CAR_Public/030703.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, July 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 130

                           Headlines                            

ACTERNA CORPORATION: Faces Securities Litigation in Maryland
ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Dismisses Marantz Case re ERISA Violation
ADVANCEPCS: Court Consolidates Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
ADVANCEPCS: Fighting Two Antitrust Lawsuits in California
ANDERSEN: Worldcom Gets Green Light to Proceed with Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: New Privacy Breach Notification Law Now in Effect
CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Lawsuit
CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Court Ruling on Issuers' Fees Disclosure
ENRON CORPORATION: Reaches Tentative Accord With Creditors
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Class Certification of LA Suit

FOREST LAB: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in IL
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Suffolk County Suit Has No Merit
GUNTHER: Court Denies Andersen Appeal re CT Class Action Order
MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Throws Out Suits Alleging Faulty Research
MYLAN: Court Dismisses In Part, Consolidates Antitrust Suits

MYLAN LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of CA Cases
MYLAN LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Tentatively Okays $35M Settlement
PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Firms Hit By Drug Recall Refused Payouts
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Will Answer Shareholder Complaint on July 23
PCS HEALTH: Intends To Fight Certification of NJ ERISA Lawsuit

PEAK INTL: NY Lawsuit Settled for $4M Pending Court Approval
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in MA Fraud Suit
SELECTICA INC: NY Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
SELECTICA: CA Court Sustains Motion to Dismiss Derivative Suit

* Crawford's Risk Sciences Group Celebrates 25 Years
* McGlinchey Opens Mortgage Banking Services Office in Dallas

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Lawsuit in FL
DIVINE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
GOLDMAN SACHS: Berger & Montague Launches Lawsuit in S.D. NY
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Lawsuit in Indiana
INTERMUNE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in FL

                          *********


ACTERNA CORPORATION: Faces Securities Litigation in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2003, Sik-Lin Huang commenced class action
litigation in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, against Acterna Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors alleging that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors committed certain securities law
violations.

The Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and
claims. Although the outcome of such proceeding and claims
cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that
the final outcome should not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, operations or financial position.  


ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Dismisses Marantz Case re ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marantz v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-01-2413PHX EHC, was a
class action filed on or about December 17, 2001 in the United
States District Court in Arizona, alleging that the company act
as an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) fiduciary
and that it has breached certain fiduciary obligations under
ERISA.

The plaintiff withdrew the class action allegations in April
2002. In March 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
apparent effort to reassert possible class action claims. In May
2003, the Marantz case was dismissed based on inadequacies in
the plaintiff's pleadings and subsequently the plaintiff filed
and amended complaint purporting to address these inadequacies.
Currently, the case is proceeding as a single plaintiff seeking
to represent one health plan.


ADVANCEPCS: Court Consolidates Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glanton v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-02-0507 PHX SRB,
previously referred to as Lewis v. AdvancePCS is a class action
filed in the United States District Court in Arizona on or about
April 19, 2002, alleging that the company has breached certain
fiduciary obligations under ERISA.

The case purports to be brought on behalf of a class of self-
funded health plans; however, a class has not been certified and
the company intends to oppose the certification.

On about March 31, 2003, the company was served with another
complaint (Mackner v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-03-0607 PHX
MHM) in which the plaintiff, a purported participant in a self-
funded plan customer of AdvancePCS, sought to bring action on
behalf of that plan.

Because the Glanton case purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of self-funded plans, the company moved to
consolidate the Glanton and Mackner cases. On May 14, 2003, the
United States District Court consolidated Mackner into Glanton.


ADVANCEPCS: Fighting Two Antitrust Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePCS was named as a defendant in two California State
court cases in 2003.

One was filed on or about March 17, 2003 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court (American Federation of State, County & Municipal
Employees ("AFSCME") v. AdvancePCS, et al., case number
BC292227) against the company and other leading PBMs.

The other was filed on or about March 26, 2003 in Alameda County
Superior Court against the company and several other defendants
(Irwin v. AdvancePCS, et al., case number RG03088693) and is
styled as a class action brought on behalf of a class of all
public employees that participate in non-ERISA prescription drug
benefit plans. However, a class has not been certified and the
company intends to oppose such certification.

These two California cases allegedly involve non-ERISA plans and
make the same general allegations of wrongdoing as made in the
Arizona ERISA actions but are brought under California's Unfair
Competition Law rather than ERISA. Since the two California
actions are related, the company will ask to have them
coordinated.

The company states, "Although the ultimate outcome in these
cases is uncertain, an adverse determination could potentially
cause us to change our business practices with respect to
formularies, preferred drug listings, rebates, and intervention
programs, potentially reducing our profitability and growth
prospects. We have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and are
vigorously defending these suits."


ANDERSEN: Worldcom Gets Green Light to Proceed with Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court of Mississippi has
given Worldcom permission to proceed with a class action lawsuit
against now-defunct public accounting firm Andersen for failing
to properly review and investigate the events that led to the
massive accounting fraud, reports AccountingWEB US.

At the same time the judged dismissed claims against individual
Andersen partners Melvin Dick and Mark Schopper who headed the
WorldCom audit, as well as claims against Andersen's umbrella
organization and its UK affiliate.

Accordingly, Andersen attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed,
claiming there was no wrongdoing in its audit of WorldCom.
Andersen stated it was not consulted about Worldcom's method of
accounting for its costs and that WorldCom officials hid
information from Andersen auditors.

Previously, a restraining order had been issued preventing
Andersen from destroying documents related to the WorldCom
issue.


CALIFORNIA: New Privacy Breach Notification Law Now in Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------
California's Senate Bill 1386 (SB 1386) privacy law goes into
effect July 1, 2003, mandating public disclosure of computer
security breaches in which confidential information of any
California resident may have been vulnerable.

To help companies protect themselves and their customers, Threat
Focus, Inc., a leader in IT security intelligence for small to
medium enterprises, announced that its Threat Focus Diligence
web-based product provides best-practices security measures
required to satisfy the stringent requirements of most security
and privacy regulations, including California's Senate Bill 1386
(SB 1386), HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Threat Focus Diligence
is priced from just $49 per month.

"California SB 1386 affects every business and organization that
stores confidential information about even one California
resident, including Social Security, California Driver's
License, account, and credit or debit card numbers," said Mark
Remington, CEO of Threat Focus, Inc. "Beginning July 1st, 2003,
businesses that experience even a single network security breach
must publicly disclose that fact to their customers. Threat
Focus Diligence identifies more than 1,700 known
vulnerabilities, helping companies in their efforts to protect
themselves against hackers and other security breaches."

According to the 2003 Computer Crime and Security Survey
conducted by the Computer Security Institute and the FBI,
financial losses in excess of $73 billion occurred in the last
year due to computer security breaches. The report also cites
that an estimated 36 percent of U.S. companies and government
organizations experienced system penetration in the last year
alone, with an estimated 1.5 million U.S. citizens being victims
of identity theft in the past 12 months.

"New security and privacy regulations such as California SB 1386
are designed to compel enterprises to implement the best
security practices to protect their computer systems from
vulnerabilities," said Jaclynn Bumback, research analyst at In-
Stat/MDR, a high-tech market research firm based in Scottsdale,
Arizona. "The practice of pretending a vulnerability never
happened is no longer an option for companies doing business in
California. Companies now have a choice to either secure
themselves or face the embarrassment and negative press
associated with an insecure system. Even worse, if companies do
not publicly disclose security breaches to their customers, they
run the risk of being held liable for civil damages or can face
class action lawsuits."


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrpro Companies, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class
action suit filed on June 24, 2002, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The
complaint also names certain former and current officers and
directors of the Company as defendants.

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Corrpro Common Shares during the period April 1, 2000
through March 20, 2002 and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws resulting in artificially inflated prices of the
Company's Common Shares during the class period. The complaint
relates to the Company's announcement that it had discovered
accounting irregularities caused by apparent internal misconduct
in its Australian subsidiary. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and expenses on behalf of the
putative class.

On or about May 27, 2003, the District Court granted, with
prejudice, the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended and
consolidated class action complaint. On June 24, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit from the order of
dismissal.

The Company is unable at this time to make a determination as to
whether an adverse outcome is likely and whether an adverse
outcome would have a materially adverse affect on its operations
or financial condition.


CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Court Ruling on Issuers' Fees Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to decide how credit card
issuers must disclose fees they charge when cardholders exceed
their credit limits, reported the Houston Chronicle. The case
arises originally from a class-action lawsuit brought by Sharon
Pfennig.

The justices will review a ruling by a divided panel of the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.  That court ruled that
credit companies must include so-called "over-the-credit-limit"
fees in finance charges they disclose to consumers.  The
industry presently discloses these fees separately as "other
charges."

U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson asked the Supreme Court to
reverse the ruling of the appeals court.  There are nearly 1.3
billion U.S. credit card accounts, Mr. Olson said, citing
Thomson Financial Media.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that Household Credit Services,
a unit of Household International, based in Prospect Heights,
Illinois, violated the Truth in Lending Act by letting her
exceed her credit limit and then imposing fees.  Ms. Pfennig,
the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, also sued MBNA American Bank,
which had acquired her account.  The bank is a unit of MBNA
Corp.

A federal district court dismissed Ms. Pfennig's complaint,
ruling that the over-the-limit fees are not finance charges.  
The appeals court reversed, holding that the fee "falls squarely
within the statutory definition of a finance charge."

Card issuers, however, follow the Federal Reserve Board's
Regulation Z, which requires the banks to treat over-the-limit
fees separately from finance charges.

In his brief, Solicitor General Olson said the appeals court
ruling hurts both lenders and consumers.

"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," wrote Mr. Olson in his brief.

"The existence of conflicting disclosure rules also frustrates
[the Truth in Lending Act's] goal of enabling consumers to
compare accurately the cost of credit," Mr. Olson wrote.


ENRON CORPORATION: Reaches Tentative Accord With Creditors
----------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corp. reached a tentative agreement with its creditors for
distributing the diminished assets of its company to its legions
of creditors, reported The Asian Wall Street Journal.

Enron's reorganization plan, when it has been approved, is
likely to specify targeted levels of recovery for the numerous
creditors owed tens of billions of dollars. The levels of
recovery are likely to total less than 20 cents on the dollar of
debt for the vast majority of creditors, people familiar with
the negotiations said.

Enron has been operating under Chapter 11's U.S. bankruptcy
protection since December 2001. Last Friday, the company and its
creditors requested bankruptcy-court approval to extend, until
July 11, the deadline for filing its plan of reorganization.
Enron said, in a court filing, that the extension was required
in order to complete a "tentative agreement in principle"
between representatives of its
unsecured creditors and creditors of its Enron North America
Corp. affiliate.

The reorganization plan is expected to call for those two groups
of creditors to divide the proceeds from the sales of numerous
Enron assets, and from the settlement of certain energy trading
contracts. Such sales and settlements already have generated
nearly $5 billion for the bankruptcy estate. Creditors also are
expected to receive ownership stakes in the planned successor
companies to Enron, which will engage in scaled-down operations
focusing on the former energy giant's pipelines, electric
utility and international assets.

Enron's position has been that its shareholders are expected to
receive nothing. A class action lawsuit, on their behalf,
however, is demanding to recover damages from financial
institutions and other firms involved in Enron's off-balance
sheet financial transactions.

When it filed for bankruptcy, Enron listed assets of $49.8
billion, but the values have been scaled back significantly as
its energy businesses eroded. The company also took further
write-downs due to questionable accounting. Fees for lawyers and
other professionals, which through May were approaching $500
million, also have eaten into assets. At the same time,
estimates of Enron's liabilities rose.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Class Certification of LA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2002, Exide Technologies was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed in Louisiana state court for damages
brought by two employees of Ducote Wrecking & Demolition, an
independent contractor performing multiple maintenance projects
at the Company's Baton Rouge, Louisiana facility.

The plaintiffs allege that while they were engaged in work at
the Company's facility, they were intentionally exposed to and
poisoned by lead, acid, and other heavy metals. Plaintiffs named
the Company's insurance carriers and supervisory employee as
defendants, along with Ducote.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was denied by the Court in a January 2003 decision. In the
same January 2003 decision, the Court dismissed the Company's
supervisory employee and the independent contractor defendant
from the litigation. The Court also has denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The Company's insurer has issued
a reservation of rights as to the Company's coverage for the
alleged claims.


FOREST LAB: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in IL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories Inc. remains a defendant in actions filed in
various federal district courts alleging certain violations of
the federal anti-trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical
products.  

In each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical
manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and
conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products.  

The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both
individually and, with respect to certain claims, as a class
action) and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages.  The
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has ordered these
actions coordinated (and, with respect to those actions brought
as class actions, consolidated) in the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the
caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust
Litigation."

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the
consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial
beginning in September 1998), including the Company, were
granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the
plaintiffs had concluded their case.  

By ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial Judge held that
no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and
the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non-
existent."  The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
subsequently affirmed the granting of the directed verdict in
the federal class case in favor of the Company.

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in favor of the Company, the Company has secured the
voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in
all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who
elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, cases which
were included in the coordinated proceedings, and the dismissal
of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in
various state courts.  

The Company, together with other manufacturers, remains a
defendant in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the
coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price
discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.  No
discovery or other significant proceedings have been taken to
date related to these claims.


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Suffolk County Suit Has No Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 14, 2003, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Forest Laboratories Inc., was named as a
defendant, together with 29 other manufacturers of
pharmaceutical products, in an action brought in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
the County of Suffolk, New York, as plaintiff.  

The action alleges that plaintiff County was overcharged for its
share of Medicare and Medicaid drug reimbursement costs as a
result of reporting by manufacturers of "Average Wholesale
Prices" which did not correspond to actual provider costs of
prescription drugs.  The action includes counts under the
Federal RICO and False Claims Acts, as well as claims arising
under state statutes and common law.  

The action asserts substantially similar claims to other actions
(none of which include the Company as a defendant) which have
been brought in various Federal District and State Courts by
various plaintiffs against pharmaceutical manufacturers and
which have been assigned to the United States District Court of
the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re
Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation" for coordinated
treatment.  

The case has been transferred to the District of Massachusetts
for coordination with these multidistrict proceedings.  In June
2003, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts
ordered the dismissal of the Federal RICO claims in the
consolidated proceedings, but declined to dismiss the various
state law claims and other Federal claims.  In addition,
plaintiffs were allowed a thirty-day period to re-file their
complaint to include more specific factual allegations, as
required by the Court's ruling.  

Forest anticipates Suffolk County's complaint will be similarly
amended by the plaintiff.  The Company believes there is no
merit to this action and intends to seek its dismissal.


GUNTHER: Court Denies Andersen Appeal re CT Class Action Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against Gunther
International Ltd., its then-current chief executive officer and
its then-current chief financial officer asserting claims under
the federal securities laws. The action was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Among other things, the complaint alleged that the Company's
financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 1998
were materially false and misleading in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages and
reimbursement for the reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with the action.

In February 2001, the Company reached an out-of-court
settlement, which the Court approved in May 2001. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants
agreed to pay $595,000 to the plaintiffs, $380,000 of which was
paid by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance carrier and $215,000 of which was paid by the Company.

In April 2001, prior to the entry of the final order approving
the settlement of the Purported Class Action (the "Class Action
Final Order"), the Company commenced separate legal proceedings
against Arthur Andersen, LLP, its former auditor, in the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London,
Connecticut (the "Malpractice Proceedings"). The Malpractice
Proceedings sought damages sustained by the Company as a result
of Andersen's failure to comply with professional standards in
the conduct of certain of its audits of the Company's financial
statements.

In May 2001, Andersen removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, but the court
remanded the complaint to the state court upon the motion of the
Company. The Company asserted in the Malpractice Proceedings
that Andersen breached its duties to the Company by, among other
things, negligently and/or intentionally misrepresenting the
Company's true financial condition to the Company, its Board of
Directors and its Audit Committee.  Andersen vigorously denied
any wrongdoing and filed a counterclaim against the Company
alleging claims for fraud, negligence, breach of contract,
interpleader and indemnification. In addition, Andersen asserted
that the Class Action Final Order interposed an effective bar
against any recovery in the Malpractice Proceedings.

On June 7, 2001, the Company filed a motion to amend the Class
Action Final Order to clarify that it has no application to the
Malpractice Proceedings. The court granted the Company's motion,
and Andersen appealed the court's decision.

In February 2003, the Clerk of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second District entered an Order Voluntarily
Dismissing that appeal with Prejudice.

As a plaintiff, the Company settled certain litigation in fiscal
year 2003 realizing income of $190,000, net of related
litigation expenses.


MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Throws Out Suits Alleging Faulty Research
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack dismissed two class action
lawsuits against Merrill Lynch over faulty analyst research,
stating that the plaintiffs -- investors of 24/7 Real Media and
Interliant -- failed to establish that omissions in Merrill's
research caused the claimed losses when the stock prices of
these two companies plummeted after the Internet bubble burst,
CBS.MarketWatch.com reports.

The suits claimed analyst Henry Blodget and others at Merrill
Lynch misled investors by hyping stocks in their research
reports to lure investment banking business, reports the
Associated Press.

Judge Pollack did not find any evidence that former Internet
analyst Henry Blodget misrepresented his opinions. The lawsuits
are also barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The
investors, because of news reports, were on notice of the claims
more than one year before bringing their claims, Pollack said.

U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack said the two lawsuits were
filed by investors who were no more than ``high-risk
speculators' who never would have sued had they made money
during the dot-com crash rather than lost it.

U.S. securities laws were not meant to ``underwrite, subsidize
and encourage their rash speculation in joining a freewheeling
casino that lured thousands with the fantasy of Olympian
riches,' the judge wrote, according to AP.

Interliant, based in Purchase, New York, provides Internet
security services for businesses and has filed for bankruptcy
protection. New York-based 24/7 Real Media is an Internet
marketing firm.


MYLAN: Court Dismisses In Part, Consolidates Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2001, Biovail Laboratories Inc. filed suit against
Mylan Laboratories Inc. and Pfizer Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging antitrust
violations with respect to agreements entered into between the
Company and Pfizer regarding nifedipine. The Company filed a
motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia, which was granted.

The Company has been named as a defendant in five other putative
class action suits alleging antitrust claims based on the same
alleged conduct. Two of the class actions have been dismissed in
their entirety, and the remaining actions have been dismissed in
part and consolidated into a single proceeding. The plaintiffs
in the remaining actions, as well as Biovail, are seeking
unspecified compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees,
costs of litigation, restitution, disgorgement, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of CA Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Laboratories Inc., along with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in
four lawsuits filed in the state courts of California in which
the plaintiffs allege the defendants unlawfully, unfairly and
fraudulently manipulated the reported average wholesale price of
various products, allegedly to increase third-party
reimbursements to others for their products.

One of these lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff. None of the three remaining cases has been certified
as a class action, although all three cases seek class action
and representative status. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief in
the form of disgorgement and restitution, attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Tentatively Okays $35M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2003, Mylan Laboratories Inc. announced a tentative
settlement of a direct purchaser class action related to the
sale of lorazepam and clorazepate for a total amount of
$35 million.

Mylan's co-defendants agreed to an initial contribution of
approximately $7.0 million toward the $35.0 million settlement.
Mylan's obligation was accrued at March 31, 2003. The co-
defendants' contribution was subsequently increased by agreement
with Mylan by an additional $10.0 million, which reduces Mylan's
share of the total settlement to approximately $18.0 million.
Mylan is to receive the $10.0 million in five annual payments of
$2.0 million each.

On April 11, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted tentative approval of the class action's
settlement. This settlement does not include several related
cases, and the Company does not believe that an adverse result
in any of the remaining lorazepam and clorazepate cases,
collectively or individually, would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Firms Hit By Drug Recall Refused Payouts
------------------------------------------------------------
Firms affected by the Pan Pharmaceuticals drug recall are being
refused insurance payouts because a key insurer, ACE Insurance
Co., has said the vitamins and drugs involved in Australia's
biggest medical products recall were not necessarily harmful,
according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

The refusal to pay out on insurance contracts is yet another
blow to the hundreds of companies already hit by the Pan
scandal. Apart from the large pharmaceutical companies, many
smaller companies, including pharmacies, health-food shops,
vitamin resellers and manufacturers, have been harmed as the
business Pan once provided through its products to sell simply
dried up.

Pan is in voluntary administration after federal drug regulator,
the Therapeutic Goods Administration, withdrew the company's
license after finding it had substituted ingredients in its
health products and then faked test results. More than 1600
products were recalled.

At least five companies are considering legal action over ACE'S
refusal to pay and scores more are likely to be affected by
similar refusals.

Commonly, making a claim under a product recall or product
liability policy requires proof the goods in question either
may, or did result in personal injury.

"ACE is considering avoiding the policy on the grounds that it
needs to be shown there was something wrong with the product,"
said Ben Slade, class actions manager at Marice Blackburn
Cashman. "But without taking a sample from every single product,
that is near impossible; especially since in some cases the
product has been destroyed."

Mr. Slade is acting for an insured company facing the prospect
of no payout; he said some industry members have estimated as
many as 100 companies could be affected. At least five companies
are known to be considering legal action, and more are likely to
take action as similar refusals are given applications for
insurance payouts.

One option for companies with the financial muscle is to pursue
Pan itself for the cost of the recall. Pan's voluntary
administrator Tony Mcgrath expects claims from creditors and
other injured parties to be $100 million to $160 million.
Health-care giant Mayne Group's claim against Pan is put at
about $43 million. A Mayne spokesman said the company was still
working through its insurance issues and was examining a number
of possibilities.

ACE has retained law firm Wotton & Kearney. Phillip Wotton
confirmed that he has provided advice to ACE relating to certain
notifications made under its policies. Mr. Wotton also said
ACE's product recall insurance provided a more limited type of
cover than other policies.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Will Answer Shareholder Complaint on July 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2003, Parlux Fragrances, Inc. was served with a
shareholder's class action complaint, filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery by Judy Altman, purporting to act on behalf of
herself and other public stockholders of the Company.

The Complaint names Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant along
with all of its Board of Directors, except Mr. David Stone. The
Complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
Tender Offer Proposal, dated May 19, 2003 and received from
Quality King Distributors, Inc. and Ilia Lekach, the company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The proposal requests the formation of a new entity to acquire
all of the company's outstanding shares of common stock at a
price of $4.00 per share in cash, which was a premium of
approximately 60% over the closing price of the common stock of
$2.50 on that day. The Proposal was conditional upon the
approval of Quality King's lenders and the approval of the
company's Board of Directors under Section 203 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law.

The shareholder complaint asks that the acquisition be rescinded
if it is consummated. In addition, the Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, plus the fees, costs and disbursements of
Ms. Altman's attorneys.

The defendants are currently scheduled to file a written
response to the Complaint on July 23, 2003.

The Company and the named defendants have engaged Delaware
counsel, stating, "We believe that the Complaint is without
merit. In addition, the Tender Offer Proposal, which
precipitated the Complaint, has been withdrawn. However, there
can be no assurance of the ultimate outcome."


PCS HEALTH: Intends To Fight Certification of NJ ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1998, a class action lawsuit captioned Mulder v. PCS
Health Systems, Inc., case number 98-1003, was filed in the
United States District Court of the District of New Jersey.

This action alleges that PCS is a fiduciary, as that term is
defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA, and that the company has breached its fiduciary
obligations under ERISA in connection with its development and
implementation of formularies, preferred drug listings and
intervention programs for its sponsors of ERISA health plans.

In particular, plaintiffs allege that the company's therapeutic
interchange programs and negotiation of formulary rebates and
discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers violate fiduciary
obligations.

The plaintiffs want injunctive relief and monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

The company states, "We believe that we do not assume any of the
plan fiduciary responsibilities that would subject us to
regulation under ERISA as alleged in the complaint.

Although the ultimate outcome is uncertain, an adverse
determination could potentially cause us to change our business
practices with respect to formularies, preferred drug listings,
intervention programs, and rebates, potentially reducing our
profitability and growth prospects."

A class of plaintiffs has not yet been certified and the company
intends to oppose such certification. "We have denied all
allegations of wrongdoing."


PEAK INTL: NY Lawsuit Settled for $4M Pending Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 1999, plaintiff Dorchester Investors commenced a
purported securities class action suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all TrENDS purchasers against Peak International Limited and:

     1) the Peak TrENDS Trust,

     2) Mr. T. L. Li,

     3) Mr. Jerry Mo, Vice President, Finance,

     4) Luckygold 18A Limited and

     5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation    
       (DLJ)

The suit charges that the TrENDS prospectus failed to disclose
that allegedly significant short selling of the company's common
stock was certain to occur at the time of the TrENDS offering.
On June 5, 2000, plaintiff and defendants stipulated to the
dismissal with prejudice from the action of the company and Mr.
Mo.

Additionally, Mr. T. L. Li, Luckygold and the company entered
into certain indemnification agreements with the Trust and DLJ
in connection with the TrENDS offering. Certain of these
indemnification agreements may require that under certain
circumstances Peak International, Luckygold and/or Mr. T. L. Li
indemnify the Trust and/or DLJ from certain liabilities that the
Trust and/or DLJ may incur to plaintiff or to the purported
plaintiff class. Mr. T. L. Li and Luckygold have, in turn,
provided a deed of indemnity to the company pursuant to which
Mr. T. L. Li and Luckygold have agreed to indemnify the company
from liabilities related to the TrENDS offering.

In June 2003, the remaining parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
for an aggregate payment of $4,000,000, and the settlement is
currently pending approval by the court.

Also, the remaining defendants entered into an agreement that
will become effective when and if the settlement is approved by
the court in which they agreed not to seek contribution or
indemnification arising out of, relating to, or in connection
with the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.

Peak International states, "We believe that this agreement, if
approved, will preclude the remaining defendants from asserting
claims of indemnification or contribution against us. While
there is no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or
approved by the court, we believe that the lawsuit will be
settled in the near future. Accordingly, we believe it is
unlikely that we will have any liability to any party in
connection with this matter, including for any claim for
contribution or indemnification by DLJ, or that we will have any
claim against T. L. Li for indemnification."

Peak International Limited is a leading supplier of precision
engineered packaging products for the storage, transportation
and automated handling of semiconductor devices and other
electronic components.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in MA Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against PolyMedica Corporation and
Steven J. Lee, PolyMedica's former Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, on behalf of himself and purchasers of
common stock.

The lawsuit demands unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various
statements were misleading with respect to the company's revenue
and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious
sales. At least one virtually identical lawsuit was subsequently
filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against PolyMedica.

On July 30, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the complaints under the caption In re: PolyMedica
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No.00-12426-REK.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9,
2001. The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as
defendants PolyMedica, Liberty, Steven J. Lee, former Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Eric G. Walters, an
Executive Vice President and Clerk of PolyMedica, and Keith
Trowbridge, President of Liberty and a Senior Vice President of
PolyMedica. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on December 10, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to this motion on February 11, 2002, and defendants
filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002. The Court denied the
motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002. On June 20, 2002,
defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint.
The case is currently in discovery.



SELECTICA INC: NY Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Between June 5, 2001 and June 22, 2001, four securities class
action complaints were filed against Selectica Inc, certain of
its officers and directors, and Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, as the underwriters of its March 13, 2000 initial
public offering (IPO), in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On August 9, 2001, these actions were consolidated before a
single judge along with cases brought against numerous other
issuers, their officers and directors and their underwriters,
that make similar allegations involving the allocation of shares
in the IPOs of those issuers. The consolidation was for purposes
of pretrial motions and discovery only.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting essentially the same claims as the original
complaints.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company, the officer and
director defendants and CSFB violated federal securities laws by
making material false and misleading statements in the
prospectus incorporated in our registration statement on FormS-1
filed with the SEC in March, 2000 in connection with the
company's IPO.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
CSFB solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from several investors in exchange for which CSFB
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
number of shares of common stock issued in the company's IPO.

The complaint further accuses CSFB of entering into agreements
with its customers in which it agreed to allocate the common
stock sold in the IPO to certain customers in exchange for which
they agreed to purchase additional shares of common stock in the
after-market at pre-determined prices. The practice is commonly
known as "laddering."

The complaint also alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for
Selectica's stock.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the officer and director
defendants, along with other issuers and their related officer
and director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based
on common issues. Opposition and reply papers were filed and the
Court heard oral argument.

Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on October 8,
2002, the individual officers and directors entered into a
stipulation of dismissal and tolling agreement with plaintiffs.
As part of that agreement, plaintiffs dismissed the case without
prejudice against the individual defendants. The Court ordered
the dismissal of the officers and directors without prejudice on
October 9, 2002.

The court rendered its decision on the motion to dismiss
February 19, 2003, denying the Company's dismissal.


SELECTICA: CA Court Sustains Motion to Dismiss Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2002, a shareholder derivative action was filed in
the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against
certain of Selectica Inc.'s officers and directors, against
CSFB, as the underwriters of our IPO, and against the Company as
nominal defendant.

The action was filed by a shareholder purporting to assert on
behalf of the Company claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting and conspiracy, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and breach of contract, relating to the pricing of
shares in the Company's IPO.

On June 6, 2002, the shareholder plaintiff filed an amended
complaint dropping the breach of contract claim against CSFB and
adding claims against CSFB for breach of an agent's duty to its
principal and for violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law, based on alleged violations of certain rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers.

On November 25, 2002, following the removal of the case to
federal court and the subsequent remand of the case back to the
state court, the Company and the officer and director defendants
filed answers to the amended complaint, preserving certain
defenses including defenses based on plaintiff's lack of
standing to bring the suit.

Also on November 25, 2002, CSFB filed a motion to dismiss the
case, on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks standing. That
motion was heard on March 4, 2003, and on March 18, 2003 the
Court issued an Order sustaining the motion but granting
plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.


* Crawford's Risk Sciences Group Celebrates 25 Years
----------------------------------------------------
Risk Sciences Group, Inc. (RSG), a subsidiary of Crawford &
Company (NYSE: CRDA CRDB), is celebrating 25 years of providing
risk management information services (RMIS) this year. This 25th
anniversary marks a milestone that was achieved due to the
organization's commitment to creating innovative solutions and
to offering superior customer service.

"Service is what started RSG and continues to be the hallmark of
a RSG solution," says Michael Saladino, managing director of
RSG.

Since its founding in 1978, RSG has grown exponentially from a
customer base of six clients and 225,000 claims to over 500
customers and 12,000,000 claims managed daily. "RSG has grown
into one of the most successful RMIS providers today, focused on
the same mission as in 1978 -- to help clients reduce their
overall cost of risk through effective information management
and analysis," said Kenneth Ancona, national marketing manager
for RSG.

Risk Sciences Group (www.risksciencesgroup.com ) is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Crawford & Company
(www.crawfordandcompany.com ). Based in Atlanta, Georgia,
Crawford & Company is the world's largest independent provider
of claims management solutions to insurance companies and self-
insured entities, with a global network of more than 700 offices
in 67 countries. Major service lines include workers'
compensation claims administration, healthcare management
services, property and casualty claims management, class action
services, and risk management information services.


* McGlinchey Opens Mortgage Banking Services Office in Dallas
-------------------------------------------------------------
McGlinchey Stafford, one of the nation's leading law firms in
the field of consumer finance, announced the opening of a new
office in Dallas that will principally service the residential
mortgage banking industry, effective July 1, 2003.

McGlinchey Stafford's Consumer Financial Services Group
specializes in compliance, regulatory and class action matters
for financial services providers throughout the country.

The firm adds two partners, Ronald M Bendalin and Eldon L.
Youngblood, who will practice in the Consumer Financial Services
Group. In addition, the firm will participate in a new
affiliate, McGlinchey Stafford and Youngblood & Bendalin,
P.L.L.C., which will concentrate its practice in the area of
document preparation and related services. McGlinchey Stafford
and Youngblood & Bendalin will start operations in Dallas with a
fully-staffed day and night shift operations center dedicated to
closing and document preparation services for the mortgage
banking industry.

In addition to enhancing the law firm's legal compliance,
regulatory, licensing and litigation capabilities in all fifty
states, the new office gives the Firm's clients a one-stop
resource for mortgage lending documentation and closing
outsourcing needs. According to Vicki Murphy of the Youngblood &
Bendalin group, the office currently serves a national clientele
from Dallas and over 18 on-site locations.

"We are excited to be joining forces with McGlinchey Stafford to
combine our highly specialized nationwide closing and document
preparation capabilities with their full-service mortgage
banking legal resources," said Mr. Bendalin.

"We look forward to working with the Youngblood & Bendalin group
on a national basis. It expands our national mortgage banking
practice by allowing us to provide loan documentation and legal
services to our clients," said Bennet Koren, head of
McGlinchey's Consumer Financial Services Group.

               ABOUT McGLINCHEY STAFFORD

McGlinchey Stafford was founded in New Orleans in 1974 and has
grown into one of the largest law firms based in the southern
region of the United States. We currently have seven offices in
four states - Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio. Attorneys
in these offices work together to maintain a full-service
commercial and defense practice in various areas of the law and
to provide competent, cost-effective service to our clients.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Lawsuit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (Nasdaq:CCELE) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 16, 1999 through May
20, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 16, 1999 and May
20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell
securities.

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

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

     (2) that the Company continually recognized revenue in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         ("GAAP") and the Company's own internal accounting
         principles with respect to the following:

         (a) related-party transactions;
         (b) revenue sharing agreements; and
         (c) 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 queries, contact: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. by Mail: 100
Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN  55401 or
by Phone: (612) 339-6900 or by E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


DIVINE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of divine, inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: DVINQ) formerly publicly
traded securities during the period between November 12, 2001 to
February 18, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants Andrew J. Filipowski
(Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
and Michael P. Cullinane (Chief Financial Officer and Executive
Vice President) 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 12, 2001, and February 18, 2003,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Divine securities.

Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:

     (i) Divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its
         revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing
         employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to
         offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in
         advance -- months before payments were due to
         publishers -- even though Divine had no plan to pay its
         obligations to publishers,

    (ii) Divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million
         from RoweCom's operations,

   (iii) Divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls
         with respect to its RoweCom operations, and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Divine lacked a
         reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end
         or an ability to maintain its operations without
         bankruptcy protections.

The Class Period ends on February 18, 2003. On that date, Divine
announced that "despite efforts over the past several months to
minimize operating expenses and various liabilities, its board
of directors has determined that it must seek alternatives to
protect the value and viability of its operations. As a result,
Divine has engaged Broadview International LLC as advisors to
assist in exploring strategic options, which may include asset
divestitures, comparable transactions, and/or the filing of a
voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code."

In response to this announcement, the price of Divine stock
declined precipitously. During the Class Period, Divine
completed two acquisitions, among numerous others -- acquiring
Viant Corporation and Delano Technology Corporation -- using its
common stock as currency.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Berger & Montague Launches Lawsuit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Goldman Sachs & Co. (NYSE:
GS), and its Senior Technology Analyst Matthew Janiga on behalf
of persons who purchased securities of Exodus Communications,
Inc. during the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001,
inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
and misleading analyst reports on Exodus, a provider of Internet
system and network management solutions. As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of
Exodus common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or
stabilized during the Class Period.

On or about April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission issued a complaint charging Goldman Sachs
with violating numerous rules of conduct of the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc., by issuing false and misleading analyst reports
on numerous companies.

The complaint describes the influence and control exerted by
Goldman Sachs' investment bankers on its supposedly independent
research analysts, and details how positive ratings and research
reports on Exodus issued by defendants to the public were
contrary to defendants' more negative assessments of the
Company's true value and prospects.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas
M. Risen, Esq. or Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
of Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 or by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
or by Fax: 215-875-5715 or by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Lawsuit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Indiana on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) securities between August 17,
2001 and June 12, 2003, inclusive.

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

The Complaint alleges that the Company's ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System
(used to prevent an aneurysm in the heart's main artery from
rupturing) was not safe and that it was the cause of over 2,600
incidents that included 12 deaths; the Company failed to notify
the FDA regarding the over 2,600 incidents that included 12
deaths resulting from the defective ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System; and
the Company engaged in fraudulent sales of the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT
System.

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

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


INTERMUNE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of InterMune Inc. (NASDAQ:ITMN) securities
during the period between October 24, 2002 and June 11, 2003.

The complaint charges InterMune and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements about one of the Company's leading
products, Actimmune.

Specifically the complaint alleges that defendants were aware
that:

     (a) InterMune's estimated number of patients on Actimmune,
         disclosed throughout the Class Period as an accurate
         and valid means by which to register the level of
         strength of the demand for Actimmune, was "inherently"
         unreliable, inconsistent, and lacking in any
         accountable basis for presentation;

     (b) there had been disruptions and problems with
         InterMune's sales and marketing efforts, including
         extraordinary turnover and lack of proper training;

     (c) since at least the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002,
         InterMune was materially understating the level of
         inventory being held by its distributors, of which
         millions of dollars worth was being held in excess, and
         materially overstating its revenues;

     (d) InterMune lacked adequate and sufficient internal
         controls and systems; and

     (e) based on the foregoing, InterMune had no reasonable
         basis to issue its financial and operational
         projections.

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 details contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by
Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC 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 the common stock and other securities
of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) between April 17,
2002 and June 23, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
securities. Significantly, on June 24, 2003, Pediatrix announced
that it had been advised that the U.S. Attorney's Office is
conducting a civil investigation into Pediatrix's Medicaid
billing practices and that the investigation would include a
document and information request, informally or by subpoena,
within the next few weeks. On this news, Pediatrix's shares fell
24% or $9.90 per share, on unusually high trading volume, to
close at $32.20 per share.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by Phone: (toll
free) 877-LEGAL-90.


                          *********

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  * * *