CAR_Public/030619.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, June 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 120

                           Headlines                            

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Minorities File Racial Discrimination Suit
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit V. Worker Compensation Fund
COLE NATIONAL: Executes MOU To Settle Securities Suit in N.D. OH
COLE NATIONAL: CA Sues Over Pearle Vision Center Operations
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit

KMART HOLDINGS: CA Overtime Lawsuits Stayed Due To Ch. 11 Filing
KMART HOLDINGS: Employees File Suit For Overtime Wage Violations
KMART HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Class Proof of Claim in MI Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Jury Awards $51M to First Alliance Customers
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: NY Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit

OXFORD HEALTH: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
PORTAL SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
RITE-AID CORPORATION: Ex-CEO Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy Charges
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Lawsuits in MA
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Consumers File Lawsuit Over WinFax Pro

SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Suit in CA Court
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Rebates in NY
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Utah E-mail Lawsuit
TCF FINANCIAL: Motion To Intervene in Credit Card Suit Refused
UNITED STATES: Insurers Group Lauds Class Action Fairness Act

UTi WORLDWIDE: Named As Defendant in Gulf War Veterans' Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
BLUE RHINO: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CREE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
CREE INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
FEDERAL HOME: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

FEDERAL HOME: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges IN Securities Suit
J. JILL: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Files NY Stock Suit
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in FL

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Stock Suit in NY

                         *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Minorities File Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch faces a class action filed
in California federal court, alleging it hired a
disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in less-
visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in its
catalogues and elsewhere, the Associated Press reports.

Nine Hispanic and Asian plaintiffs filed the suit, alleging that
the Company enforced a nationwide corporate policy of preferring
white employees for sales positions, desirable job assignments
and work schedules.  

"If you look at the material they put out, they are cultivating
an all-white look," Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation
at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one
of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, told AP.  "It is difficult
to understand why, given that their target age demographic is
even more heavily minority than the rest of the population."

One of the plaintiffs, Filipino-American Anthony Ocampo told AP
he applied for a job at the Company's Glendale outlet, where he
had previously worked.  Mr. Ocampo, a Stanford University
graduate, said he was turned down because there were already
"too many Filipinos" working in the store.

"I was pretty appalled and for a good amount of time I was just
real angry," Mr. Ocampo said.

The suit further alleges that the Company has a policy that
requires all sales people to exhibit an all-white "A&F look."  
The Company's posters and a television program in stores display
models who are mostly white, as does the company's catalogue.  
The Company also encourages recruitment from overwhelmingly
white fraternities and sororities.  Minorities are relegated to
stock room and overnight shifts and their working hours are
allegedly reduced.

Last spring, the Company removed T-shirts from stores after
Asian-American groups complained about depictions of two slant-
eyed men in conical hats and the slogan "Wong Brothers Laundry
Service - Two Wongs Can Make it White."

The Company refused to comment on the suit, the Associated Press
reports.


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit V. Worker Compensation Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Superior Court in California dismissed a class
action filed by five businesses against the State's worker
compensation fund, the Associated Press reports.  

The suit was filed on behalf of all employers who paid into the
fund from 1987 through 1994 and alleges that the fund
artificially inflated reserves to retain payments that should
have been returned to California businesses.

The fund managers allegedly artificially inflated the fund's
reserve and thus withheld dividend refunds to businesses to
create a "war fund" it could then use to undercut private worker
compensation providers, Greg Long, the fund's lead attorney told
AP.

Judge John Munter ruled against the suit last spring.  An
adverse decision could have cost the State Compensation
Insurance Fund more than $2 billion and bankrupted the fund that
provides more than half of California's worker compensation
coverage, fund attorneys told AP.


COLE NATIONAL: Executes MOU To Settle Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole National Corporation is in the process of settling a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging claims for
various violations of federal securities laws related to the
Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings.

The action, which pleaded claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1993 named the Company and
certain present and former officers and directors as defendants,
sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages "where
appropriate," costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2003, the Company and attorneys for the plaintiffs
have executed a memorandum of understanding for a settlement to
resolve the lawsuit.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.


