CAR_Public/030702.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Wednesday, July 2, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 129

                           Headlines

BCE INC: Shareholder Files Amendment to $1B Class Action Lawsuit
BLUE&WHITE: Recalls Sabra Smoked Whitefish Salad for Health Risk
CALIFORNIA: Housing Agencies Reach Settlement in Fraud Lawsuit
COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Houston Pension Files Stock Fraud Lawsuit
CONAGRA POULTRY: Recalls Chicken for Possible Health Hazard

CREDIT CARDS: High Court To Review Consumer Suit V. Companies
DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES: WY Court Rejects Suit's Certification
ENRON CORPORATION: Retains Legal Heavyweight To Aid Mediations
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Louisiana Residents File Product Liability Suit
HEALTH NUTRITION: Recalls Viga Product for Possible Health Risk

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss ERISA Litigation in IL
IDAHO: Field Burning Lawsuit Reassigned To Judge W. Woodland
INVESTORS BUSINESS: Judge Certifies Class Action for Chargebacks
LAKEVILLE MOTOR: Minnesota SC Waves Away Privacy Invasion Claim
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court To Approve $1.1B Antitrust Pact

MIIX GROUP: Faces Fraud and Antitrust Lawsuit in New Jersey
MINNESOTA: Poor Families Sue Over Cuts in State Welfare Benefits
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Says Shareholder Lawsuits Are Without Merit
PENNSYLVANIA: York Asks Court To Dismiss 1969 Race Riots Suit
RED HAT: Director, Officer Defendants Dismissed From NY Case

RBS GLOBAL: Named Defendant in Contamination Suit in N.D. IL
SECURITIES LITIGATION: Fraud Victims Move Closer to Recovery
SOUTH CAROLINA: School Employees Allege Labor Act Violations
STAMPEDE INC: Recalls Beef Products For Possible E. coli O157:H7
SWITZERLAND: To Set Up Fund for July 2002 Mid-Air Crash Victims

TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Trial Reveals Grisly Grave Desecrations


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CREE INC: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in North Carolina
INTEMUNE INC: Roy L. Jacobs Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Charles Piven Files Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in S.D. FL

                          *********

BCE INC: Shareholder Files Amendment to $1B Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BCE Inc. announced that Mr. Wilfred Shaw has filed an amended
statement of claim in connection with the $1 billion lawsuit
originally filed on September 27, 2002, against BCE Inc. and
BCI.

This follows the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, on May 9, 2003, dismissing Mr. Shaw's original motion
for certification of the lawsuit as a class action and striking
out the original statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable
cause of action.

The plaintiff again seeks Court approval to proceed by way of
class action, on behalf of all persons who owned BCI common
shares on December 3, 2001, in connection with the issuance of
BCI common shares on February 15, 2002 pursuant to BCI's
Recapitalization Plan and the implementation of BCI's Plan of
Arrangement approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
July 17, 2002.

BCE remains of the view that the allegations contained in the
lawsuit are without merit and intends to take all appropriate
actions to vigorously defend its position.

BCE is Canada's largest communications company. It has 25
million customer connections through the wireline, wireless,
data/Internet and satellite services it provides, largely under
the Bell brand. BCE's media interests are held by Bell
Globemedia, including CTV and The Globe and Mail. As well, BCE
has e-commerce capabilities provided under the BCE Emergis
brand. BCE shares are listed in Canada, the United States and
Europe.

BCI is operating under a court supervised Plan of Arrangement,
pursuant to which BCI intends to monetize its assets in an
orderly fashion and resolve outstanding claims against it in an
expeditious manner with the ultimate objective of distributing
the net proceeds to its shareholders and dissolving the company.


BLUE&WHITE: Recalls Sabra Smoked Whitefish Salad for Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue & White Food Products, 24-20 49th Street, is recalling its
7-ounce plastic containers of Sabra Smoked Whitefish Salad
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monoctyogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy persons
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

The recalled Sabra Smoked Whitefish Salad was distributed to
retail stores in the NY, NJ and CT area. The product comes in 7-
oz. plastic containers marked with the code 071803.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine sampling
by NYS Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in some 7-ounce containers of
Sabra Smoked Whitefish Salad. Production of the product has been
suspended while the company continues their investigation as to
the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased 7-ounce packages of Sabra Smoked
Whitefish Salad are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 718-932-9000.


CALIFORNIA: Housing Agencies Reach Settlement in Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several nonprofit housing agencies in Southern California agreed
to settle out-of-court a four-year-old suit, charging them with
fraud in the sale of homes to low-income, first-time buyers for
an undisclosed sum, the North County Times reports.

The suit was filed in California State Court in Vista and names
as defendants several agencies, along with, private housing
inspectors and consultants.  The suit also named as defendants
First Security Bank and its subsidiary, Crossland Mortgage
Corporation, both now owned by Wells Fargo Bank.  Crossland at
the time was one of the nation's largest lenders in a
government-sponsored program to promote homeownership for low-
and moderate-income earners.

The suit charged that the agencies used government-backed loans
to fix up run-down houses in Escondido, Oceanside, Vista and San
Marcos, but failed to properly do the work, or in some cases,
never did the work at all.  The agencies also allegedly led
potential buyers to believe the properties met local building
code requirements and federal standards.

Earlier, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify the suit as a
class action, arguing other homebuyers throughout California and
the United States had been victimized by misrepresentation in
the government program.  They also asserted claims under federal
racketeering laws.

Crossland moved the case to federal court in 1999, but in
February 2002, US District Court Judge Judith N. Keep rejected
the racketeering charges and ruled that the plaintiffs could not
sue as a class.  Judge Keep remanded the suit to state court.
The defendant's lawyers then asked Judge Michael Anello to
dismiss the suit.

19 plaintiffs and seven defendants forged the settlement, which
includes no admission of wrongdoing.  The terms of the
settlement, however, were not disclosed.  Home buyers said the
agreement required them to refrain from discussing specifics.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Timothy Tatro, called the
settlement an "endlessly frustrating" case that was first filed
in state Superior Court in Vista in August 1999.

Joseph Rosenblit, the attorney for one defendant, Payne
Construction Management, said his client settled for a "fairly
insignificant amount" in order to put an end to a "nuisance
suit."


COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Houston Pension Files Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston Municipal Employees Retirement Pension System, a
major Compuware Corporation, filed a securities class action
against the Company, saying its losses in the stock market
resulted directly from the Company's fraud with computer giant
IBM, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The suit charges the Company with failing to inform investors
that its customers were becoming dissatisfied with Compuware's
software prices in the late 1990s.  It also failed to reveal
that the Company's 20-year working relationship with IBM was on
the rocks over the pricing issue, leading IBM to create software
that directly competed with Compuware's products.

Compuware Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Peter Karmanos,
Jr. allegedly met with an IBM senior vice president to discuss
customer dissatisfaction over the pricing, but Mr. Karmanos was
unreceptive to working with IBM to lower prices.

An August 2000 e-mail from IBM told the Company that they were
considered a competitor and sharing information so Compuware
could build its software products would be "seen as helping the
enemy."  The Company, however, continued to maintain that IBM
not a competitor, business was strong and there were no trends
that would hurt Compuware's business, the Detroit Free Press
states.

As a result, Compuware stock traded at artificially high prices,
because investors did not have a full picture of the Company's
situation.  The pension fund, which had purchased at least
75,000 shares, lost money between June 26, 1999, and April 3,
2002.

"The facts simply do not support this lawsuit," Thomas Costello
Jr., Compuware's vice president and general counsel and
secretary told the Detroit Free Press.  "In truth, the case is
little more than an effort to extort money from our company. We
will mount a vigorous and thorough defense against these
baseless allegations."

"We believe in the allegations in the complaint and intend to
prosecute this case vigorously," Mr. Sommers said.


CONAGRA POULTRY: Recalls Chicken for Possible Health Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Athens, Ga.- based ConAgra Poultry Company is voluntarily
recalling approximately 129,000 pounds of fresh chicken that may
contain glass, announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service, according to Findlaw.

The products being recalled are:

     * 3.5-4 lb. bags of "Country Pride FRESH CHICKEN" bearing a
       sell-by date of "6-20-03," "6-21-03," or "6-22-03." Each
       bag also has an establishment code of "P-177" inside the
       USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on
       June 10 and distributed to retail stores in Florida,
       Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina.

     * 40 lb. cases of "FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN 8 PC WOFT / 20 HD"
       bearing a product code of "019434" and an establishment
       code "P-1279" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The
       products were produced on June 10 and distributed to
       institutions in Florida, Georgia, New York, North
       Carolina and South Carolina.

     * 40 lb. cases of "COUNTRY PRIDE FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN WHOLE
       WINGS AND LIVERS" bearing a product code of "019553" and
       an establishment code "P-6638" inside the USDA seal of
       inspection. The products were produced on June 9-10 and
       distributed to institutions in Florida, Georgia, New
       York, North Carolina and South Carolina.

ConAgra Poultry Company discovered the problem and contacted
FSIS to initiate a product recall.

"Because of the potential hazard, I urge consumers who have
purchased these products not to eat them but to return them to
the place of purchase," said Dr. Garry L. McKee, FSIS
administrator.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Elaine
Born, consumer communication, at (770) 232-4200, or the consumer
hotline at (800) 414-7500. Media with questions may contact Bob
McKoen, corporate communications, at (402) 595-4691.


CREDIT CARDS: High Court To Review Consumer Suit V. Companies
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court is set to review a ruling by a
divided panel of the United States Appeals Court in Cincinnati,
Ohio over how credit card issuers must disclose fees they charge
when cardholders exceed their credit limits, Reuters reports.

Plaintiff Sharon Pfennig filed the suit against Household Credit
Services, a unit of Household International and MBNA America
Bank, a unit of MBNA Corporation.  The suit alleges the
Companies violated the Truth in Lending Act by letting Ms.
Pfennig exceed her credit limit and then imposing fees.

The suit was dismissed by a federal court, saying the over-the-
limit fees are not finance charges.  However, an appeals court
vacated the ruling, saying the fee "falls squarely within the
statutory definition of a finance charge," Reuters reports.

The appeals court ordered credit card firms to include so-called
"over-the-credit-limit" fees in finance charges they disclose to
consumers.  The industry discloses these fees separately as
"other charges."

US Solicitor General Ted Olson asked the high court to reverse
the ruling, saying that there are nearly 1.3 billion US credit
card accounts.  Card issuers, however, follow the Federal
Reserve Board's Regulation Z, which requires banks to treat
over-the-limit fees separately from finance charges.

In his brief, Atty. Gen. Olson said the appeals court ruling
hurts lenders and consumers, Reuters states.  "The decision
creates conflicting disclosure rules that will burden credit
card lenders, expose lenders to significant liability, confuse
consumers, and impair the effective administration of Regulation
Z," he wrote.

Kathleen Rizzo-Young, a Household International spokeswoman,
told Reuters the Supreme Court decision to hear the case "is
very good news.  We have felt very strongly all along that our
disclosures were proper under Regulation Z."


DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES: WY Court Rejects Suit's Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Wyoming refused to let the
lawsuit filed against tear-gas manufacturer Defense Technologies
proceed as a class action, the Casper Star Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs who lived downwind
and across from Def-Tech's Neosho Road tear-gas facility.  The
class includes "all property owners and other individuals in
Natrona County who have suffered injuries or damages as a result
of defendants' contamination of the Natrona County environment."

Attorney for the plaintiffs Brad Holmes pushed for the
certification, stating that the Homa Hills neighborhood, 10
miles north of Casper, has 163 separate properties covering
12,000 acres that may be contaminated by Def-Tech.

However, Judge William Downes threw out the argument, saying
that plaintiffs had not identified who the "other individuals"
might be, "making their proposed class definition both ambiguous
and unworkable."  Judge Downes wrote that the area identified by
the plaintiffs "is not supported by any scientific study or
analysis."

"We're happy to see the judge's ruling," Steve Croskrey, vice
president of Armor Holdings, Inc., the owner of Defense
Technology told the Star Tribune.  "It wasn't a surprise to us,"
he said, because of the weakness of the plaintiff's argument for
a class action.  "I think the judge did a good job of pointing
out why their case failed."


