CAR_Public/030620.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, June 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 121

                           Headlines                            

ARTEMIS INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Agreement in Securities Lawsuit
BARNEYS NEW YORK: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Settlement
BUSPAR ANTITRUST: Idaho Purchasers May Now File Monetary Claims
CALIFORNIA: Atty. Gen. Pursues Illegal Immigration Consultants
CALIFORNIA: CA Court Dismisses Consumer's Insurance Fraud Suit

CANADA: Calgary Faces Possible Suit Over Energy Board Proposal
CORAM HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Refuses Rehearing on Stock Suit
FAO INC.: Directors Face Consolidated Securities Suit in E.D. PA
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
FORD MOTOR: Family of State Trooper Sues Over Crown Victoria Car

GART SPORTS: Negotiating To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
IDAHO: State To Receive More than $300T From Tobacco Settlement
K&G MEN'S: Faces Multi-Party Suit For Tailors in CA State Court
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Vegetarians Appeal Fast Food Agreement
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces Overtime Wage Suits in CA State Courts

NCI BUILDING: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Securities Lawsuit in TX
NESTLE WATER: Consumers File Suit Over Bottled Water Advertising
NEVADA: Las Vegas Homebuilders Face Four Construction Lawsuits
NORTH CAROLINA: State To Receive $3.6M in Tobacco Settlement
PROCOM TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit

VERMONT: Attorney General Enters into Global Tobacco Settlement

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Talks On New Tort-Reform Law
ASBESTOS ALERT: Company Levied for Improper Asbestos Disposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Post latest Asbestos Stats
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Senate Says Ok to Tort-Reform Package
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Refuses Comment on Spin-off Talks

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Senator Seeks to Delay Asbestos Vote
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Causes Led To Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anti-Asbestos Ads Run Across Various States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovery Disrupts Court Hearings

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE RHINO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
CENTRAL PARKING: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. TN
CENTRAL PARKING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TN
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in CA
CREE INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. NC

CRYO-CELL CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Launches Stock Suit in FL
eUNIVERSE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Suit in NY

                           *********


ARTEMIS INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Agreement in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Artemis International Solutions Corporation signed an agreement
for the settlement and release of all claims against Artemis and
certain officers and directors and the underwriters in the
consolidated, amended class action entitled "In re: Opus360
Corp. Securities Litigation," filed April 6, 2001.  

The lawsuit became a contingent liability for the company as
part of the acquisition of the Opus360 Corporation completed in
November 2001.  The complaint was filed against Opus360 in
connection with its initial public offering in April 2000.

"We are pleased to see this potential liability put behind us
with no adverse effect to the company," commented Mike Rusert,
President & CEO of Artemis International.

The settlement is subject to approval by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
company's insurer will cover substantially all of the $550,000
in total settlement costs.  The court initially dismissed the
lawsuit, but plaintiffs were given permission to re-file an
amended complaint.  

The settlement is in no event construed or deemed to be evidence
of or an admission or concession on the part of the company or
any individually named defendant officers and directors with
respect to any claim of any fault or liability or wrongdoing or
damage whatsoever.

For more details, contact Robert Stefanovich (Executive Vice
President, CFO) by Phone: 949/660-7100, Ext. 208 or by E-mail:
robert.stefanovich@us.asic.com or contact Cecilia Dinh
(Paralegal) by Phone: 949/660-7100, Ext. 426 or by E-mail:
cecilia.dinh@us.aisc.com


BARNEYS NEW YORK: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Diego conducted a fairness hearing for the final approval of the
settlement of the class action filed against Barneys New York,
Inc.

The suit alleges two causes of action for purported violations
of California's Civil Code and Business and Professions Code
relating to the alleged requesting by the Company of certain
information.  The complaint seeks relief on a class basis under
the statutes permitting a plaintiff to recover a fine, in the
discretion of the court, and such other damages which each
member of the class may have suffered as a result of the
Company's alleged conduct.

The complaint further seeks an accounting of all moneys and
profits received by us in connection with the alleged violations
as well as injunctive relief with respect to the alleged
practices.  Certification of the class and attorneys fees
is sought as well.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, that
it has substantial defenses to the claims and plans to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.  A proposed settlement of this
matter received preliminary court approval on May 1, 2003. The
settlement is subject to final court approval as well as
satisfaction of certain other conditions.

No assurances can be provided that the proposed settlement will
be finalized in accordance with its terms.  In management's
judgment, based in part on consultation with legal counsel,
neither this case nor the proposed settlement is expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position.


BUSPAR ANTITRUST: Idaho Purchasers May Now File Monetary Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers of BuSpar may now file claims for monetary payment,
the office of Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden announced.  
Idaho consumers who purchased the anti-anxiety drug may now file
claims for restitution.  

The restitution payments are a result of an antitrust suit that
was settled on March 7, 2003 against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
Watson Pharma, Inc. and Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.  Idahoans and
organizations that purchased BuSpar between January 1, 1998 and
January 31, 2003 may be eligible to receive payment.  The
deadline to file a claim is October 10, 2003.

"Individual Idahoans and governmental entities paid too much for
BuSpar and deserve the refunds available through the
settlement," Attorney General Wasden said.  "I urge any
purchasers of this drug to review the claims information and
consider filing a claim."

Idaho and 34 other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, had alleged that Bristol and the other defendants acted in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws to prevent generic
BuSpar from coming to market.  The State of Idaho will also
receive $175,000 based upon Medicaid and state agency purchases
of BuSpar.

For more details, contact the Idaho Attorney General by Phone:
800-678-9587 or visit his Website: http://www.state.id.us/ag


CALIFORNIA: Atty. Gen. Pursues Illegal Immigration Consultants
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer obtained a temporary
restraining order against another unbonded Bay Area immigration
consultant business, prohibiting it from operating until a bond
required by law is filed.

"State law requires individuals and businesses that advertise or
portray themselves as 'immigration consultants' to file a
$50,000 bond with the state before they open their doors for
business," Atty. Gen. Lockyer said.  "The bond is for the
protection of consumers who, sadly, are ripped off each year by
unscrupulous individuals who take their money and either don't
provide the services they promised or provide services without
proper licenses, putting the consumer's financial and legal
status at risk.  We will continue to close these operations
down until the abide by state law."

Named in the complaint were Carmy Mishell Moscoso and Maria
Moscoso, the proprietors of Moscoso Services/Moscoso Income Tax
Service in San Rafael.  The defendants, who advertise that they
serve clients in Marin, Sonoma, Contra Costa and Solano
counties, are alleged to have violated state law by operating
as immigration consultants without filing the required bond.

The temporary restraining order was issued by Marin County
Superior Court Judge John A. Sutro, Jr.  The defendants also
face stiff penalties for operating without a bond and will have
to reimburse the state for its costs in bringing the suit.

The action follows similar lawsuits filed by the Attorney
General against three unbonded San Francisco immigration
consultants last week.  Since 2001, charges have been filed
against 14 unlawful immigration consultant companies.

For more details, contact Attorney General's Office of Immigrant
Assistance by Phone: 1-888-587-0557.


CALIFORNIA: CA Court Dismisses Consumer's Insurance Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court dismissed the class action
filed against the State Compensation Insurance Fund, stating the
plaintiffs failed to prove their claims, the Insurance Journal
reports.  

Law firm Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton said in an
announcement that plaintiffs will recover nothing, despite
seeking $1.1 billion plus interest and punitive damages.

Judge John E. Munter of the San Francisco Superior Court stated
in his decision, "The Court determines that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that there has been a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; or that there has been
a breach of contract; or that there has been fraud or deceit; or
that there has been violation of California's unfair competition
law. Likewise, on each of these theories of recovery, plaintiffs
also have failed to prove causation and damages. Plaintiffs
shall recover nothing in this action. State Fund, by motion, may
request an award of costs of suit."

Gregory A. Long, lead trial attorney, commented, "This was a
long and difficult case, with complex legal and factual issues.  
I am delighted that the Court's decision rejects what we believe
to be unfounded allegations against our client."

Fred Puglisi, who second chaired the trial, said, "Defendants
rarely try large class actions, particularly when the plaintiff
seeks billions of dollars.  We are thrilled that our client
trusted us to try this lawsuit on its behalf, and we are pleased
with the Court's decision.  State Fund received justice."

The plaintiffs filed this class action against State Fund in
February, 1996, for:

     (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) fraud and deceit, and

     (4) unfair business practices under Business and
         Professions Code 17200.

The plaintiffs alleged that State Fund, acting in bad faith,
"uniformly administered and centrally enforced" an unfair policy
of reserving claims caused the Fund's 2000 adjusters to set
unreasonably high reserves on every claim adjusted between July,
1989 and October, 1995.  The policy allegedly was concealed from
policyholders and caused increased premiums and reduced
policyholder dividends.  The plaintiffs offered no reason why
the State Fund's civil service employees who receive neither
stock options nor performance-based compensation would adopt or
support such conduct.

The State Fund was created by statute and the California
Constitution to insure that affordable workers' compensation
insurance would be available to the State's employers.  Unlike
other workers' comp insurance companies doing business in
California, the State Fund is a public enterprise fund and has
no stockholders.


CANADA: Calgary Faces Possible Suit Over Energy Board Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitholders in Paramount Energy Trust are considering a class
action against the province of Alberta, Canada over a proposal
by Alberta's Energy and Utilities Board to shut in more than 900
natural gas wells in northeastern Alberta to protect oilsands
reserves, the Canadian Press reports.

The proposal could end up costing the province more than $2
billion in compensation, Paramount Energy Trust president Susan
Riddell-Rose told unitholders at the income trust's first annual
meeting.  17 affected energy companies have joined forces to
look at Alberta's liability in the issue.

"I think (the province) must realize that we're talking billions
of dollars, not millions, of impact here," Ms. Riddell-Rose told
the Canadian Press.  "And we haven't heard any response yet."

The board states that it is fulfilling its role in energy
conservation through the measure.  Regulators are concerned with
the fact that natural gas lies in contact with bitumen,
extracting the gas before the bitumen will cause a drop in
pressure.  This could result in losing the bitumen by making it
harder to extract.

The trust, however, openly questioned whether the Energy and
Utilities Board had overstepped its authority.  Paramount
(TSX:PMT.UN), one of more than 20 relatively new income trusts
in the Canadian oilpatch, says its market capitalization fell
$330 million "in one minute" after the Energy and Utilities
Board announced the proposed policy change in early June, the
Canadian Press reports.  The Company believes that the proposed
shut-in could affect up to half of its production.

Ms. Riddell-Rose told unitholders the proposed shut-downs are
scheduled for August 1, less than a month after the public
discussions.  "I think the time frame they've laid out is a
clear indication that they're not really willing to work with
industry," she said.


CORAM HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Refuses Rehearing on Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing on the securities class
actions pending against Coram Healthcare Corporation.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging that certain current and former
officers and directors of the company and the company's
principal lenders, Cerberus Partners, L.P., Foothill
Capital Corporation and Goldman, Sachs & Co., implemented a
scheme to perpetrate a fraud upon the stock market regarding the
Company's common stock.

The plaintiffs' purported class action suit alleges that the
defendants artificially depressed the trading price of the
company's publicly traded shares and created the false
impression that stockholders' equity was decreasing in value and
was ultimately worthless.  The plaintiffs further allege
that members of the class sustained total investment losses of
$50 million or more.

All defendants moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and, in connection
therewith, on May 6, 2002 the presiding judge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice and also denied
plaintiffs' request for leave to replead.

The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit and filed their brief in
support of their appeal with that court on July 24, 2002.  The
defendants filed their opposition brief on August 23, 2002 and
the plaintiffs filed a reply brief on September 20, 2002.

On December 18, 2002, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower
court's order dismissing the case with prejudice.  On December
30, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing with the
Third Circuit, however, such petition was denied.

Management believes the company's financial obligation for the
legal and professional fees related to this matter is limited to
the deductible of the underlying insurance policy and,
accordingly, such amount has been accrued in the company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.


FAO INC.: Directors Face Consolidated Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAO, Inc.'s directors face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged misrepresentations
made by the defendants.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Jerry R. Welch,

     (2) Fred Kayne and

     (3) Richard Kayne

Management currently does not believe this claim will result in
a material adverse effect to the Company's business or
operations, financial position or results of operations,
however, the amended complaint may raise new issues that could
have such an effect or management's initial evaluation may prove
inaccurate.


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Department Stores, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain members of its senior management on behalf of persons
who purchased shares of the Company between February 23, 2000
and July 20, 2000.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
on the basis that the Company, among other things, made false
and misleading statements regarding its financial condition and
results of operations and failed to disclose material
information relating to credit card account delinquencies at the
Company's former Fingerhut subsidiary.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages and costs,
including legal fees.  Management intends to defend vigorously
against those allegations.  Discovery has not commenced.


FORD MOTOR: Family of State Trooper Sues Over Crown Victoria Car
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company faces a lawsuit filed in Jackson County Court
in Missouri by a family of a state trooper who died last month
in a squad car fire, the Associated Press reports.  He was
driving the Company's Crown Victoria Police Interceptors.

Michael Newton, 25, was killed on May 22 when his parked patrol
car was struck by a pickup that was towing a flatbed trailer on
Interstate 70 in western Missouri.  Michael Nolte was sitting
next to Mr. Newton and was injured in the wreck.  Passersby were
able to pull Mr. Nolte from the car, but Mr. Newton was pinned
and burned to death.

Mr. Nolte and the family of Michael Newton filed the suit,
alleging the squad car fire was caused in part by the location
of the car's fuel tank.  The suit was the latest in several
claims against the Company over the design of its Crown
Victorias.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley told AP she couldn't comment on
the suits but said the cars are not defective.  She said deaths
attributed to the fuel tank's location - between the rear axle
and rear bumper - were instead a result of the high speeds at
which patrol cars have been struck alongside highways.

"The issue is the really unique use of the vehicle," Ms. Kinley
said.


GART SPORTS: Negotiating To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gart Sports, Inc. has entered into negotiations to settle
several class actions filed against it alleging various overtime
and wage law violations in California state courts.