COLE NATIONAL: CA Sues Over Pearle Vision Center Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------
The State of California sued Cole National Corporation and its
optical subsidiaries alleging claims for various statutory
violations related to the operation of 24 Pearle Vision Centers
in California.  The claims include:

     (1) untrue or misleading advertising,

     (2) illegal dilation fees,

     (3) unlawful advertising of eye exams,

     (4) maintaining an optometrist on or near the premises of a
         registered dispensing optician,

     (5) unlawful advertising of an optometrist,

     (6) unlicensed practice of optometry, and

     (7) illegal relationships between dispensing opticians,
         optical retailers and optometrists

The action seeks unspecified damages, restitution and injunctive
relief.  Although the State of California obtained a preliminary
injunction to enjoin certain advertising practices and from
charging dilation fees in July 2002, the terms of the injunction
have not had and are not expected to have any material effect on
the Company's operations.

In addition, both the State and the Company have appealed the
preliminary injunction.  Although the Company believes it is in
compliance with California law, it may be required to further
modify its activities or might be required to pay damages and or
restitution in a currently undeterminable amount if it is not
successful, the cost of which, as well as continuing defense
costs, might have a material adverse effect on the Company's
operating results and cash flow in one or more periods.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Inrange Technologies, Inc. and certain of
its officers.

The suit seeks recovery of damages caused by the Company's
alleged violation of securities laws, including section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
of 1934.  The complaint, which was also filed against the
various underwriters that participated in the Company's initial
public offering (IPO), is identical to hundreds of shareholder
class actions pending in this court in connection with other
recent IPOs and is generally referred to as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.

The complaint alleges, in essence:

     (1) that the underwriters combined and conspired to
         increase their respective compensation in connection
         with the IPO by receiving excessive, undisclosed
         commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of
         IPO shares, and trading in the Company's stock after
         creating artificially high prices for the stock post-
         IPO through "tie-in" or "laddering" arrangements
         (whereby recipients of allocations of IPO shares agreed
         to purchase shares in the aftermarket for more than the
         public offering price for Inrange shares) and
         dissemination of misleading market analysis on the
         Company's prospects; and

     (2) that Inrange violated federal securities laws by not
         disclosing these underwriting arrangements in its
         prospectus.

The court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
because of the absence of a pleading of intent to defraud.  The
court granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but no
further amended complaint has been filed.  The court also denied
the Company's motion to dismiss claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The court has also dismissed the
Company's individual officers without prejudice, after
they entered into a tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.


KMART HOLDINGS: CA Overtime Lawsuits Stayed Due To Ch. 11 Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The employee class actions filed against Kmart Holdings
Corporation in California federal and state courts have been
stayed as a result of the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, and
confirmation of its reorganization plan.

The suits relate to the Company's classification of assistant
managers and various other employees as "exempt" employees under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California
Labor Code, and the Company's alleged failure to pay overtime
wages as required by these laws.

Seven wage-and-hour cases were all filed during 2001 and are
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and the Superior Courts
of the State of California for the Counties of Alameda, Los
Angeles and Riverside.

If all of these cases were determined adversely to the Company,
the resulting damages could have a material adverse impact on
its results of operations and financial condition.  However,
there have been no class certifications, and, based on the
Company's initial investigations, it believes that it has
meritorious defenses to each of these claims.  The Company does
not presently expect to have any material financial exposure as
a result of these cases.


KMART HOLDINGS: Employees File Suit For Overtime Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Holdings Corporation faces a putative class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma relating to the proper payment of overtime to hourly
associates under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff claims he represents a class of all current and
former Kmart employees who have been improperly denied overtime
pay.  At this time, the likelihood of a material unfavorable
outcome is not considered probable.

There is an increasing trend of high profile class action
litigation, particularly in the retail industry, against
employers of large numbers of people, which allege violations of
the FLSA.  Other companies against which these cases have been
filed have paid significant settlements and/or had significant
judgments entered against them.  The Company has a large
employee base; however no FLSA class actions against the Company
have yet been certified.


KMART HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Class Proof of Claim in MI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the plaintiffs of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Kmart Holdings Corporation filed a
class proof of claim in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Since February 21, 2002, five separate class actions have been
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock,
between May 17, 2001 and January 22, 2002, inclusive.  The suit
names Charles C. Conaway, former CEO and Chairman of the Board
of Kmart as the sole defendant.

The complaints alleged among other things, that Mr. Conaway made
material misstatements or omissions during the alleged class
period that inflated the trading prices of the Kmart
Corporation's (its Predecessor Company) common stock and seek,
among other things, damages under Section 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  

On October 15, 2002, an amended consolidated complaint was filed
that enlarged the class of persons on whose behalf the action
was brought to include purchasers of the Predecessor Company's
securities between March 13, 2001 and May 15, 2002, and added
former officers and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants.  
Kmart is not a defendant in this litigation.

The attorneys for plaintiffs in the then pending class actions
filed a class proof of claim in the court on behalf of the
plaintiffs and all purchasers of the Predecessor Company's
common stock between May 17, 2001 and January 22, 2002,
inclusive.  The Class Proof of Claim, which is asserted against
the Debtors, reserved the right to identify additional claimants
or members of the class group in the future.

In support of the Class Proof of Claim, the claimants rely on
the class actions filed against the parties identified above.  
The claimants state that the grounds for liability are alleged
damages for violations of federal securities laws, including the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the purchase
or acquisition of the Predecessor Company's common stock by the
claimants during the class period.

The Class Proof of Claim alleges that the Debtors are liable to
the claimants for damages in a sum not presently determinable
but believed to be not less than $700 in the aggregate, plus
interest, costs and allowed attorneys' fees.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Jury Awards $51M to First Alliance Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury ruled that investment bank Lehman Bros. Holdings,
Inc. helped First Alliance Corporation carry out a fraud scheme,
awarding 4,500 $51 million in damages, the Associated Press
reports.  

First Alliance and its executives were assessed with 85% of the
award, Lehman Bros. with ten%.  MBIA Insurance, which insured
First Alliance's mortgage securities will shoulder the remaining
5%.  However, because MBIA was not a defendant, it will not pay.

The plaintiffs have alleged that lending firm First Alliance
would have been out of business if Lehman hadn't provided a
$150-million credit line and bundled its mortgages into
securities that were sold to investors.  Lehman funded First
Alliance in 1999 and through March 2000, when First Alliance
filed for bankruptcy, AP states.

Last year, First Alliance settled fraud charges filed by the
Federal Trade Commission for about $75 million and won't have to
pay the damages assessed Monday, leaving Lehman Bros. with a
$5.1 million tab.

Judge David O. Carter instructed the jury that to find
liability, they must unanimously agree that Lehman knew of
"systematic fraud," and had "substantially assisted" in it, AP
reports.  The judge noted that the case was the first time a
claim involving such secondary liability had gone to trial.

Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Scruggs, who had a hand in the
strategy that led to billions of dollars in judgments against
tobacco companies, said the precedent was important.  "This is
going to slow down somebody who's thinking about funding a
predatory lending scheme," he told the Los Angeles Times for
Tuesday editions.  "There's now a jury verdict that Wall Street
can be held liable for failing to supervise the use of their
money."

Lehman attorney Helen L. Duncan told AP Lehman would appeal.  
The firm said in a statement its employees were "never aware of
any wrongdoing that may have been committed by individual loan
officers at First Alliance."


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: NY Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Marvell Technology Group, Inc. and two of
its officers, one of whom is also a director.

This complaint relating to the Company's IPO has been
consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits by plaintiffs
against approximately 55 underwriters and approximately 300
issuers across the United States.  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In these actions,
plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-
judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys' and experts'
fees.

The defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss
the action.  In February 2003, the court issued its ruling on
the motions, granting the motions in part, and denying them in
part.  Thus, the cases may proceed against the underwriters and
the Company as to alleged violations of section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Claims against the individual
officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by
agreement with plaintiffs.


OXFORD HEALTH: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant of the Southern
District Court of New York approved the settlement of a
securities class action against Oxford Health Care Insurance
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and its auditor KPMG
L.L.P for a total of $300 Million in cash.  The class consists
of purchasers of common stock of Oxford, purchasers of call-
options and sellers of Oxford put-options during the class
period between November 6, 1996 through December 9, 1997.

"This recovery was extraordinary because it dealt with attacking
the Company's financial reports which were never restated and
continued to be supported by KPMG, the firms outside auditor,"
said Patricia M. Hynes, Of Counsel to Milberg Weiss and lead
trial attorney for the class.

Melvyn I. Weiss, who negotiated the settlement, stated, "The
settlement is in the top 10 of recoveries in securities class
actions and took 6 years to achieve."


PORTAL SOFTWARE: 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 Portal Software, Inc., certain of its
officers and several underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (IPO).

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from alleged
improprieties by the underwriters in connection with the
Company's 1999 IPO and follow-on public offering, and claims to
be on behalf of all persons who purchased Portal Software shares
from May 5, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

Specifically, the suit alleges the underwriters charged certain
of their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in the
prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly improper
activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.  The complaint was subsequently amended to allege
similar claims with respect to the Company's secondary public
offering in September 1999.

The suit is part of the IPO Securities Litigation against over
300 issuers and nearly 40 underwriters alleging claims virtually
identical to those alleged against the Company.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Discovery is expected to
begin in the near future.

In the opinion of management, resolution of this litigation is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial
position of the Company.  However, depending on the amount and
timing, an unfavorable resolution of these matters could
materially affect the Company's future results of operations or
cash flows in a particular period.


RITE-AID CORPORATION: Ex-CEO Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Rite Aid Corporation chief executive Martin L. Grass
agreed to plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy in a deal
that calls for an eight-year prison sentence, the Associated
Press reports.  

Mr. Grass plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the
Company and its shareholders and one count of conspiracy to
obstruct justice.  Mr. Grass appeared before US District Judge
Sylvia H. Rambo as prosecutors outlined the plea bargain.  
Remaining charges would be dismissed.  Mr. Grass agreed to an
eight-year prison sentence, a fine of $500,200, and forfeiture
of $3 million in connection with a real estate deal.  He also
promised to cooperate with the government and potentially
testify against remaining defendants.

Judge Rambo said she would take the deal under advisement
pending a pre-sentence investigation.  If Judge Rambo accepts
Mr. Grass' plea, only Rite Aid's former vice chairman and chief
counsel, Franklin C. Brown will stand trial next week in federal
court.  Mr. Brown is similarly charged with:

     (1) conspiracy,

     (2) fraud in the purchase or sale of securities,

     (3) conspiracy to obstruct justice,

     (4) obstructing grand jury proceedings,

     (5) obstructing proceedings of a government agency,

     (6) witness tampering,

     (7) 13 counts of lying to the SEC,

     (8) 10 counts of mail fraud and

     (9) six counts of wire fraud

Former company chief financial officer Franklyn M. Bergonzi
plead guilty to one count of conspiracy in early June and agreed
to cooperate with prosecutors.  The fourth defendant, Eric S.
Sorkin, Rite Aid's vice president for pharmacy purchasing, is
expected be tried separately on charges of conspiracy to
obstruct justice and lying to a grand jury, the Associated Press
reports.

Last year, a grand jury indicted Mr. Grass, the son of the drug
store chain's founder, and two other former executives and one
current employee.  

The indictments allege that the meteoric increase in Rite Aid's
stock price under the Grass team's management in the late 1990s
was accomplished by "massive accounting fraud, the deliberate
falsification of financial statements, and intentionally false
(Securities and Exchange Commission) filings," the Associated
Press reports.

The court action has had no effect on the nation's third-largest
drugstore chain, Rite Aid spokeswoman Karen Rugen told AP.  

"We've been moving ahead now for the past four years," she said.
"Martin Grass hasn't been here for four years."


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Lawsuits in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Seachange International in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  The suit also names as
defendants:  

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (2) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (3) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (4) William Styslinger, III,

     (5) William Fiedler,

     (6) Martin R. Hoffmann,

     (7) Thomas F. Olson and

     (8) Carmine Vona

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated Sections 11 and/or 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933
and in the case of the individual defendants Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection with the stock offering that the
Company completed on January 31, 2002.  The Complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest
thereon, recissory damages, reimbursement of costs and expenses,
and further relief that the court may determine to be
appropriate.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Consumers File Lawsuit Over WinFax Pro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed by Ronald Pearce
on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of the general
public of the United States and Canada in the California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

The suit alleges violations of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200 and false advertising, in
connection with the Company's WinFax Pro product.  The complaint
seeks damages and injunctive and other equitable relief, as well
as costs and attorney fees.

Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in the
suit, and it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or
losses from the suit, the Company does not expect the final
resolution of the suit, individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse affect on its financial condition.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Symantec Corporation,
Microsoft Corporation and two retailers in the California
Superior Court, Marin County, filed an amended complaint, on
behalf of the general public of California and of a class of
certain purchasers of software products.

The amended suit adds Greg Johnson as plaintiff and Adobe
Systems and another retailer as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that Symantec's refund policies violate consumer
warranty and unfair business practice laws.  The lawsuit seeks
damages, rescission and injunctive relief, as well as costs and
attorney fees.

Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in the
suit, and it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or
losses from the suit, the Company does not expect the final
resolution of the suit, individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse affect on its financial condition.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Rebates in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation and a New York retailer faces a class
action filed by William Pereira in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, alleging breach of contract and deceptive
business practices in connection with rebates offered by the
Company.  The complaint seeks damages, costs and attorney fees.

Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in the
suit, and it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or
losses from the suit, the Company does not expect the final
resolution of the suit, individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse affect on its financial condition.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Utah E-mail Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation asked Utah State Court to dismiss the class
action filed by Craig Hughes, purportedly on behalf of persons
located in Utah who he asserts received unsolicited commercial
email from the Company.

The complaint alleges violation of Utah's recently enacted
Unsolicited Commercial Email Act.  The lawsuit requests
damages, costs and attorney fees.

Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in the
suit, and it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or
losses from the suit, the Company does not expect the final
resolution of the suit, individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse affect on its financial condition.


TCF FINANCIAL: Motion To Intervene in Credit Card Suit Refused
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York refused to allow TCF Financial Corporation to intervene in
the settlement forged by Visa and Mastercard in April that
placed restrictions on debit fees, the Star Tribune reports.

Judge John Gleeson granted preliminary approval to the combined
$3 billion settlement that Visa USA and MasterCard International
reached with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other retailers, but
denied the Company's motion.  The motion asserted that the pact
would negatively affect banks, such as the Company, that issue
debit cards.  Visa and the retailers set a ceiling on the rates
that merchants pay to Visa and banks to accept debit cards, but
the Company, which issues debit cards but not credit cards,
benefits from the fees Visa charges retailers.

The judge's preliminary approval of the settlement sets the
stage for plaintiffs' attorneys to begin notifying retailers
that were part of the class action suit.  Plaintiffs can raise
objections over the next several months, the Star Tribune
states.


UNITED STATES: Insurers Group Lauds Class Action Fairness Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance of American Insurers commended the United States
House of Representatives for approving the "Class Action
Fairness Act" (HR 1115).  The Senate Judiciary Committee
approved a similar bill (S 274) April 11.  It awaits action by
the full Senate.

"The Class Action Fairness Act attacks some of the worst
problems in our current class-action system: forum shopping,
nuisance suits, class certification and settlements not in the
best interest of plaintiffs," Kenneth D. Schloman, Alliance
Washington counsel said in a statement.  "Consumers will benefit
from the quicker hearings and more uniform approach in the
federal court system . This bill provides needed reform without
removing anyone's right to their day in court. It simply assures
that cases are heard in the most appropriate forum."

"Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and two key
sponsors of the legislation - Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and
Rick Boucher (D-VA) - deserve a tremendous amount of credit for
their steadfast leadership and support of this critically-
important legislation," he continued.  "We believe today's House
action will encourage the Senate to pass its version of class
action reform.  The bipartisan support this measure received in
the House further illustrates a growing recognition of the need
for reform."

The bill would ease the transfer of class-action suits that are
national in nature from state courts to federal courts.  The
bill also would require that notices sent to class members be in
plain English, coupon settlements be judicially scrutinized.  It
also would bar attorneys from entering into settlements that
cause members to suffer a net loss.

The Alliance of American Insurers, based in Downers Grove,
Illinois, is a national trade association representing more than
340 property/casualty insurance companies.


UTi WORLDWIDE: Named As Defendant in Gulf War Veterans' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc. was named as one of the approximately 83
defendants named in the consolidated class action filed in the
District Court of Brazaria County, Texas (23rd Judicial
District) where it is alleged that various defendants sold
chemicals that were utilized in the Gulf War by the Iraqi army
which caused personal injuries to US armed services personnel
and their families, including birth defects.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of the military personnel
who served in the Gulf War and their families and the plaintiffs
are seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages.  To date, the
plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.

The Company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the Company assets in 1993 is a defendant.  The
Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the
alleged actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
Company's purchase of the assets and it never manufactured
chemicals.  The plaintiffs have been unable to produce evidence
that the Company acted as a freight forwarder for cargo that
included chemicals used by the Iraqi army.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Allou Healthcare, Inc. (Amex: ALU - News) between
June 22, 1998 and April 9, 2003, inclusive, against certain
officers and directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that although the Company had been
reporting strong revenue and earnings growth over the years, its
business had not generated positive cash flow and, as a result,
the Company had relied on loans to operate its business.  During
the class period, Allou issued press releases and filed
quarterly reports with the SEC, which purported to accurately
report the Company's performance and financial condition.

The complaint further alleges that unbeknownst to class members,
the Company's class period reports contained material
overstatements of inventory and accounts receivable.  As such,
defendants were motivated to inflate Allou's results and balance
sheet in order to secure much-needed financing from creditors.

The scheme began to unravel after accounting experts working for
Allou's lenders discovered that the Company had been inflating
its financial results.  As a result of the investigation,
creditors sought to force the Company and its operating
subsidiaries into bankruptcy, filing an involuntary petition for
bankruptcy with the Bankruptcy Court of this district on April
9, 2003.  The petition was consented to by the Company following
its filing. The American Stock Exchange 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.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske,
George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make  
reference to Allou.


BLUE RHINO: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in C.D. 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 Blue Rhino
Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO - News) common stock during the
period from August 15, 2002 through February 5, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges Blue Rhino 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 Blue Rhino's shares.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and financial results.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, 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


CREE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Cree, Inc. (NasdaqNM:CREE) from August 19, 1998 through June
13, 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 19, 1998 and
June 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cree
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 net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the defendants artificially boosted Cree's
         operating income through an undisclosed agreement with
         defendant Neal Hunter's brother, Jeff Hunter, the then
         chairman of C3, that required C3 to accept shipments of
         silicon carbide (SiC) crystals for the manufacture of
         moissanite gemstones far in excess of market demand;

     (3) that the defendants failed to properly disclose how
         officers and director's compensation was determined;

     (4) that the defendants failed to disclose in its
         registration statements and its prospectuses the proper
         use of the proceeds from those offerings.  For example,
         in its January 14, 2000 prospectus, Cree failed to
         disclose that it would invest $5 million of the
         offering proceeds in World Theatre, Inc.;

     (5) that the defendants were actively concealing these
         facts in order to manipulate the Company's earnings
         outlooks in order to maintain its favorable stock
         prices;

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

     (7) that the Company's earnings projections were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made.

On June 13, 2003, Eric Hunter, the former chief executive of
Cree filed a $3 billion lawsuit against Cree and defendant Neal
Hunter, his brother.  Among the allegations contained in the
lawsuit, Eric Hunter alleged that since as early as August 1995
and continuing until at least May 2003, Cree and the Individual
Defendants engaged in a series of undisclosed corporate
activities, which included, among other things, the filing of
false and misleading statements to the public and the SEC with
respect to the Company's secondary stock offerings, anticipated
earnings and revenue, reported income and operating income.

Market reaction to the news was swift. Shares of Cree fell 18.5%
or $4.11 per share to close at $18.10 per share on heavy trading
volume on June 13, 2003.

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


CREE INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Cree, Inc.
(NasdaqNM:CREE) during the class period January 14, 2000 to June
13, 2003.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court in Greensboro, North Carolina.

The complaint charges that defendants artificially inflated
Cree's stock price by making false statements to the marketplace
during the class period.  On January 14, 2000 Cree filed a
prospectus and registration statement in connection with the
offering of 2,860,000 shares of common stock.  The "Use Of
Proceeds" section of the prospectus failed to disclose that Cree
would invest $5 million of the offering proceeds in World
Theatre, Inc., a speculative start-up company in which C. Eric
Hunter, a brother of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, was a substantial shareholder.

In addition, in December 2000, Cree bought the UltraRF division
from Spectrian Corporation (Spectrian) for approximately 908,000
shares of Cree common stock and $30 million in cash.  Cree
falsely told the market UltraRF would be accretive to earnings
and that, as part of the acquisition, Spectrian would enter into
a 2-year supply agreement requiring it to buy semiconductor
parts from Cree.  Spectrian was required to purchase, however,
only if Cree sold product to it at the lowest available
commercial price, a fact which Cree did not disclose.

Although the UltraRF division continued to lose money for Cree,
a write down for the division's goodwill was delayed until March
2002, when Cree announced that it would take a $60-$77 million
goodwill write down for the division.  On June 13, 2003, Cree
disclosed that it had been sued by Eric Hunter.  

The lawsuit revealed that Cree had falsified its books to allow
certain executives to receive higher compensation and had
intentionally oversold product to C3 Corporation to artificially
inflate Cree's income and stock price.  Cree's stock dropped
nearly 19% on the news.

For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale or Julie Prag
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


FEDERAL HOME: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf all persons who purchased and/or acquired Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:FRE) common stock between
April 18, 2000 and June 6, 2003.  The suit names as defendant
the Company and:

     (1) David Glemm,

     (2) Vaughn Clarke and

     (3) Leland C. Brendsel

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading
statements of material fact, including, inter alia, false and
misleading quarterly and annual income.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
continuously reported that Freddie Mac was experiencing growth
in net income and was well-positioned to report increasing
growth in quarterly earnings.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants also touted Freddie Mac's forthright financial
disclosures, stating that they were in the vanguard of full and
fair disclosure.

In truth and in fact, defendants' alleged statements and
reported income were false and misleading because defendants
manipulated Freddie Mac's reported income in order to make it
appear that the Company was experiencing continued explosive
growth in profitability, Freddie Mac lacked adequate internal
accounting controls and failed to follow Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles in reporting Freddie Mac's quarterly and
annual financial results.

For more details, Bernard M. Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
800-849-3120 (toll-free), 866-561-3600 (toll-free) or
215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


FEDERAL HOME: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of institutions, individuals and other
investors who purchased the securities of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (NYSE: FRE), between April 18, 2000 and
June 6, 2003 inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and, specifically, pleads that, during the class period,
the defendants made materially false and misleading
representations regarding the Company's operating earnings.  
During the class period it has been reported that Freddie Mac
may have earned more than it reported and had a higher capital
surplus.  

This practice, which is referred to as "smoothing," allows
companies to meet or exceed earnings estimates and report
substantial growth in the future by deferring present gains to
future periods.  This practice, which also is often referred to
as "cookie jar" accounting, violates Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, and is designed to create the impression
that earnings growth is steady and meets or exceeds analyst's
expectations.

When these potential practices were revealed, the market reacted
swiftly and shares of Freddie Mac closed down $9.61 on June 6,
2003 on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by
Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877-8891-9880 or by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges IN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Guidant
Corporation (NYSE: GDT) between September 28, 1999 and June 12,
2003, inclusive, against Guidant and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

On June 12, 2003, Guidant announced that it and Endovascular
Technologies (Endovascular), Guidant's wholly owned subsidiary,
had settled with the Department of Justice in relation to an
investigation of the regulatory misconduct involving the
deployment of Guidant's Ancure Endograft System (Ancure).  

Under the terms of the plea agreement Guidant agreed to make a
payment of $43.4 million and an additional $49 million civil
settlement to the government.  Endovascular also agreed to plead
guilty to 10 felony counts, including nine for shipping
misbranded products and one count of a former employee making
false statements to the government.  The plea agreement
pertained only to the delivery system of Ancure prior to the
company's voluntary recall.  So gross was the misconduct that it
is one of the first times there has been felony convictions for
such conduct.

The complaint alleges that Guidant Corporation misled the
investing public as to the safety, reliability, marketability
and financial impact of Ancure, a device Guidant's subsidiary,
EndoVascular, developed and marketed for the treatment of
abdominal aortic aneurysms.  Defendants misled the investing
public as to the present risks for its business and finances as
a result of product liability lawsuits and government
prosecution relating to Ancure's introduction and deployment
into the marketplace.  

Defendants further misled the investing public and the FDA as to
the safety of Ancure by under-reporting the number of patient
injuries or complications that resulted from the use of Ancure.  
The purpose of the scheme was to avoid investor scrutiny of the
improprieties of the Company's management, to allow the Company
to continue to provide inflated expectations as to Ancure's
marketability, and to maintain inflated share price multiples
unobtainable had any "hazard discount" been introduced into the
valuation of the Company's share price.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Lawrence P.
Kolker, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters or Derek Behnke by
Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Guidant.


J. JILL: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of The J. Jill Group,
Inc. (NasdaqNM:JILL) common stock during the period from
February 12, 2002 through December 4, 2002, inclusive.

The action charges J. Jill 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 J. Jill's share price.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and financial results.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company's same-store sales growth -- an
         operating metric that is important to investors in
         retailing stocks -- was declining during the class
         period as demand for the Company's products weakened;

     (2) that the Company was amassing a material amount of
         product that was of diminishing value and would have to
         be discounted in promotional campaigns, thereby causing
         the Company to experience declining financial results;

     (3) that the Company was not collecting taxes in certain
         States where it made Internet sales and also had a
         retail store.  As a result, the Company was exposed to
         the heightened risk that it would be subject to
         regulatory scrutiny; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' earnings
         projections and positive statements about the Company
         were lacking in a reasonable basis and were therefore
         materially false and misleading.

On December 5, 2002, prior to the open of the market, J. Jill
Group shocked the market by announcing that it was revising its
earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002.  The Company reported
that it expected fourth quarter diluted earnings per share to
range between $0.25 and $0.30.  In response to this
announcement, the price of J. Jill common stock declined from
$23.01 per share to $16.52 per share, a decline of 28%, on
extremely heavy volume.  Prior to the end of the Class Period,
J. Jill insiders sold more than $17 million of their personally-
held stock to the unsuspecting public.

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


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Files NY Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGN - News) and certain
of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Regeneron securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements, which
resulted in plaintiffs purchasing Regeneron securities during
the class period at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman,
and/or Mark D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
888/593-4771 or 212/682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of TYCO
International Ltd (NYSE:TYC) securities during the period
between December 30, 2002 through and including March 12, 2003.  

The suit charges the Company and Edward D. Breen -- Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer with violations of 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 TYCO securities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that at the start of
the class period, December 30, 2002, defendants filed an 8-K
reporting the conclusion of an investigation of Tyco's
accounting and corporate governance.  Defendants identified
charges, reflecting accounting errors in fiscal year 2002, which
totaled $382.2 million.  

When defendants issued their financial statements, they assured
the marketplace that there was no systemic or significant fraud
related to the financial statement or of any clear accounting
errors affecting the year 2003.  Additionally, defendants
assured the market that this intensive review was to build
Tyco's credibility, strengthen Tyco's accounting practices and
fulfill its commitment to investors.  Shortly thereafter, ADT
raised billions of dollars in the marketplace through the
issuance of new securities and were able to negotiate new lines
of credit with its lenders.  

However, in fact, defendants embarked on a scheme and course of
conduct to misrepresent the true current financial and operating
condition of, and financial prospects for Tyco and its ADT
business segment by failing to disclose that there were
additional material accounting adjustments that would be
required to be made to Tyco's financial statements in order to
properly present its financial condition and that those
adjustments would reduce Tyco's earnings materially below the
levels defendants had conditioned the market to expect in fiscal
year 2003.

On March 12, 2003, after the close of trading on the NYSE,
defendants stunned the market by announcing ``that in the
quarter ending March 31, 2003, it expects to take non-cash, pre-
tax charges that are estimated to be between $265 million and
$325 million for issues identified primarily in its (ADT)
business.  These charges are expected to lower earnings by $0.09
to $0.11 per share.''  

In response to this announcement, the price of Tyco common stock
fell from a close of $14.03 per share on March 12, 2003 to close
at $12.18 per share on March 13, 2003, on unusually large
trading volume of 89,694,200 shares.

For more details, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by
Mail: 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CorTS
Trust II for Provident Financial Trust I (NYSE:KCC) (NYSE:UNM)
UnumProvident Corporate-Backed Trust Securities (CorTS)
Certificates pursuant to an initial public offering on or about
April 18, 2001 and/or in the aftermarket for CorTS through and
including March 24, 2003.

The complaint entitled, Azzolini vs. CorTS Trust II for
Provident Financial Trust I, et al. 03 cv 3257, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint charges CorTS Trust II for Provident Financial
Trust I, UnumProvident, Salomon Smith Barney and certain
UnumProvident officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.  UnumProvident Corporation is the parent holding
company for a group of insurance and non-insurance companies
that collectively operate throughout North America and in the
United Kingdom, Japan and Argentina.

UnumProvident's principal operating subsidiaries are Unum Life
Insurance Company of America, Provident Life and Accident
Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Paul
Revere Life) and Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company
(Colonial).  UnumProvident, through its subsidiaries, is a
provider of group and individual disability insurance.  It also
provides a complementary portfolio of other insurance products,
including long-term care insurance, life insurance, employer-
and employee-paid group benefits and related services.

According to the CorTS IPO prospectus, UnumProvident Corporation
guaranteed the payment of distributions on the Underlying
Capital Securities but only to the extent that the Underlying
Issuer had funds legally and immediately available therefor.  On
April 18, 2001, the first day of the class period, the CorTS
were issued pursuant to the Prospectus and Registration
Statement and began to publicly trade.  The trust consisted of a
single class of certificates, which represented interests in the
trust and the certificates would only be paid through the trust.  
Therefore, the CorTS would only be paid if UnumProvident paid
the original trust.

During the class period, UnumProvident falsely reported
financial results because it did not properly account for the
long-term impairment of its investments.  Moreover, the
financial information was inflated due to UnumProvident's
overzealous denial of legitimate claims of its insureds through,
what one federal judge deemed "a comprehensive system for
targeting and terminating expensive claims."  The financial
statements and related press releases by UnumProvident
identified above contained statements that were materially false
and misleading when made.

On March 24, 2003, UnumProvident issued a press release in which
they stated their intentions to restate financial statements
from previous years.  This put the payments of the CorTS in
jeopardy and caused the CorTS to lose almost 50% of their value.

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: 410-332-0030 by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com

                            *********

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

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

                           *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *