent
         an aneurysm in the heart's main artery from rupturing)
         was not safe and that it was the cause of over 2,600
         incidents that included 12 deaths;

     (2) the Company failed to notify the FDA regarding the over
         2,600 incidents that included 12 deaths resulting from
         the defective ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System; and

     (3) the Company engaged in fraudulent sales of the ANCURE
         ENDOGRAFT System

On June 12, 2003, the Company agreed to plead guilty to federal
charges and to pay $92.4 million for misleading regulators about
12 deaths and serious injuries linked to the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT
System.

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: GDT@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


SARA LEE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of Sara Lee Corporation
(NYSE:SLE) securities between August 1, 2002 and April 24, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning Sara
Lee's financial results and business prospects.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Sara Lee failed to disclose, among
other facts, that:

     (1) the Company's Reshaping program was a failure and,
         consequently, a large part of the Company's portfolio
         was in businesses that either were not growing or were
         in significant decline;

     (2) the Company's increased investment in media advertising
         and new product development had not started to
         accelerate growth of the Company's key brands, but
         rather, the Company's key brands continued to perform
         poorly;

     (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (4) the Company lacked any reasonable basis for projecting
         ``double digit'' operating income increases for fiscal
         2003 or diluted earnings per share figures for fiscal
         2003.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities were
artificially inflated throughout the class period, allowing
certain Sara Lee insiders to sell $23 million worth of
personally held Sara Lee stock.  On April 24, 2003, however, the
Company shocked the market when it announced it was reducing
earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50 to $1.52 per share,
significantly below consensus expectations.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or
(212) 983-9330 or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.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  * * *