In June 2000, a former employee of Sportmart brought two class
action complaints in California against the Company, alleging
certain wage and hour claims in violation of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professional Code section
17200 and other related matters.

One complaint alleges that the Company classified certain
managers in its California stores as exempt from overtime pay
when they would have been classified as non-exempt and paid
overtime.  The second complaint alleges that the Company failed
to pay hourly employees in its California stores for all hours
worked.

In March 2001, a third class action complaint was filed in the
same court in California alleging the same wage and hour
violations regarding classification of certain managers as
exempt from overtime pay.  In July 2001, a fourth complaint was
filed alleging that store managers should also not be classified
as employees exempt from overtime pay.

All the complaints seek compensatory damages, punitive damages
and penalties.  The amount of damages sought is unspecified.  
Although the court denied motions to dismiss the first two
complaints, the Company intends to vigorously defend these
matters and at this time, the Company has not ascertained the
future liability, if any, as a result of these complaints.

Recently, however, the Company has entered into settlement
negotiations with the class counsel relating to the first two
complaints that were filed.  As a result, the Company believes
it is probable it will reach a settlement related to this
matter.


IDAHO: State To Receive More than $300T From Tobacco Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden announced that the State
of Idaho will receive more than $300,000 from tobacco companies
in a settlement of pending disputes over payments due the states
under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.  

The bulk of the money will come from Brown & Williamson, the
nation's third largest tobacco manufacturer.  The 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement required all of the major tobacco companies
to pay $206 billion to the states during the first 25 years of
the agreement.  

The payment is part of a new, global settlement reached between
the states and most of the nation's tobacco manufacturers.  The
agreement resolves Brown & Williamson's failure to make payments
to the states for the cigarettes it manufactured for Star
Tobacco, Inc., a company that refused to join the 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement.

"The settlement establishes clear ground rules for the future,"
Attorney General Wasden said.  "It marks a major step forward
for the states in ensuring that they will continue to receive
the full payments promised under the MSA."

As part of the new settlement, all major tobacco manufacturers
agreed they will take responsibility for cigarettes they
manufacture for other companies.  The settlement also avoids
complex disputes over whether the 1998 settlement was a
"significant factor" in causing the market share of
the companies that signed it to decline during the first four
years of the agreement.  That issue had threatened to drag on
into years of costly litigation, Attorney General Wasden said.  
Instead, the settlement avoids claims from the tobacco companies
that might have reached as much as $1 billion.


K&G MEN'S: Faces Multi-Party Suit For Tailors in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
K&G Men's Center, Inc. and K&G Men's Company, Inc. faces a
multi-party action filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court of
California, alleging several causes of action, each based on the
factual allegation that in the State of California, the Company
misclassified the tailors working in their stores as
"independent contractors" and refused to classify them as non-
exempt employees subject to the application of certain
California labor statutes.

Because of this alleged misclassification, the suit alleges that
K&G failed to pay hourly and overtime compensation and provide
the required rest periods required by such labor statutes.  The
suit further alleges that K&G violated several other labor
statutes and regulations as well as the California Unfair
Competition Law.  It seeks, among other things, restitution,
disgorgement due to failure to comply with California labor
laws, penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the tailors were properly classified
as independent contractors and properly compensated pursuant to
the terms of their respective Independent Contractor Agreements.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Vegetarians Appeal Fast Food Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several prominent members of the vegetarian community filed a
notice of appeal on Monday related to a suit against fast food
giant McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD).  At issue in the appeal
is a recent court ruling that allows the allocation of $6
million in settlement funds to be directed to groups which do
not uphold the values of vegetarianism, as required by the
settlement agreement.  The suit attacked McDonald's use of beef
by-products in the preparation of McDonald's French fries and
hash browns.

These prominent members of the vegetarian community (appellants)
are not appealing the settlement itself, but assert that the $6
million distribution subverts the spirit and the letter of the
settlement agreement by improperly directing funds to non-
vegetarian groups, groups hostile to vegetarianism and groups in
limited size and geographical reach.  A "vegetarian" is a person
who does not eat meat, fish, foul or any food derived from the
flesh of animals.

"This distribution is like getting a Happy Meal without the
food," Michael Hyman, attorney for the plaintiffs, said.  "The
settlement, on its face, seems to be fair to the vegetarian
community, but you open up the box and what you're expecting
just isn't there."

The distribution of attorney's fees to plaintiffs' lawyers is
also being appealed.  It is expected that the appeal could take
more than two years to be argued and a decision rendered.

For more details, contact Jay Dinwoodie, Marketing Manager or
Michael Hyman of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, PC by Phone: (312) 521-2122 or by E-mail:
jdinwoodie@muchshelist.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces Overtime Wage Suits in CA State Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries face two
class actions filed in California State Courts on behalf of its
managers and assistant managers.

On April 18, 2003, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange.  On
April 21, 2003, a lawsuit was filed against K&G Men's Center,
Inc. and K&G Men's Company Inc., wholly owned subsidiaries
of the Company, in the Los Angeles Superior Court of California.

The Orange County suit was brought as a purported class action.  
The Los Angeles County suit was brought as a multi-party action.  
Both suits allege several causes of action, each based on the
factual allegation that in the State of California the Company
and K&G misclassified its managers and assistant managers as
exempt from the application of certain California labor
statutes.

Because of this alleged misclassification, the suits allege that
the Company and K&G failed to pay overtime compensation and
provide the required rest periods to such employees.  The suits
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
along with an accounting as to alleged wages, premium pay,
penalties, interest and restitution allegedly due the class
defendants.

The Company believes that its managers and assistant managers
were properly classified as exempt under such statutes and,
therefore, properly compensated, it revealed in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend them.


NCI BUILDING: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated securities class
action against NCI Building Systems, Inc. and certain of its
current officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  The plaintiffs in the actions
purport to represent purchasers of NCI common stock during
various periods ranging from August 25, 1999 through April 12,
2001.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that during the financial periods that were
restated, the Company:

     (1) made materially false and misleading statements about
         the status and effectiveness of a management
         information and accounting system used by its
         components division;

     (2) failed to assure that the system maintained books and
         records accurately reflecting inventory levels and
         costs of goods sold;

     (3) failed to maintain internal controls on manual
         accounting entries made to certain inventory-related
         accounts in an effort to correct the data in the
         system;

     (4) otherwise engaged in improper accounting practices that
         overstated earnings and

     (5) issued materially false and misleading financial
         statements.

The plaintiffs further allege that the individual defendants
traded in the Company's common stock while in possession of
material, non-public information regarding the foregoing.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint assert various claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and seek unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.

On March 15, 2002, the Company filed its motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended consolidated suit and memorandum in support.
On March 28, 2003, the court entered its order granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss.  In addition, the
court granted leave for the plaintiffs to further amend the
complaint.

The consolidated lawsuit is at a very early stage.  
Consequently, at this time the Company is not able to predict
whether it will incur any liability in excess of insurance
coverages or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages,
if any, that the Company might incur in connection with the
lawsuit, or whether an adverse outcome could have a material
adverse impact on its business, consolidated financial condition
or results of operations.


NESTLE WATER: Consumers File Suit Over Bottled Water Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Waters North America, a subsidiary of Nestle S.A., faces
a class action claiming that it falsely advertises its top-
selling Poland Spring brand bottled water.

The suit alleges Nestle uses heavily treated water taken from
common ground water sources when bottling Poland Spring, but
then labels the bottles as spring water and charges consumers a
premium price for supposedly higher quality water.  

Filed in Connecticut Superior Court, the suit argues that
Nestle's claims of Poland Spring as "found deep in the woods of
Maine" and "exceptionally well protected by nature"
intentionally deceives customers about the true nature of the
sources, most of which are surrounded by asphalt parking lots or
potentially dangerous contamination.  Similar suits were also
filed today in New Jersey Superior Court and Massachusetts
Superior Court.

The suit also alleges Nestle falsely advertises Poland Spring as
"naturally purified" or "spring water" since the water does not
meet the scientific definition for spring water.

"We believe this is nothing more than a bottled-water bait and
switch," said Tom Sobol, the attorney representing consumers.  
"Consumers purchase Poland Spring thinking they getting a higher
quality natural spring water, but our suit will show that Poland
Spring is neither natural nor spring water, and in fact comes
from sources of a lesser quality than some tap water."

In a marketing campaign designed to encourage customers to pay a
premium price, Nestle describes Poland Spring "found deep in the
woods of Maine, Poland Spring natural spring water is
exceptionally well protected by nature.  For over 150 years,
people have appreciated its distinctive, clean, crisp taste."
Other marketing materials refer to Poland Spring as "natural
spring water" taken from "pristine sources," according to the
complaint.

The original Poland Spring, once the site of a small bottling
company, has not flowed since 1967, according to the complaint.  
The actual sources of Poland Spring water, located up to 30
miles away from the original Poland Spring, depend on man-made
production wells drawing more than six million gallons of water
a year, none of which is drawn from the original Poland Spring,
the complaint states.

The suit states that as Nestle expanded production of Poland
Spring water, the company began digging supply wells and using
nearby groundwater, much of which had high potential for
contamination.

One of Poland Spring's sources, Garden Spring, taps into a
common aquifer underneath a gravel pit eight miles away from the
site of Poland Spring.  According to the complaint, the well is
not located deep in the woods of Maine as Nestle advertises, but
in a parking lot along the side of a road used by hundreds of
trucks and cars daily.

According to the complaint, hydro-geologists hired by Nestle
found that another current source for Poland Spring water near
the original site stands over a former trash and refuse dump,
and below an illegal disposal site where human sewage was
sprayed as fertilizer for many years.  The suit argues similar
contamination problems were found with other sources of Poland
Spring.

"These actions put consumers at a tremendous risk; we believe
Nestle abrogated their responsibility to be honest and truthful
about their products' origin," Mr. Sobol continued.  "Perhaps
they concluded that 'siphoned from surface wells near
potentially dangerous contamination sources' wasn't the best
marketing mantra."

After Nestle dramatically increased Poland Spring production
during the mid to late 1990's, consumers filed a rash of
complaints against Poland Spring water, which Massachusetts and
Rhode Island regulators determined was due to bacterial
contamination, the complaint states.

Nestle now subjects all water bottled at the Poland Spring plant
to an extensive treatment program, including ozonation, carbon
tower filtration and UV light treatment.  The suit seeks to ban
Nestle from promoting or advertising products as "spring water"
if they do not meet scientific definitions, and a restitution
amount to the general public.

For more information visit the Website:
http://www.bottledwaterfraud.comor contact Tom Sobol of Hagens  
Berman by Phone: 617-482-3700 or by E-mail: tom@hagens-
berman.com or Garve Ivey of Ivey & Ragsdale by Phone:
205-221-4644 or by E-mail: garve@iveyragsdale.com


NEVADA: Las Vegas Homebuilders Face Four Construction Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four unrelated home construction defect lawsuits have been filed
against three major Las Vegas-are homebuilders, the Las Vegas
Sun reports.  The suits accuse the firms of being responsible
for construction defects in residential developments in
Henderson and Las Vegas

The suits name as defendants:  

     (1) Del Webb Communities Inc.,

     (2) Pulte Home Corporation and

     (3) American West Homes Inc.

Nevada recently passed the construction defect law which
requires homeowners to give builders the opportunity to fix
defects before a suit can be filed.

Las Vegas firm Angius & Terry LLP launched the suits against Del
Webb and Pulte.  Attorney Edward Song said the flurry of
activity has nothing to do with a new state law aimed at
controlling such defect suits, implementation of which starts
August 1.

"Industry-wide, perhaps the law is affecting the number of
suits," Mr. Song told the Sun.  "We have been retained on these
cases since last year . This is a logical progression."

The largest of the complaints is a proposed class action filed
in the District Court last week against Del Webb Communities,
Inc. on behalf of more than 2,100 homeowners in the Sun City
MacDonald Ranch development.  The suit alleges defects in
plumbing, roofing, retaining walls and concrete slabs

Allison Copening, a spokeswoman for Del Webb and Pulte Homes in
Las Vegas operations, told the Sun Tuesday evening that the
company was unaware of the lawsuit or the defect claims of the
six named homeowners.

"We weren't familiar with this particular lawsuit," she said.  
"And this is the first we have heard of these problems from
these homeowners.  Unfortunately, now (that a suit has been
filed) we can no longer become involved in the situation, and we
can't comment."

Atty. Song's firm last week also filed a suit against Del Webb
Communities seeking class action status for more than 300 duplex
owners in Sun City MacDonald Ranch homeowners association.

Pulte also faces another class action filed on behalf of owners
of the Stone Ridge condominium project in Las Vegas.  In
addition to claiming defects in the condominium units, the suit
also claims that the developer mismanaged the homeowners'
association before turning it over to property owners upon the
sale of 75 percent of the community's units.  The suit claims
the developer had not adequately funded the association and did
not properly seek defect repairs when it was in control of the
association.

The lawsuit filed against American West Homes was filed on
behalf of residents of the Saddleback Development in Las Vegas,
alleging that the homes suffer from a long list of problems,
including wall movement, foundation defects and faulty plumbing
and electrical systems.

The suit claims the Company "engaged in a calculated course of
conduct to reduce the cost of development by the use of
substandard, deficient and inadequate design and construction
techniques and materials," the Sun reports.

Leslie Bauscher, vice president of American West Homes, told the
Sun the company was unaware of the lawsuit or any issues with
homeowners in Saddleback.  "We are very, very aggressive in our
repairs," she said.  "It is extremely detrimental to our
reputation to have to deal with the intrusion of lawyers in
dealing with homeowners."


NORTH CAROLINA: State To Receive $3.6M in Tobacco Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The state of North Carolina will receive close to $3.6 million
as part of a multi-state settlement with certain tobacco
manufacturers, Attorney General Roy Cooper announced.  Another
approximately $1.5 million will go to the Growers Trust Fund for
distribution to tobacco farmers and quota holders.

"This agreement will not only ensure that North Carolina and
other states get the money they are owed, but it also sets clear
ground rules for the future," said Atty. Gen. Cooper.  "We want
to make sure that all cigarette makers that signed on to the
Master Settlement know what their responsibilities are so they
can live up to them."

The settlement resolves disputes over the implementation of the
tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, or MSA, and North
Carolina's Tobacco Escrow Statute.  The disputes originally
stems from cigarettes manufactured by Brown & Williamson, the
nation's third largest cigarette maker, under contract for Star
Tobacco, Inc. and Star Scientific, Inc. from 1999 through 2002.  
Brown & Williamson has agreed to make $150 million in additional
payments to the states to compensate for cigarettes it sold to
Star.  

The MSA, signed by 52 states in 1998, stipulates that
participating cigarette manufacturers pay the states up to $9
billion per year, adjusted for inflation and other factors.   
Payments by MSA manufacturers to the states are based on the
number of cigarettes shipped in a given year.  

Under terms of today's agreement, MSA manufacturers, such as
Brown & Williamson, will now count any cigarettes that they
produce for non-MSA companies, such as Star, when determining
how much they owe the states.  These terms apply to the four
tobacco manufacturers who originally signed the MSA as well as
to several manufacturers who signed on later.

Under the original MSA terms, half of all settlement will go to
the Golden LEAF Foundation and half will go to the state's
Settlement Reserve Fund.  The North Carolina Growers Trust will
also receive close to $1.5 million from the settlement, funds
that are slated to go to tobacco growers and quota holders under
reimbursement procedures adopted by the N.C. Phase II Tobacco
Certification Entity.  

Today's agreement also resolves claims made by manufacturers
that payments they made during the first four years of the MSA
should have been reduced because of a decline in the companies'
market share.  In total, Cooper and attorneys general from 51
other states and territories signed on to the agreement.

For more information, contact John Bason, Public Information
Officer, North Carolina Department of Justice by Phone:
(919) 716-6484 or by E-mail: jbason@mail.jus.state.nc.us


PROCOM TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Procom
Technology, Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
amended suit added additional allegations of violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Act of
1934.

The amended complaint includes allegations that, during the
period from December 9, 1999 to June 25, 2001, the Company
falsely and recklessly overstated revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.

The Company believes that the allegations stated in the amended
complaint are without merit, and the Company's audit committee,
with the unanimous concurrence of the board of directors, is
conducting an independent review of the allegations stated in
the amended complaint.  

The Company's independent public accountants have informed the
Registrant that they are unable to complete a FAS 100 review of
the consolidated financial statements to be included in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for its third fiscal
quarter until the audit committee's independent review is
completed.


VERMONT: Attorney General Enters into Global Tobacco Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell entered into a global
settlement with several tobacco companies that will net Vermont
approximately $715,000 as a part of a $160 million payment to 46
states.  The settlement will resolve claims filed last year by
Mr. Sorrell in Chittenden Superior Court under the 1998 tobacco
master settlement agreement.  

Vermont was chosen to bring the suit, but the other states will
resolve their own claims through this settlement.  Vermont and
the other beneficiary states will receive their funds by June
30.

"This settlement is a major step forward for Vermont and the
other states in ensuring that we will continue to receive the
full payments promised by the tobacco companies under the Master
Settlement Agreement," said Mr. Sorrell.  Attorney General
Sorrell serves as chair of the Tobacco Committee of the National
Association of Attorneys General, and led the team that
negotiated the agreement for all 52 states and territories that
have signed the MSA.  

The most important part of the settlement involves a suit filed
in Chittenden Superior Court by Attorney General Sorrell against
Brown & Williamson, the nation's third largest cigarette
manufacturer.  Under the Master Settlement Agreement,
participating cigarette manufacturers make payments to the
settling states and jurisdictions in base amounts of up to $9
billion per year, adjusted for inflation and various other
factors.  

The number of cigarettes a company produces in any year
determines the level of its payments.  Brown & Williamson
manufactured billions of cigarettes for Star Tobacco Inc., a
company that refused to join the MSA, and excluded the
cigarettes it manufactured for Star in determining its payments
to the states.  Vermont, on behalf of all the settling states,
argued that this practice violated the MSA and sought a court
order requiring B&W to make payment for the cigarettes it
manufactured for Star.  

In the settlement, Brown & Williamson agreed to make payments of
more than $150 million to the States in exchange for dismissal
of Attorney General Sorrell's lawsuit and the settlement of
other issues.  Other smaller tobacco companies in the settlement
agreed to pay almost $10 million.

"We couldn't just sit on our hands and let Brown & Williamson
get away with this.  Now we'll receive this money and a
commitment that it won't happen again," said Attorney General
Sorrell.  

In addition, Brown & Williamson and all other major tobacco
companies agreed that in the future they would take
responsibility under the MSA for cigarettes they manufacture for
other companies.  The agreement also resolves the claims of the
States against Star for cigarettes sold through the end of 2002.

The settlement agreement also resolves the companies' claims
that their payments during the first four years of the MSA
should have been reduced under a provision in the MSA that would
permit cigarette manufacturers, in some circumstances, to reduce
their payments because of a decline in the nationwide market
share of companies subject to the agreement.  Since the MSA took
effect, the market share of small companies outside the
agreement, many of them based abroad, has increased.  

The companies participating in the agreement argued that they
were therefore entitled to reduce their payments to the states,
but the states maintained that the conditions under which such
reductions could take place had not been met.  The settlement
agreement resolves all such claims through 2002 and frees the
states from potential claims of more than $1 billion by
cigarette manufacturers.

Atty. Gen. Sorrell noted, "This is a good settlement because it
provides not only payment for cigarettes manufactured in the
past but also establishes clear ground rules for how the states
and the tobacco companies will operate in the future."

For more details, contact William H. Sorrell, Attorney General
by Mail: Office of the Attorney General 109 State Street,
Montpelier VT 05609-1001 or by Phone: (802) 828-3171


                          Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Talks On New Tort-Reform Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. does not anticipate a stoppage in the flow
of asbestos cases against them within the year with the passage
of the lawsuit limitation bill but said it will use the
legislation as part of its legal defense strategy.  The Texas
Legislature has passed and Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed
into law general tort reform legislation intended to protect
defendants against unfair lawsuits, June 13.

The bill includes a provision that seeks to limit the asbestos-
related liabilities of companies that allegedly incurred the
liabilities through mergers with companies that were already
involved with asbestos.  The new Texas legislation, which
applies to future claims and pending claims for which a trial
has not yet commenced, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the
total value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets.  Crown
Cork estimates that pending claims in Texas currently constitute
approximately 25% to 30% of total claims outstanding.  For the
near term, the Company does not anticipate that the new
legislation will affect its current accrual for asbestos
liabilities. Crown Cork intends to integrate the legislation
into its claims defense strategy.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Company Levied for Improper Asbestos Disposal
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Invsco has been fined $514,000 for improperly removing
asbestos during a renovation of the building three years ago.

The Chicago-based company that once owned The 800 Apartments
downtown, in some cases acquired permits and hired an abatement
firm, as required, during its work on the 29-story, turquoise-
paneled building at 800 S. Fourth St. But it did not properly
notify officials or hire a contractor for tile removal in seven
apartments over about sixth months, when untrained building
maintenance workers allegedly removed about 5,000 square feet of
asbestos-containing tile, according to the air district's report
and interviews with officials.

Asbestos, allegedly, was not properly disposed of and safety
measures like including wetting the material or sealing off
rooms, were not taken.  "We believe it was placed into a
dumpster," district director Art Williams said.

Steven Gouletas, president of American Invsco, a condominium
development company, and other officials, were not available for
comment yesterday, according to a company spokeswoman.

Terri Phelps, the district's enforcement supervisor said
violations of "this nature and scope" are rare.  If the company
pays the fine promptly, instead of contesting it, it will be
reduced to $385,000, officials said.  Last year, the district
levied a $432,100 fine against Rohm and Haas Co.'s Rubbertown
chemical plant for excessive toluene emissions, which officials
said at the time was likely the largest fine ever.

Invsco joined in a partnership in 1997 to buy the landmark
apartment building for $3,950,000, planning to spend $15,000,000
to convert the apartments to condominiums.  However, funding
didn't materialize, and Invsco's partner sold its share.  Still,
some renovations were completed. Invsco sold the building last
fall for $5,560,000.

The air pollution control district's investigation began in 2000
following complaints from a worker at the building that the
apartments were using untrained workers to remove carpet and
asbestos-containing floor tiles from apartments, the report
said.  Officials said the work continued roughly from May to
November.  The report does not identify the complainant.

Harrison Wallace, of Louisville, a building maintenance worker,
said that he reported the incident to the district and other
agencies, including the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health
Division and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in
Louisville.

He said he complained that African-American maintenance workers
were told to remove asbestos tiles with no health or safety
protections, such as protective clothing and proper masks or
respirators, while white workers were given other duties.  The
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission would not comment on
whether it had received such a complaint.

Wallace, mentioned that at the time that he and several co-
workers found asbestos tile under carpeting, which he said was
broken and friable.  He said they asked for masks but were told
there weren't any.  Ripping out the tiles and sweeping it
through the hallways produced a lot of dust, he said.

The district's violation report said that along with the worker
who filed the complaint, "another maintenance worker and a
painter worked alongside him in some rooms, until the dust
became so bad that the painter refused to continue working in
the rooms.  They had asked the American Invsco management for
face masks, but none were provided."  They were later told the
floors did not contain asbestos, the report said.

Wallace said in last year's interview that he and co-workers
were told to put the tiles into boxes and throw them into
regular dumpsters, and the report notes that the complainant
provided pictures showing "a dumpster full of the floor tiles."

"We threw away thousands of pounds of that stuff,'' Wallace
said.

Under proper disposal, asbestos should be removed by a certified
contractor, wetted down, bagged and put in a sealed container
and trucked to a landfill certified to hold asbestos, district
officials said.

District investigators warned the building's managers on Nov.
16, 2000, to follow procedures, but workers complained that the
violations continued, the report said.  Further inspection found
evidence that tile had been removed, the report said.  In some
cases, building officials "provided no explanation as to who
removed the tile, how it was removed or where and how the tile
was disposed of," the report said.

Cheryl Vernon, the current building manager who also held the
post at the time of the reported violations, declined to
comment.  However, the district's violation report includes some
of her previous responses, including that some of the apartments
in question never had asbestos tile; that the tile had not been
removed; and that she didn't know how the tile had been
disturbed.  Mr. Wallace said last year that he was laid off
after he reported the situation; he said the company blamed it
on an economic slowdown.

Officials with the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Board
said the fine against American Invsco may be the highest the
board has ever levied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Post latest Asbestos Stats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. posts the latest asbestos-related stats in
its first quarter report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Some of the subsidiaries of Foster Wheeler, along
with many other companies, are co-defendants in numerous
lawsuits pending in the United States.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work performed by the company's subsidiaries before and during
the 1970s.  As of March 28, 2003, there were around 151,100
claims pending against the company.  

During the first quarter of 2003, approximately 15,600 new
claims have been filed and approximately 4,300 were either
settled or dismissed without payment.  The amount spent on
asbestos litigation defense and case resolution, substantially
all of which was reimbursed or will be reimbursed from insurance
coverage, was $13,800 in the first quarter of 2003.  
    
As of March 28, 2003, the Company had recorded a liability
related to probable losses on asbestos-related insurance claims
of about $540,700, of which approximately $35,000 is considered
short-term.  The Company had recorded an asset of about $561,400
relating to probable insurance recoveries of which the Company
has funded approximately $65,500 as of March 28, 2003.  

In addition to the $526,400 shown separately in the balance
sheet, approximately $35,000 is recorded in accounts and notes
receivables.  The asset is an estimate of recoveries from
insurers based upon assumptions relating to cost allocation and
resolution of pending proceedings with certain insurers, as well
as recoveries under a funding arrangement with other insurers,
which has been in place since 1993.  The total liability
recorded is comprised of an estimated liability relating to open
(outstanding) claims of approximately $393,600 and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims of approximately
$147,100.  

These estimates are based upon the following information and/or
assumptions:  number of open claims; forecasted number of future
claims; estimated average cost per claim by disease type; and
the breakdown of known and future claims into disease type.  The
total estimated liability includes both the estimate of
forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense expenses.  

The defense costs and indemnity payments are expected to be
incurred over the next 15 years during which period new claims
are expected to decline from year to year.  The Company believes
that there will be a substantial reduction in the number of new
claims filed after 2018 although there are no assurances this
will be correct.  Nonetheless, the Company plans to periodically
update its forecasts of estimated future costs and insurance
recoveries to take into consideration its future experience and
other considerations such as legislation.

Historically, the Company's defense costs have represented
approximately 24% of total costs.  Through March 28, 2003, total
indemnity costs paid were approximately $306,700 and total
defense costs paid were approximately $96,800.
      


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Senate Says Ok to Tort-Reform Package
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's Legislature voted 19-13 on June 11 to pass a bill
amending guidelines for non-economic damages, limiting
attorneys' fees for liability cases and providing time
restrictions for filing product-liability cases, according to
Senate records.

Stephen Schneider, the American Insurance Association's vice
president for the Midwest region, declares in a statement, "From
non-economic damage awards that jeopardize the future of small
businesses around the state, to an onslaught of asbestos claims
that threatens to bankrupt major Ohio employers, Ohio's economy
is being dragged down by a tort system run amok.  In passing SB
80, the Ohio Senate has taken a huge step toward reining in a
litigation climate that has damaged the economic vitality of the
state."

He said that in addition to its $100,000 cap on non-economic
damages and a 10-year statute of repose for products and
construction defects, Senate Bill 80 contains significant
asbestos-litigation reforms, including a requirement that
plaintiffs meet certain medical criteria before they can sue for
asbestos-related disease.

Among the most hotly contested points in the new bill, which has
caused major discussion in other states, is the limitation on
attorneys' fees for any claim that becomes part of a tort
action. SB 80 states that an attorney's contingency fee shall
not exceed 35% of the first $100,000 of an award, 25% of the
next $500,000 and 15% of any amount in excess of $600,000.

These limits are similar to California's Medical Injury
Compensation Reform Act, touted by many industry members as the
reason California's medical-liability premiums have risen at
only 20% of the national average.

California's MICRA law, seen by physicians and many insurance
companies as a partial answer to the medical-liability crisis,
includes:

     (1) A $250,000 limit on non-economic damages - pain and
         suffering - with no limit on economic damages;

     (2) Consideration of collateral-source payments such as
         personal health insurance to limit economic costs;

    (3) Limits on attorney contingency fees of 40% of the first
        $50,000 of an award, 33% of the next $50,000, 25% of the
        next $500,000 and 15% of any amount exceeding $600,000;
        and

    (4) Advance notice of any claim of malpractice against a
        physician.

The MICRA law has been both fair to California patients and
effective at stabilizing the state's medical liability system,
saving California physicians more than $1 billion in liability
premiums each year, the American Medical Association says.

The Ohio measure, sponsored by state Sen. Steve Stivers, a
Republican, now moves to the House of Representatives.  "AIA and
its member companies urge members of the Ohio House of
Representatives to join their colleagues in the Senate in
standing up for fairness and common sense in the state's tort
system," Mr. Schneider said.  "Too many Ohioans have lost their
jobs, their pensions or both at the hands of the current system;
we urge the House to act quickly and stem the tide."

Pennsylvania moved closer to caps on non-economic damages as its
House of Representatives voted to approve an amendment to the
state constitution that would allow limits on non-economic
awards and help end spiraling lawsuit awards.  The bill must
pass both chambers in two consecutive legislative sessions, then
pass a vote by the general public in a referendum.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Refuses Comment on Spin-off Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss engineering giant, ABB Ltd., refuses to comment on rumors
its oil, gas and petrochemical division to UK investment firm
Candover.  ABB spokesman Wolfram Eberhardt, however, confirms
that the sale of the division is connected to the outcome of the
asbestos suit in the US.

Recently, CEO Juergen Dormann said ABB was discussing the sale
of the oil, gas and petrochemical division with three potential
takeover candidates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Senator Seeks to Delay Asbestos Vote
------------------------------------------------------------
A Democratic senator had hoped Senator Orrin Hatch would
postpone the markup for another week to give the negotiations
that are underway between lawmakers, business groups and labor
unions time to continue.  Talks among the various parties had
broken off nearly a month ago but resumed over the weekend.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who has been involved in months-
long efforts on Capitol Hill to curb skyrocketing asbestos
claims, said he would ask Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch
to postpone Thursday's scheduled committee "markup" of Hatch's
asbestos bill until next week.  Sen. Dodd said talks between
business and labor representatives and Senate staffers had made
progress that could lead to an asbestos deal with more support
than Hatch's bill.

"I think avoiding the markup would probably be wise at this
point, since we are gaining ground on some of these issues,"
Dodd, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, told
reporters in a Capitol Hill hallway.

"I hope to be able to convince Sen. Hatch (of) a postponement,
and to schedule the markup for next week, on the assumption that
we can make progress and hope to have a bill done by next week.
It would be a bipartisan bill," Sen. Dodd said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said the Judiciary
Committee does not necessarily have to finish voting on all
provisions of his asbestos bill on Thursday, June 19, and send
it to the Senate floor that day, but it had to try.

"We're not going to postpone it," Sen. Hatch said of the
scheduled Thursday "markup" session on his bill to create a $108
billion fund to pay asbestos claims.  "We've been talking for
months. This has to be brought to a head."

Sen. Hatch said the behind-the-scenes talks between labor and
industry were continuing, and that they had been "up and down."  
He acknowledged he would rather have more bipartisan support for
his bill going into Thursday's session.  He said he was open to
amendments and committee members could argue out the issues.
Republicans have a majority of one on the panel.

"I would rather have a deal, and we may be able to do that,"
Sen. Hatch told Reuters.  "But I have to start the markup.
Whether it is finished on Thursday or not, we have to at least
try. If it isn't, we'll just keep going till we finish it."

He said there would be two doctors at the session to answer
questions on technical medical matters "and hopefully help us
make the right decisions as we go down the road on this plan."

Sen. Hatch introduced his bill last month over the objections of
organized labor after labor and business failed to agree on how
to cope with skyrocketing asbestos claims.  Labor says the
medical criteria for compensation in Sen. Hatch's bill are too
strict, and complains there is no backup if the fund runs dry.

So far Sen. Hatch only has two Democrats, Sen. Ben Nelson of
Nebraska and Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, as co-sponsors -- not
enough to assure passage in a closely divided Senate.

Although asbestos litigation has been around for more than 20
years, it has mushroomed to affect companies such as General
Motors Corp. (GM) that used asbestos but never manufactured it.  
The rate of firms filing bankruptcy over asbestos claims has
accelerated with more than 20 firms filing since 2000, including
Owens Corning, (OWENQ), USG Corp. (USG) and Federal-Mogul Corp.
(FDMLQ).  During bankruptcy proceedings asbestos claims aren't
paid and when a firm sets up a trust to pay claims, people
typically receive only a fraction of what they were eligible to
receive.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that asbestos litigation
has reached crisis levels and that the federal government needs
to step in.  Both sides back the idea of a trust fund but have
yet to find agreement on the rest of the bill.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Causes Led To Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------
A worker in a power station was able to describe how he and his
co-workers used to play with asbestos before he succumbed to
mesothelioma in January.  In a statement written, Leonard
English, 86, of New Road, Abbey Wood, described how he and
colleagues would kick and throw the asbestos dust.

Southwark Coroner's Court, on June 12, found out that Mr.
English worked at three power stations from the 1930s to the
1950s, including Woolwich power station, where he was a shift
engineer.  He was exposed to asbestos nearly all his working
life and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2002.

He said in his statement, "I have handled asbestos and I fully
recall really thick clouds of asbestos in power stations I
worked in. Staff used to kick and throw the asbestos about.
Nobody seemed to be aware of the dangers.

Coroner Dr. Adela Williams said, "There is no doubt Mr. English
died as a result of substantial exposure to asbestos at work and
that asbestos was the cause of his mesothelioma."

Dr. Williams declared that Mr. English died as a result of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anti-Asbestos Ads Run Across Various States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of asbestos-related diseases, their relatives and other
sectors ran a television ad campaign that lashes at the bill
aimed to curb asbestos claims on Wednesday, June 18.

The gist of the ad charges that Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah
Republican and the main sponsor of the bill, is an ally of the
industry that limits compensation for victims of the deadly
fiber.  The ads were shown on Capitol Hill by the consumer group
U.S. Action, the environmental group Friends of the Earth and
several people with asbestos-related illnesses.

The campaign seems to be in response to a recent television,
radio and newspaper ads by a pro-business coalition calling
itself Citizens for Asbestos Reform, urging Congress to act now
to end the "asbestos litigation crisis."

Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee will ask the
panel to send his bill to the Senate floor. It would create a
$108,000,000,000 national fund to pay asbestos claims and limit
overall business and insurance liability to that amount.

The ads will run in six or seven states at a cost of about
$500,000, said Jeff Blum, executive director of U.S. Action. The
group gets part of its funding from trial lawyers, opponents of
limiting asbestos lawsuits.

Blum said the campaign would be targeted at the states of
"swing" senators that might vote either way on Hatch's bill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovery Disrupts Court Hearings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Court hearings were interrupted after asbestos was found in a
stairway by workmen renovating part of Hove Crown Court in
Sussex, England on June 16, 2003.  The stairs, which lead to the
court's cells, were sealed off and the area will remain closed
until the asbestos has been safely removed.

The discovery caused severe disruption to proceedings at the
court as the closure of the stairs meant the cells had to be
evacuated.  Any defendants in custody could no longer be held in
the cells in the basement of the court building and some had to
be transferred to Lewes Crown Court, about 10 miles away.  As a
result, some cases in Lewes with defendants on bail and
therefore not needing cells, were switched to Hove.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE RHINO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Blue Rhino Corporation
(NASDAQ:RINO) securities during the period between August 15,
2002 and February 5, 2003.

The suit charges the defendants for violations of federal
securities laws.  The complaint charges Blue Rhino and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Blue Rhino
securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.  The
scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding Blue Rhino's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic
         value of Blue Rhino common stock;

     (2) enabled defendants to acquire over $30 million in
         assets, purchased using artificially inflated Blue
         Rhino shares, to refinance debt upon more favorable
         terms with its lenders;

     (3) allowed defendants to sell $15.79 million worth of
         Company common stock in a private placement, as well as
         register over $23.8 million in shares of common stock
         for large shareholders that had entered into a private
         equity deal the prior year; and

     (4) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Blue Rhino securities at artificially inflated
         prices.

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


CENTRAL PARKING: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, on behalf of
purchasers of Central Parking Corporation (NYSE: CPC) publicly
traded securities during the period between November 4, 2002 to
February 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 November 4, 2002 and
February 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Central Parking common stock.

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 the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
         record and document the Company's financial results;

     (2) that the Company was materially understating its bad
         debt reserve, thereby overstating its earnings;

     (3) that the Company as materially understating its
         accounts payable, thereby overstating its financial
         condition; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and,
         therefore, were materially false and misleading.

On February 14, 2003, Central Parking shocked the market when it
announced that it would be taking a charge to increase its bad
debt reserve and that it would be taking a charge to increase
its accounts payables.  In response to this announcement, the
price of Central Parking common stock dropped from $15.82 on
February 13, 2003 to a close of $12.31 on February 14, 2003, or
a single-day decline of more than 22%, on more than seven times
normal 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


CENTRAL PARKING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Central Parking Corporation (NYSE:CPC) from
November 4, 2002 through February 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 November 4, 2002 and
February 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Central Parking common stock.

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 the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
         record and document the Company's financial results;

     (2) that the Company was materially understating its bad
         debt reserve, thereby overstating its earnings;

     (3) that the Company was materially understating its
         accounts payable, thereby overstating its financial
         condition; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and,
         therefore, were materially false and misleading.

On February 14, 2003, Central Parking shocked the market when it
announced that it would be taking a charge to increase its bad
debt reserve and that it would be taking a charge to increase
its accounts payables.  

In response to this announcement, the price of Central Parking
common stock dropped from $15.82 on February 13, 2003 to a close
of $12.31 on February 14, 2003, or a single-day decline of more
than 22%, on more than seven times normal trading volume.

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


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of CornerStone Propane Partners, LP (Other OTC:CNPP.PK)
between November 2,1999 through February 11, 2003, inclusive.

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

It is specifically alleged that throughout the class period the
Company failed to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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


CREE INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of Cree,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE) publicly traded securities during the period
between August 19, 1998 and 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 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


CRYO-CELL CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Launches Stock Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of CRYO-CELL
Corporation (NasdaqSC:CCELE) common stock during the period from
March 16, 1999 through May 20, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges CRYO-CELL 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 CRYO-CELL's shares.

During the class period, the Company issued statements that
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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 by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


eUNIVERSE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired eUniverse, Inc. (NasdaqSC:EUNI) securities between July
30, 2002 and May 5, 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 July 30, 2002 and May
5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of eUniverse
common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
financial performance.  The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
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 Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

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

On May 6, 2003, before the opening of trading, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that it "intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters of the
year ended March 31, 2003" and possibly 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 the
"incorrect processing of certain transactions within the
Company's accounting system."  The Company further said that the
restated financial results will differ materially from the
previously-reported results.  Following this announcement, the
NASDAQ halted trading in eUniverse shares and stated that the
shares will remain halted until the company has supplied
additional information.

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, on behalf of the purchasers of securities of Guidant
Corporation, (NYSE:GDT), between June 23, 1999, and June 12,
2003, inclusive.  The suit is brought against Guidant
Corporation and:

     (1) Keith E. Brauer,

     (2) Ronald W. Dollens,

     (3) A. Jay Graf,

     (4) Mark C. Bartell,

     (5) Beverly A. Huss, and

     (6) Jay Watkins

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between June 23, 1999
and June 12, 2003.

Guidant designs, develops, manufactures and markets therapeutic
medical devices for the treatment of cardiovascular and vascular
diseases, including the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System, a medical
device used to treat aneurysms.  The complaint alleges that,
during the class period, Guidant failed to disclose the
following facts, among others:

     (1) in violation of Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
         regulations, the Company encouraged a dangerous usage
         of the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System that had not been
         authorized by the FDA;

     (2) the Company failed to file 2,628 Medical Device reports
         - each representing an incident in which the ANCURE
         ENDOGRAFT System malfunctioned or its use was
         associated with death or serious injury;

     (3) as a result of the foregoing conduct, the Company was
         the target of a criminal investigation; and

     (4) the Company had not properly reserved for the
         consequences of its massive criminal and civil
         liability nor adjusted its recorded goodwill to account
         for the inevitable harm to its reputation that would
         ensue.

On June 12, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that EVT,
Guidant's wholly owned subsidiary, had pled guilty to 10
felonies and agreed to pay $92.4 million to settle criminal and
civil charges that it covered up thousands of incidents,
including 12 deaths and 57 emergency procedures, in which the
ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System malfunctioned.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris or Lauren S. Antonino
by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia
30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 or by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqNM:REGN)
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between March 28, 2000
and March 30, 2003.

Regeneron is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers,
develops and intends to commercialize therapeutic drugs for the
treatment of serious medical conditions.  During the class
period, Regeneron initiated Phase II clinical trials for its
diet drug AXOKINE for use in obese patients.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants claimed that AXOKINE
would help patients lose weight better than a placebo over a
year.  However, more than two-thirds of the 1,467 patients on
the medicine in the clinical trials developed antibodies to it
after three months, which made the medicine less effective.

Patients taking AXOKINE, including those who developed
antibodies, lost an average 6.2 pounds, compared with 2.6 pounds
for those on a placebo, which the Company admits is similar to
results dieters get with already available pills.  Before
results were released, Defendants had led the public to believe
that AXOKINE would have more than $500 million in annual sales.

On March 31, 2003, Regeneron admitted AXOKINE lost effectiveness
in about 70% of patients in a study.  On this news, the
biotechnology company's shares plunged 57%, a market cap loss of
more than $500 million.  However, even Defendants' admission was
false, as, in fact, Defendants manipulated the results of the
study.  In truth, 73.5% of the patients developed antibodies to
the drug.

As a result of the Defendants' false statements, Regeneron's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $40 on December 18, 2000, whereby the
Company and its top officers and directors sold more than $430
million worth of their own securities.

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