ENRON CORPORATION: Retains Legal Heavyweight To Aid Mediations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corporation has retained the services of law firm Susman
Godfrey, a Houston legal heavyweight, to help in mediation
proceedings with bankers, shareholders and former employees that
are suing the company, the Houston Chronicle reports.
Bankruptcy court allowed the Company to retain the firm to
represent it in the mediation and to sue the banks should
mediation fail.

"We need our most able counsel to be there," Brian Rosen, a
bankruptcy lawyer for Enron told the Chronicle.  The firm will
receive $250,000 a month during the mediation and up to 1.25
percent of any money Enron recovers.  If lawsuits become
necessary, Susman will receive $1 million a month and up to 3
percent of cash recovered.  The maximum the firm can receive is
$200 million.

The federal court overseeing the former energy giant's
bankruptcy and shareholder suits appointed US District Judge
William Conner as mediator to negotiate with key parties to
jump-start a wide-ranging settlement.  Lawyers involved in the
suit say that the court-appointed mediator was rendered useless
by inviting more than just the few attorneys designated by US
District Judge Melinda Harmon of Houston and US Bankruptcy Judge
Arthur Gonzalez of Manhattan.

Judge Conner is a Wichita Falls native who received his
undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Texas in
1941 and 1942.  He served as a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve
during World War II and was appointed to the federal bench in
1974, the Houston Chronicle reports.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Louisiana Residents File Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
84 Louisiana residents have filed a lawsuit in Iberville Parish
against drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, alleging that they have
suffered withdrawal reactions as a result of taking the anti-
depressant sold under the name of Paxil, The Baton Rouge
Advocate reports.

Attorney Christopher Coffin, with the Pendley Law Firm, said
each of the plaintiffs has experienced similar withdrawal
reactions and other problems.

The symptoms experienced by the plaintiffs include, among
others, nausea, anxiety, dizziness, vision distortion, said Mr.
Coffin.

According to the lawsuit, GlaxoSmithKline aggressively marketed,
advertised and sold Paxil to the plaintiffs, but did not fully
and timely disclose the drug's harmful effects. The side effects
were unexpected to the victims and even their physicians, Mr.
Coffin said. In fact, alleges the lawsuit, advertising material
by the drug maker falsely stated that Paxil is not habit-forming
or addictive.

The complaint's charges include intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, negligence, strict liability and express and implied
warranty claims. Mr. Coffin said the plaintiffs are asking for
compensation for the injuries they suffered as a result of
taking the medication.

"We would like the company to recognize there are problems with
people who are taking the medication and then stop taking it,"
said Mr. Coffin.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the Pendley Law Firm of
Plaquemine; Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo; and
Weiss & Yourman, both of Los Angeles; as well as Donald J.
Farber of San Rafael, California.

Paxil was introduced into the United States in December 1992. It
is a well-known antidepressant in the same class as Zoloft and
Prozac, said Mr. Coffin. Paxil is approved in the United States
for treatment of depression, obsessive compulsive disorder,
panic disorder and social anxiety disorder, said Mr. Coffin.


HEALTH NUTRITION: Recalls Viga Product for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Nutrition (RMA Labs) is cooperating with the United
States Food and Drug Administration by warning its consumers not
to purchase or consume the product known as VIGA or VIGA FOR
WOMEN.

These products which are being marketed as a dietary supplement
contains the unlabeled drug ingredient sildenafil, which may
pose possible serious health risks to some users. Viga is sold
in bottles of 30 tablets, and in 4-tablet packets--ten packets
to a box. VIGA for women is sold in bottle of 20 tablets. Both
products are distributed by Health Nutrition (RMA Laboratories
Inc) and sold without medical prescription.

The interaction between nitrates and sildenafil can result in
profound and life-threatening lowering of blood pressure. The
use of nitrates is an absolute contraindication for sildenafil
users. The potential for this product to be taken by unknowing
nitrate user is real since sexual dysfunction is often a
concurrent condition in patients with diabetes, hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, smokers and patients with ischemic heart
disease.

Consumers who have purchased Viga or Viga for women tablets are
urged to immediately discontinue their use and return them to
their place of purchase or directly to Health Nutrition (RMA
Laboratories), 6439 Alondra Blvd, Paramount, CA 90723. Consumers
with questions regarding this recall may contact the company at
1-562-616-0100. Consumers who have purchased this product and
have medical concerns should consult with their health care
provider.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss ERISA Litigation in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of several headline events that occurred in 2002,
certain lawsuits have been filed which purport to assert claims
under ERISA on behalf of participants in Household International
Inc.'s Tax Reduction Investment Plan. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single purported class action In re
Household International, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File No.
02 C 7921 (N.D. Ill).

The consolidated and amended complaint essentially alleges that
Household International, the administrative and investment
committee of the plan, and other individual fiduciaries to the
plan, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
and beneficiaries by continuing to offer Household common stock
as an investment option and by negligently failing to advise
participants of the risks of investing in Household stock.

The plaintiffs' allegations are essentially based on the fact
that the stock price for Household International common stock
declined during 2002, and that:

     1) in 2002, Household restated its consolidated financial
        statements for the years ended December 31, 1999, 2000
        and 2001;

     2) Household was the subject of what is commonly referred
        to as predatory lending allegations and entered a
        nationwide resolution of such allegations with state
        attorneys general and regulatory agencies; and

     3) Household is the subject of allegations that its
        accounting practices, specifically restructuring
        delinquent accounts, were wrongful.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in early
June.

With respect to this litigation Household believes that it has
not, and its officers and directors have not, committed any
wrongdoing and in each instance there will be no finding of
improper activities that may result in a material liability to
Household, its officers or directors or to the administrative
and investment committee or other fiduciaries to the plan.


IDAHO: Field Burning Lawsuit Reassigned To Judge W. Woodland
------------------------------------------------------------
The North Idaho class action lawsuit over field burning has been
reassigned to a Pocatello, Idaho judge.  Sixth District Judge
William Woodland, a South Idaho jurist, recently was assigned
the case after Judge John Mitchell, a Coeur d'Alene judge, who
has ruled repeatedly against the bluegrass growers' field
burning activities, was forced to step aside because of
operation of a court rule, reported The Spokesman-Review.  A
trial in the case of Moon v. North Idaho Farmers Association is
scheduled for next April.

Judge Woodland will preside over the class action lawsuit that
pits farmers fighting for the right to burn their bluegrass
fields, which improves grass regrowth, against environmentalists
and those with lung disease and other ills.

Judge Woodland will have to rule soon on a request by Seattle
plaintiff's attorney Steve Berman for an injunction to halt this
year's field-burning season, scheduled to start in late July or
early August. A new date has not yet been set for that hearing.

Judge Woodland's appointment was prompted by a recent recusal
motion, made by Samuel Eismann, a Coeur d'Alene attorney, on
behalf of two defendant farmers.  An Idaho court rule allows a
new third-party defendant brought into a case to challenge the
sitting judge without giving a reason.  On June 12, during the
course of a hearing, Judge Mitchell agreed to step aside.

Judge Mitchell's departure has dismayed clean-air activists, who
are accusing the defendants of orchestrating the judge's ouster.

The environmentalists had applauded Judge Mitchell's decision to
certify the lawsuit as a class action, thereby greatly expanding
those entitled to potential damages from six people to thousands
in the Coeur d'Alene-Spokane region.

On June 4, Judge Mitchell also declared unconstitutional a
recently enacted Idaho law that shields bluegrass farmers from
civil suits over field burning.  The growers had lobbied for
this hastily passed law.

Farmers are pleased with Judge Mitchell's decision to step
aside, said Linda Clovis, spokeswoman for the bluegrass growers
association at the June 12 recusal hearing.


INVESTORS BUSINESS: Judge Certifies Class Action for Chargebacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rodney E. Nelson certified a
class action by approximately 400 telemarketing employees
against Investor's Business Daily, a leading national publisher
of business news and advice alleging unlawful business practices
by charging back commissions on account of canceled
subscriptions.

The complaint also alleges that Investor's Business Daily
violated Section 221 of the California Labor Code by deducting
past commissions from future wages when a customer cancelled a
subscription to the paper within 4 months, causing the sales
representative to lose his entire commission even though the
Company kept the pro-rata portion of the subscription price. The
case is captioned "Toby Harris v. Investor's Business Daily" Los
Angeles case number BC 269313.

Attorney Mark Thierman of Reno, Nevada, with whom attorney Eric
M. Epstein of Los Angeles represented the Plaintiffs in the
Investors Business Daily case, said that the IBD case was part
of a new trend in California labor law. "The theory is very
similar in theory to the recent cases against Verizon Wireless
and the LA Times now pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court,"
said Thierman who is also an attorney on those two cases. "The
trend is to look at sales compensation agreements more carefully
in California," said Eric Epstein.

In addition to the IBD, Verizon and LA Times cases, last month
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald E. Quidachay certified
a class of approximately 200 "charged back" sales employees
against web-hosting retailer NTT Verio in the case of Koehl v.
Verio, Inc., and last year Santa Clara Judge John F. Herlihy
found a representative action appropriate in a situation
involving chargebacks of commissions in the case of Baker v.
IKON Office Solutions, Inc.

Noting that it was ironic that the publisher of business advice
would have a class certified against it for violations of
California's unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code
Section 17200, Thierman added, "I wonder if Investor's Business
Daily will carry the story at all."


LAKEVILLE MOTOR: Minnesota SC Waves Away Privacy Invasion Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota's Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the court
of appeals, which found that the plaintiffs, all employees of
defendant Lakeville Motor Express Inc., had presented, in its
class action complaint, sufficient law and facts to support an
invasion of privacy claim.

The court of appeals, in finding for the plaintiffs, reversed
the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint
alleging defendant Lakeville Motor Express Inc. (LME) invaded
the privacy of 204 of its employees by disseminating, by
facsimile, the employees' names and social security numbers to
16 related or associated terminal managers in six states; and
alleging, further, that they, the plaintiffs, believe "the
private information has not been redacted or erased and is still
being shared or is accessible in general." (Sandra Bodah et al.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.,
Defendant, Supreme Court of Minnesota, No. C5-02-276).

The Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings and found that
plaintiffs' "complaint does not plead the requisite 'publicity'
necessary to support a claim for the invasion of privacy tort of
publication of private facts."

As indicated above LME, a trucking company based in Minnesota,
which transports shipments throughout the upper Midwest,
distributes freight and in doing so utilizes trucking terminals
that are either owned by LME or are owned by independent
trucking companies. On January 4, 2001, LME's Safety Director,
William Lowell Frame, sent via facsimile a memo listing the
names of 204 LME employees along with their social security
numbers to the terminal managers of 16 different trucking
terminals throughout the upper Midwest.

The cover sheet was addressed to "Terminal Managers" not to
named individuals, and stated the purpose of the fax was to
allow LME to "keep computer records for terminal accidents,
injuries etc." The cover sheet requested the terminal managers
to "please review the list for your terminals, and add or delete
accordingly." Attached to the cover sheet was a five-page list
of the names and social security numbers of 204 LME employees.

Head Union Steward John Tonsager, one of the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit, spoke to Mr. Frame and LME President Peter Martin about
the dissemination of sensitive employee information and
expressed his concern about identity theft. On May 1, 2001, Mr.
Martin sent a letter to LME employees notifying them of the
January 4 transmission and apologized for LME's mistake in
sending the list to the 16 terminals and said that the terminal
managers had been instructed to destroy or return the list
immediately. Mr. Martin indicated that his instructions had
been followed and that, as far as he knew, the terminal managers
had not shared the information with anyone.

On or about September 6, 2001, the four plaintiff employees
(Sandra Bodah, Wayne Senne, John Tonsager) filed a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all class members, alleging
that LME's dissemination of their social security numbers to the
16 terminal managers constituted an invasion of their right to
privacy.

LME moved for dismissal of this action for failure to state a
claim. The district court determined that the dissemination did
not constitute "publicity" under a claim for publication of
private facts and granted LME's motion to dismiss. The court of
appeals reversed the district court's action and remanded,
holding that at this stage in the litigation, it is impossible
to determine what happened. But that through affidavits,
depositions, or, if necessary, witnesses at a trial, the
plaintiffs can easily define the practices in the terminals and
what occurred with the information. The court of appeals said
further, in its remand instruction, that the district court is
in the best position to determine whether actionable publication
occurred. The publicity requirement in this case, said the court
of appeals, where the dissemination was not for profit or with
malicious intent, ought to be whether it unreasonably exposed
the plaintiffs to a significant risk that their social security
numbers would be misused.

LME then appealed to Minnesota's Supreme Court, seeking a
reversal of the court of appeals ruling. After dealing with some
side issues, the high court turned to the focal element of the
case, the "publicity" element of the alleged wrongful
dissemination, which the court called the tort of publication of
private facts. The high court said it disagrees at the outset
with the court of appeals' definition of 'publicity': "Where the
dissemination was not for profit or with malicious intent, the
publicity requirement ought to be whether the dissemination
unreasonably exposed plaintiffs to a significant risk that their
social security number would be misused," said the Supreme Court
in its ruling.

The Supreme Court also said that it has decided to adopt the
Restatement's (Restatement [Second] of Torts) definition of
'publicity.' Said the court: "We conclude, that 'publicity'
means that 'the matter is made public, by communicating it to
the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must
be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public
knowledge.'"

The court referred to the concerns of U.S. Supreme Court
Justices Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, who noted more
than 100 years ago: "The design of the law must be to protect
those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate
concern, from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired
publicity and to protect all persons, whatsoever -- their
position or station -- from having matters which they may
properly prefer to keep private, made public against their
will."

The court, speaking further of its understanding of the tort of
publication of private facts, said: "We understand [this tort]
to focus on a very narrow gap in tort law by providing a remedy
for the truthful but damaging dissemination of private facts,
which is nonactionable under defamation rules."

Turning then to the application of the Restatement's publicity
requirement to the instant case, the Supreme Court concluded
that the plaintiffs' claim that LME disseminated 204 employees'
social security numbers to 16 terminal managers in six states
does not constitute publication to the public or to so large a
number of persons that the matter must be regarded as
substantially certain to become public.

The Supreme Court's ruling pointed out further that, although
the plaintiffs in this case make a general allegation that the
social security numbers have "not been redacted or erased and
are still being shared or are accessible in general," yet,
attached to the complaint is the May 1, 2001 letter, written by
LME's president, indicating that the faxed list of social
security numbers has been returned or destroyed and not shared
with anyone. Thus, said the court in its ruling, the allegation
that the social security numbers are still being shared or are
generally accessible, is "mere speculation."

Concluded the Supreme Court: "We hold that the court of appeals
erred in reversing the dismissal of the complaint because the
facts, as alleged, do not support the conclusion that there is
the 'publicity' to withstand defendant LME's motion to dismiss."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court To Approve $1.1B Antitrust Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court in California is expected to
approve a $1.1 billion antitrust settlement between Microsoft
and California consumers, Mercury News reports.

Under the settlement, Microsoft software users in California
will qualify for vouchers of $5 to $29 toward the purchase of
computer gear for each Microsoft software license they bought
between February 18, 1995, and December 15, 2001.  The vouchers
are valid for four years toward the purchase of any brand of
computers or software.  The consumers will receive:

     (1) a $29 voucher for each copy of Microsoft Office
         purchased,

     (2) $26 for each copy of Excel,

     (3) $16 for each copy of the Windows operating system and

     (4) $5 for each copy of the word-processing program Word.

Consumers have four months to file an application, once the
settlement is approved. Two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement
money will go to California's neediest public schools, and one-
third will be kept by Microsoft.

Microsoft earlier agreed to pay as much as $1.1 billion in
vouchers to resolve multiple suits charging it with using its
monopoly power to overcharge for its products.  Critics,
including rival Apple Computer, harshly criticized the deal,
saying it was unfair to limit schools to more Microsoft
products.

Microsoft and attorneys representing consumers in the state
reached the settlement in January, but have argued over the
content of a notice explaining how people can apply for the
vouchers, Mercury News reports.  Plaintiffs lawyers want a
simple claim form attached to copies of the notice to consumers,
while the Company wants electronic or phone filings to reduce
fraud.  Judge Paul Alvarado is tasked to decide upon this in a
matter of days.

"We want the notice to be as simple and direct and easy as
possible," Eugene Crew, partner at Townsend and Townsend and
Crew, attorneys for the plaintiffs told Mercury News.  For
claims totaling $100 or less, no documentation of purchases is
needed.

"We went the extra mile to address these concerns in the
interest of getting this settlement approved," Microsoft
spokesman Jim Desler said.


MIIX GROUP: Faces Fraud and Antitrust Lawsuit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
On February 5, 2003, a shareholder of MIIX Group, Inc.
instituted a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, its
directors and officers, Medical Society of New Jersey and Fox-
Pitt, Kelton, Inc., which acted as financial advisor to the
Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its directors and
officers engaged in securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty
and violations of New Jersey antitrust laws in connection with
the MIIX Advantage transaction and alleged misrepresentations
and omissions of material fact in various SEC filings by the
Company.

The complaint demands unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages, rescission of the sale of shares in the Company's
initial public offering, attorney fees and other relief.

The Company and external counsel believe the Company has valid
defenses to the plaintiff's claims. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the action. The outcome of the Glasser suit
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition and results of operations.


MINNESOTA: Poor Families Sue Over Cuts in State Welfare Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Minnesota faces a class action filed on behalf of
poor people, over the cuts in state welfare benefits it
instituted earlier this year, the Associated Press reports.  The
suit is pending in Ramsey County District Court.

Legal Aid attorneys filed the suit on behalf of people who were
due to lose some welfare benefits beginning Tuesday.  The suit
alleges that Legislature went too far with the welfare funding
cuts.  State officials allegedly did not receive the necessary
approvals from the federal government to implement cuts in the
Minnesota Family Investment Plan (MFIP), which could affect
thousands of low-income families across the state.

The MFIP combines food and cash payments into one program.  The
state has received federal government waivers from the federal
Food Stamp Act to operate MFIP. The suit charges that the state
has not applied or received new federal waivers for them, thus
the changes in the state program enacted this year are illegal.

On September 1, families that receive support through MFIP and
that also receive federal housing subsidies will have $50 of the
subsidy counted as income and see their state benefits reduced.
On October 1, working families will have more of their wages
counted as income for purposed of calculating their welfare
benefits.  In all, more than 21,000 Minnesota families will be
affected by the cutbacks, the plaintiffs claim.

"What the plaintiffs are concerned about is that Minnesota
follow the law before it embarks on these drastic cuts that will
harm people's lives by reducing their ability to meet the basic
necessities of daily living," Abigail Turner, an attorney with
the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis told the Associated Press.

Ms. Turner said her clients will go to court Monday afternoon in
St. Paul seeking a temporary injunction to halt implementation
of the cuts while the lawsuit is pending.  State officials wrote
to federal officials on June 25 about the changes, but Ms.
Turner contends that they only informed them of the changes and
did not seek approval for them, AP states.

State Human Services Commissioner Kevin Goodno told AP
"everything we have done so far is consistent not only with
state law, but with federal requirements. That's our opinion."


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Says Shareholder Lawsuits Are Without Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., (NYSE:PDX) announced that it
intends to fight certain shareholder class action lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs' law firms alleging violations of the U.S.
securities laws. Pediatrix has not received copies of the
complaints but believes from press releases issued by these
firms that these suits are without merit.

The suits follow last week's announcement by Pediatrix that a
U.S. Attorney's Office is conducting an investigation into
Pediatrix's Medicaid billing practices. Pediatrix believes that
its billing practices are appropriate and it intends to fully
cooperate with the investigation. The Company also believes that
its disclosures with respect to this matter have been
appropriate.

                     About Pediatrix

Pediatrix was founded in 1979. Its neonatal physicians provide
services at more than 200 NICUs, and through Obstetrix, its
perinatal physicians provide services in many markets where
Pediatrix's neonatal physicians practice. Combined, Pediatrix
and its affiliated professional corporations employ more than
630 physicians in 30 states and Puerto Rico. Additional
information is available on the Internet at
http://www.pediatrix.com.


PENNSYLVANIA: York Asks Court To Dismiss 1969 Race Riots Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
York City, Pennsylvania officials asked federal court to dismiss
a civil-rights suit filed against the city and five former
police officers by the family of a woman who was killed during
the 1969 race riots, the Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Lillie Belle Allen.  Ms. Allen
was fatally shot on the fifth day of the riots when she and four
family members drove their car through a white neighborhood on
their way to buy groceries.

The suit alleges that members of the city's predominantly white
police department incited whites in the city to violence against
blacks, as revenge for the mortal wounding of officer Henry
Schaad on July 18, 1969.  The police department later was aware
of a gathering mob of armed white youths, but did nothing to
disperse the group or prevent Ms. Allen's death at their hands
that evening, the suit states.

Mr. Schaad's and Ms. Allen's killings remained unsolved for
decades, but both cases were reopened in 1999, after prosecutors
found new information.  Arrests were made in 2001.  In October,
a jury convicted two former white gang members of second-degree
murder in Allen's death and acquitted the city's former mayor,
Charlie Robertson, who was accused of inciting whites to
violence, the Associated Press reports.  Seven other white men
pleaded guilty or no contest to lesser charges in Ms. Allen's
death.

Attorneys for York say that the lawsuit needed to be filed
within two years of her death under the statute of limitations.
They further said that Ms. Allen's sister, Hattie Dickson, and
other relatives had the information needed for a suit when Ms.
Allen was killed.

While attorneys for Allen's family were not available, they
addressed the statute of limitations when the suit was filed in
January.  "The statute of limitations could not have run. It
couldn't have run because the city and the police officers
concealed the evidence," attorney Harold Goodman said at the
time, AP reports.


RED HAT: Director, Officer Defendants Dismissed From NY Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing on or about March 29, 2001, Red Hat Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a
series of purported class action suits arising out of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering.

On August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Mukasey of the federal district
court for the Southern District of New York issued an order that
transferred all of the so-called IPO allocation actions,
including the complaints involving the Company, to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The court has consolidated
the actions by issuer, and the Red Hat actions have been
consolidated into a single action.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing Registration Statements and
Prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.
Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by
underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial
public offering documents.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the 310 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.
The relief sought consists of unspecified damages.

A motion on behalf of the issuers to dismiss the suits has been
denied. No discovery has occurred to date. The individual
director and officer defendants have been dismissed from the
case without prejudice.

The Company believes these complaints are without merit. No
assurance can be given, however, that this matter will be
resolved in the Company's favor.


RBS GLOBAL: Named Defendant in Contamination Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. is a third-party defendant in a class action
suit for alleged groundwater contamination entitled Teresa and
Al LeClercg et al v. Lockformer Company et al v Arrow Gear
Company et al, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The original defendant, Lockformer Company, has settled with the
plaintiffs for $10 million and is now seeking contributions
under various theories for certain alleged groundwater
contamination in Lisle, Illinois from at least ten other
companies including RBS Global.

The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be
determined; however, management believes the Company has not
contributed to the ground water contamination and has
meritorious defenses to the suit.


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Fraud Victims Move Closer to Recovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Herrmann, a securities attorney, in Saddle Brook, New
Jersey, who represents investors in a class action lawsuit
against disgraced stock promoter Robert Brennan, said recently
that more than 10,000 investors have moved a step closer to
getting some restitution when bankruptcy trustee Donald Conway
recently filed a new plan with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Trenton, reported The Record.

"That [action] sets in motion the process to get our clients
paid," said Mr. Herrmann. If the plan is approved, it will
provide the first major compensation that anyone has been able
to extract from Mr. Brennan since the 1980s, when he settled a
class action lawsuit involving his company First Jersey
Securities.

Mr. Brennan, who was described by one lawyer as "one of the more
resourceful defendants we have had to deal with," began selling
investments -- first, mutual funds and then penny stocks --
almost 30 years ago. The Securities and Exchange Commission
cracked down on him, and he was ordered to pay the SEC $75
million in 1995. In response, he declared bankruptcy and began
moving his money overseas and into other people's names.

Those tactics got Mr. Brennan convicted of bankruptcy fraud. He
is now doing time in federal prison at Fort Dix.

Now, after years of tracing Mr. Brennan's money to Nevis,
Gibraltar, and Florida, among other places, the SEC and the
bankruptcy trustee have recovered about $36 million of Mr.
Brennan's cash.

About half of that will go to customers of Hibbard Brown, a
brokerage controlled by Mr. Brennan, said Mr. Herrmann. The plan
must next be approved by the bankruptcy court and sent to
creditors for their approval.

Since the two biggest creditors are the SEC, with a claim of $75
million; and Mr. Herrmann's Hibbard Brown clients, at $55
million, approval is expected, Mr. Herrmann said.

For Mr. Herrmann, the settlement has been a long time coming. In
1993, he filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than
10,000 Hibbard Brown investors.

"The real credit for finding the money goes to the SEC," Mr.
Herrmann said. The SEC pressured Mr. Brennan by asking a federal
judge to jail him for contempt of court for withholding
information about his transfers of money overseas, Mr. Herrmann
said. "It was the fear of jail that led Mr. Brennan to begin the
negotiations that led to the money being brought back from the
foreign trusts," said Mr. Herrmann.

Eventually, Mr. Brennan went to jail for other charges relating
to his securities frauds.


SOUTH CAROLINA: School Employees Allege Labor Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Workers for several South Carolina school districts filed a
class action, alleging they were not paid overtime as required
by federal law, the Associated Press Newswires.  The suit was
filed by rights group School Litigation Group, which has led
similar suits in five other Southern States.  South Carolina
school districts affected by the lawsuits include:

     (1) Horry County,

     (2) Georgetown County,

     (3) Abbeville County,

     (4) Beaufort County,

     (5) Charleston County,

     (6) Chester County,

     (7) Colleton County,

     (8) Dillon 1,

     (9) Fairfield County,

    (10) Florence 1,

    (11) Florence 3,

    (12) Greenville County,

    (13) Lee County,

    (14) Marlboro County,

    (15) Richland 1,

    (16) School District Five of Lexington and Richland
         counties,

    (17) Spartanburg 7,

    (18) Sumter 17 and

    (19) Williamsburg County

The plaintiffs allege they were not properly paid under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  Maggie Linen, a mother with 13 children,
says she cooked and washed dishes at schools in Georgetown
County for 23 years, often working long hours but never
receiving any overtime pay, the Associated Press Newswires
states.

"They always said they couldn't pay more," Ms. Linen told AP. "I
thought they were telling the truth."

Another plaintiff, Sallie Walls, says she just filled out some
papers and doesn't know much about the lawsuit.  Mrs. Walls says
she worked many extra hours without pay to finish her duties as
a custodian at Conway Middle School in Horry County, AP states.

The suit could collectively cost South Carolina school districts
more than $15 million, Sam Brand, a founding partner in the
group told AP.  "These people have children," he said.  "They
pay taxes and they're treated like dirt.  It's an issue that
some of the poorest people in the state are not being paid. "


STAMPEDE INC: Recalls Beef Products For Possible E. coli O157:H7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, Illinois-based Stampede Meat, Inc. is voluntarily
recalling approximately 739,000 pounds of frozen beef products,
mostly vacuum packaged steaks, that may be contaminated with E.
coli O157:H7, announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service, according to Findlaw.

The products subject to recall were produced between March 17
and March 22, 2003, and bear the establishment code "EST. 19113"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were
distributed to restaurants, institutions and retail stores
nationwide. The products were also distributed to consumers
through door-to-door sales. Additionally, the products were
distributed to institutions in Canada.

The recall was initiated after epidemiological case studies
conducted by public health officials concluded the recalled
product may be linked to five E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in
Minnesota, Kansas and Michigan.

Public health officials from FSIS, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and several state health departments are
continuing to investigate the extent of the outbreak and
determine if additional products are linked to illnesses
reported. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
physician immediately.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

Generally, steaks are not considered a high-risk source of E.
coli O157: H7. However, the products subject to recall were
injected with tenderizers and flavor-enhancing solutions, and
that process may have transferred the bacteria from the surface
to the inside of the product. Consumers should return the
recalled products to the point of purchase and cook similar
(tenderized) products to an internal temperature of 160 degrees
as measured with a food thermometer.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
Bill Asleson, company executive manager, at (800) 353-0933.
Consumers with other food safety questions can phone the toll-
free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-4555. The
hotline is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


SWITZERLAND: To Set Up Fund for July 2002 Mid-Air Crash Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Relatives of the victims of a mid-air crash of a Russian
passenger plane and a DHL cargo jet will be receiving
compensation from Switzerland, Germany and the Swiss air traffic
control agency, Skyguide, NZZ Online reports.

The crash happened in Swiss-controlled airspace on July 1,2002
and claimed 71 lives.  The Bashkirian Airlines jet carried over
40 Russian schoolchildren on the way to Spain when it collided
with the DHL plane over šberlingen in southern Germany.

The three parties will set up a compensation fund for the
victim's relatives, although no official figures were released
on how much each party would contribute to the fund. In April,
lawyers for the plaintiffs called on the three parties and their
insurers to pay SFr150 million into a fund.  Germany's
"Stuttgarter Zeitung" reported on Friday that Berlin has agreed
to pay $10 million (SFr13.5 million) into the fund.

"I think that both governments will pay the same amount ... but
in terms of actual figures I cannot comment," Skyguide
spokesman, Patrick Herr told NZZ Online.  Mr. Herr said there
would be further negotiations between all parties involved, and
did not rule out the possibility of a class action suit.

However, Michael Witti, one of the lawyers for some of the
victim's relatives said his clients were not happy with the
fund, and felt they were not being fairly compensated.  He told
swissinfo that attorneys were sticking to their demand of ?1.5
million per person killed in the crash.  "Whether or not we have
to take this case to court depends on the amount of money in the
fund," Mr. Witti said.

The compensation fund is set up to avoid a lengthy legal battle
over the payment of compensation.  "With this basic agreement
now reached, negotiations will now be held to ensure that
appropriate compensation is awarded to the bereaved and others
affected by the accident," Skyguide said in a statement.

Swiss finance ministry spokesman, Daniel Eckmann, declined to
comment on the amount of compensation likely to be made
available, NZZ Online reports. The ministry however said in a
statement that the establishment of the fund was the basis for a
"quick and fair agreement".


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Trial Reveals Grisly Grave Desecrations
------------------------------------------------------------
A deposition in the class action filed against Tri-State
Crematory and its operator Ray Brent Marsh revealed that
investigators found more grisly details than what they initially
revealed to the public, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reports.

On February 15, 2002, government investigators revealed that
graves at the crematory were being desecrated.  Some bodies were
removed from their original gravesites, some were dumped in the
woods with other bodies to make room for new bodies coming in.
The findings sent a shock wave throughout the country and
sparked tougher laws for crematories.  Investigators at the
Walker County business found 334 uncremated bodies.

Now the deposition states that bodies were spilling out of one
of the storage sheds, one body was found in the crematorium
chamber, and five others were scattered around a small building.
"Just looking at this, it was, it still is very difficult to
find words to describe it," said Dr. Kris Sperry, state chief
medical examiner, in sworn testimony taken May 20 in preparation
for the civil trial.  "I'd say it was beyond the life experience
of even fairly seasoned professionals like myself."

The suit, which was given class status, was filed on behalf of
families whose relatives' bodies were sent to the crematory
between 1997 and early 2002.  The suit names as defendants the
Crematory, Mr. Marsh and 56 funeral homes in Georgia, Tennessee
and Alabama.

Mr. Marsh spent six months in jail, but is out on bail.  He is
awaiting trial on 338 counts of theft by deception and 64 counts
of corpse abuse. He has not been indicted.

Dr. Sperry's deposition provides rare insight into developments,
the Journal-Constitution reports.  It was filed in federal court
on June 9 and sealed from public view by the US District Judge
Harold Murphy shortly after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
obtained a copy.  Dr. Sperry was one of the first investigators
to visit the crematory. In his deposition, he said:

     (1) Up to two-thirds of the approximately 950 bodies sent
         to the crematory between 1997 and 2002 were cremated;

     (2) The number not cremated increased each of those years;

     (3) Many unidentified remains were African-American;

     (4) Authorities chose not to prosecute the few attempts at
         fraud;

     (5) African-American funeral directors quickly sought
         assurances that a persistent rumor that black bodies
         were cremated while white ones were not was untrue;

     (6) The cremation equipment was working, but a timer was
         bad.

Dr. Sperry is considered one of the key witnesses in the trial,
but defense attorneys have challenged his credibility, saying he
did not do a good job of supervising the recovery and
identification of the uncremated bodies.  The defense went as
far as to say that Dr. Sperry was having an extramarital affair
that kept him from being at the Tri-State site at all the times
he said he was.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

July 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 16-17, 2003
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

July 31-August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 26-27, 2003
THE ANNUAL MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
FROM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH TRIAL
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-505-1490

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 8-10, 2003
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 11-12, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15-16, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 18-19, 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26, 2003
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

September 29-30, 2003
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 29-30, 2003
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

July 18, 2003
CLASS ACTION OVERVIEW
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CREE INC: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
North Carolina on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq:CREE) during the class period
January 14, 2000 to June 13, 2003.

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 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 ore information, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 or by
Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000 or by Fax:
(610) 660-8080 or by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


INTEMUNE INC: Roy L. Jacobs Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy L. Jacobs initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of InterMune, Inc. (Nasdaq:ITMN) during the period
January 6, 2003 to June 11, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Defendants, InterMune and the
Company's CEO, W. Scott Harkonen, violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about one of the its leading products,
Actimmune.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware
that demand for Actimmune was declining because:

     (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune
         was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary
         diseases,

     (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing, and

     (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the
         Company's decision to curtail physician education, the
         lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune.

However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated
during the class period that it was on course to meet projected
revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to
reflect lowered demand for the drug.

On June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its
2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings
from Actimmune. The Company also announced it had overstated the
number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its
earlier representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians
was flat. These disclosures sent the Company's stock price
plummeting to $16.74, a 33% one-day fall.

For more queries, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. by Mail: 292
Madison Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10017 or by Phone:
1-888-884-4490 (Toll Free) or by Fax: 212-504-8343 or by E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com .


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, on behalf of
purchasers of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE: PDX) common
stock during the period between April 17, 2002 and June 23,
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 April 17, 2002 and June
23, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
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 defendants engaged in fraudulent "upcoding" in
         its billing practices while telling the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate;

     (2) by virtue of having improperly received and recorded as
         revenue payments to which Pediatrix was not entitled,
         Pediatrix materially inflated several key indicators,
         including operating income, net inpatient revenue per
         admission, EBITDA and EBITDA margins;

     (3) that these unsafe and unsound business practices
         materially misrepresented the Company's business
         operations and financial performance by enabling the
         defendants to post better financial results; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's stock price was
         artificially inflated.

On June 24, 2003, the Company issued a press release with the
headline: "Pediatrix Notified of Billing Inquiry." Therein, the
Company announced that it had been advised by the U.S.
Attorney's Office that it was conducting a civil investigation
into Pediatrix's Medicaid billing practices nationwide.
Additionally, the Company announced that the U.S. Attorney's
Office intended to make a document and information request,
informally or by subpoena, within the next few weeks.

Market reaction to the news was swift. Pediatrix's shares fell
24% or $9.90 per share, on unusually high trading volume, to
close at $32.20 per share.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438 or by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Charles Piven Files Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) securities
during the period between April 17, 2002 and June 23, 2003,
inclusive.

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 or by Email:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by Phone: 410/332-0030.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Flordia on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) from
April 17, 2002 through June 23, 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 April 17, 2002 and June
23, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
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 defendants engaged in fraudulent "upcoding" in
         its billing practices while telling the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate;

     (2) by virtue of having improperly received and recorded as
         revenue payments to which Pediatrix was not entitled,
         Pediatrix materially inflated several key indicators,
         including operating income, net inpatient revenue per
         admission, EBITDA and EBITDA margins;

     (3) that these unsafe and unsound business practices
         materially misrepresented the Company's business
         operations and financial performance by enabling the
         defendants to post better financial results; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's stock price was
         artificially inflated.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. by Phone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *