CAR_Public/030710.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, July 10, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 135

                        Headlines                            


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Call-Center Workers Sue Over Changed Policies
CLARION COUNTY: May Be Sued Over Unjust Property Assessments
EUNIVERSE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Friday
FLORIDA: Naples Man Sues Brokers for Violating Drivers' Privacy
HEALTHSOUTH: Trying To Avoid Litigation, Begin Restructuring

HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Lawyers, Doctors Meet To Discuss Lawsuit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls More Than 277,000 Cars in South Korea
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholders' Litigation
MAYNE GROUP: Recalling Pan Products Resupplied to the Public
MCI/WORLDCOM: Wins District Court Nod for $750M SEC Settlement

MCI/WORLDCOM: Files Supplemental Disclosure Statement
MCI/WORLDCOM: Gray Panthers "Disappointed" Over Settlement
PDS GAMING: Third Lawsuit Filed Over Proposed Management Buyout
PUBLIC SERVICE: Judge To Decide on State Board Intervention
SARA LEE: Lead Plaintiff Petitions for Fraud Suit Due July 14

SEITEL INC: Reaches Agreement-In-Principle With Ranch Capital
ST. PAUL: W.Va. Lawsuit Alleges Insurer's Financial Misdealings
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Court Fixes Settlement Hearing on September 12
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial Nearing End   

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Body Dumping

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ADMINISTAFF INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. Texas
ADMINISTAFF INC: Glancy & Binkow LLP Launches Lawsuit in S.D. TX
POLYMEDICA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
POLYMEDICA CORP: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in MA
READ-RITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                         *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Call-Center Workers Sue Over Changed Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Tucson-based call-center employees filed a class action
lawsuit against American Airlines charging that American
improperly changed vacation and holiday policies causing some
employees to lose time off they had earned, according to The
Arizona Republic.

Reservation agents Nancy Geiger and Laura Davis filed suit in
Pima County Superior Court on behalf of all the estimated 14,000
American Airlines customer service center employees.


CLARION COUNTY: May Be Sued Over Unjust Property Assessments
------------------------------------------------------------
Clarion County faces possible litigation involving claims of
unjust tax assessments on properties.

Florida resident Ed Nusser, who owns property in East Brady,
said he has researched the situation over the past year and
discovered the assessments of mobile homes he looked into were
higher than what they should be, according to The Derrick & News
Herald.

He said he is in the early stages of planning a class-action
lawsuit against the county.

Nusser said he found his seasonal residence was being taxed for
a basement it doesn't have. He said he appealed the matter and
was refunded six years' worth of taxes.

Nusser also claimed he investigated 12 mobile residences in East
Brady and found that each was assessed between two and 10 times
higher than what they should have been.

He said he is seeking refunds for all affected property owners
in the county.


EUNIVERSE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Friday
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders have until Friday, July 11, 2003 to seek
appointment by the Court as one of the lead plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock of eUniverse, Inc. (Nasdaq:EUNI)
during the period between July 31, 2002 and May 5, 2003,
inclusive.

eUniverse, Inc., Brad D. Greenspan and Joseph L. Varraveto are
named as defendants in the Complaint.

The Complaint charges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported
sales and earnings. In particular, it is alleged that defendants
overstated the Company's revenues and net income for the second
and third quarters, and possibly the first, of the Company's
fiscal year ended March 31, 2003.

Before the market opened on May 6, 2003, eUniverse issued a
press release announcing that it intends to restate its
financial statements for the second and third quarters, and
possibly the first, of fiscal 2003, and that the restatement
will result in a material adverse change to its previously
reported financial results. In response to the Company's
announcement, the Nasdaq stock market halted trading in the
Company's stock until eUniverse satisfies Nasdaq's request for
additional information. Furthermore, on May 8, 2003, eUniverse
announced that the Securities & Exchange Commission has opened
an informal inquiry into the matter, and that director Jeffrey
C. Lapin, who had served on the Company's Audit Committee, had
resigned.

For questions, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of the Pomerantz
firm at 888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW), toll free, or at
agtolan@pomlaw.com by e-mail.


FLORIDA: Naples Man Sues Brokers for Violating Drivers' Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Naples man is suing five information brokers, claiming they
violated a federal privacy law by taking personal information
from Florida drivers' records, reported Associated Press
Newswires. Robert V. Rosen, the plaintiff, is seeking class-
action certification for the lawsuits.

The five lawsuits have been filed in U.S. District Court in Fort
Myers. They allege the companies obtained Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle records in violation of the
federal Driver Privacy Protection Act. Those records include
people's names, addresses, birth dates and other information
detailed on motor vehicle titles, the lawsuits claim.

The suits are part of a campaign challenging the state's
handling of the records; however, the Florida motor vehicle
department is not a defendant in any of the cases.

The named defendants are ChoicePoint Inc., Acxiom Corp., eFunds
Corp., Seisint Inc. and Reed Elsevier Inc., the parent company
of Lexis Nexis.

The five lawsuits are seeking fines of $2,500 for each instance
in which the companies distributed information from Florida
drivers' records.

Mr. Rosen is listed as co-plaintiff in three similar suits filed
in Tampa by a St. Petersburg man.


HEALTHSOUTH: Trying To Avoid Litigation, Begin Restructuring
------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth's new leaders are meeting with shareholders and
creditors this week to persuade them that strong operations will
help the company avoid bankruptcy if it can restructure debt and
navigate the shoals of class action lawsuits and government
investigations related to massive accounting fraud, according to
Associated Press Newswires.

Officials at HealthSouth, where investigators have uncovered a
$2.5 billion accounting fraud so far, are telling shareholders
and creditors that its core businesses remain solid; that the
outpatient surgery and hospital chain can avoid bankruptcy so
long as the company manages the class-action lawsuits and
government probes from the fraud. Interim chairman Joel C.
Gordon said the company remains "solid and profitable," with an
expectation of consolidated net revenue reaching $4.1 billion
at the end of the next 12 months.

This update, presented to creditors and shareholders, was the
first significant update of HealthSouth's financial fitness
since March, when federal regulators accused the company and its
now-ousted chief executive Richard M. Scrushy of faking $2.5
billion in profits between 1997 and 2002, to meet Wall Street
expectations.

Chief restructuring officer Bryan Marsal outlined a plan that
calls for draconian cost cuts, tighter spending and the selling
of noncore assets. Mr. Marsal said an ongoing fact-finding
review, aimed at determining the extent of the fraud, found that
Medicare reimbursements apparently were not affected.

Mr. Scrushy has not been charged with a crime, but 11 former
executives, including five former chied financial officers, have
pleaded guilty in the accounting scandal. The new leadership
hopes to establish a different kind of corporate structure, Mr.
Marsal said.

Interim CEO Robert P. May said board members acted quickly to
remove Mr. Scrushy and fire auditor Ernst & Young. They named an
interim leadership team; hired accounting firm
PriceWaterhouseCoopers to conduct a forensic audit; placed high-
powered law firm Skadden Arps on retainer and contracted
turnaround expert Alvarez & Marsal to help stabilize the
business.

Lawyer Steven Rothschild said, "While we have been cooperating,
we cannot rule out that the company may be charged criminally.
That certainly could be the death knell for the company."


HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Lawyers, Doctors Meet To Discuss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Cigna Corporation and doctors who claim the company
cheated them out of reimbursements met recently in federal court
in Miami, but no settlement yet appears likely, reported Reuters
News.

Cigna and Aetna Inc. are attempting to break away from the other
members of the healthcare industry sued by the doctors in order
to settle the class-action lawsuit brought against them by some
700,000 doctors who claim HMOs meddle in doctors' care of
patients by arbitrarily denying specialist referrals and cutting
short hospital stays in order to trim costs.

A federal judge gave preliminary approval in May to Aetna's $100
million pact to settle with the doctors, thereby eliminating
that health plan from the broader lawsuit. Aetna agreed to pay
doctors faster and to set up an appeals process for doctors to
protest rejected claims.

Miami federal Judge Federico Moreno late last year blocked Cigna
from settling with a smaller group of doctors in Illinois to
escape culpability in the class-action lawsuit against health-
maintenance organizations. Judge Moreno said Cigna needed to
settle with all the doctors at once instead of on a regional
basis.

Attorneys for many other big health plans, including
UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Health Networks Inc., have
vowed to fight the charges.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls More Than 277,000 Cars in South Korea
------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor is recalling 277,455 compact cars and sport
utility vehicles sold in South Korea for free repair over
problems related to engines and other parts, tells Reuters.

The move involves:

     1) Avante XD and Tuscani compact models, recalled because
        of a defect related to their engines

     2) Sport utility vehicles such as the Santa Fe and Trajet
        models, recalled to replace parts related to its exhaust
        system,

The Ministry of Construction and Transportation said in a
statement, "Hyundai voluntarily decided to recall them to
improve its image as those problems may be reported when the
vehicles are used for more than 10 years or so."


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholders' Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: IFS) and CBRE Holding,
Inc. announced they have reached an agreement in principle with
certain stockholders of Insignia that provides for the
settlement of purported class action litigation recently
commenced by such stockholders against Insignia, the directors
of Insignia, CBRE Holding and an affiliate thereof and Island
Fund I LLC.

The parties expect to enter into a memorandum of understanding
reflecting their agreement in principle within the next few
days.

This settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be
paid to stockholders of Insignia in connection with the proposed
merger between Insignia and CB Richard Ellis, an affiliate of
CBRE Holding, or the timing of the special meeting of
stockholders of Insignia scheduled for July 22, 2003, at the
offices of Proskauer Rose LLP, 1585 Broadway, New York, New York
10036, at 9:00 a.m. local time, to vote upon a proposal to adopt
the merger agreement among Insignia, CBRE Holding and certain of
its affiliates and to approve the merger. If the merger is
approved, the closing of the merger is expected to occur on July
23, 2003.

As previously disclosed in the merger proxy statement, which was
first mailed to stockholders of Insignia on June 24, 2003,
between May 22, 2003 and May 30, 2003, certain of Insignia's
stockholders filed three purported class actions with the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against
Insignia, CBRE Holding and an affiliate thereof, the directors
of Insignia and Island Fund in connection with the proposed
merger and the purchase by Island Fund of certain real estate
investment assets from Insignia immediately prior to the merger
upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in a
purchase agreement among Island Fund, CBRE Holding and Insignia.

If the sale to Island Fund is completed prior to the merger and
certain conditions in the merger agreement are satisfied, the
consideration in the merger will be increased from $11.00 to
$11.156 per share of common stock of Insignia. Island Fund is an
entity affiliated with Andrew L. Farkas, Insignia's Chief
Executive Officer, and other executive officers of Insignia.

On June 26, 2003, the three purported class actions were
consolidated, and on June 30, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

In addition to the allegations made and remedies sought in the
separate complaints, the amended consolidated complaint alleged,
among other things, that

     (1) the special committee of the board of directors of
         Insignia failed to meaningfully represent the interests
         of the public stockholders of Insignia by agreeing to
         the terms of the purchase agreement with Island Fund
         without having an independent third party appraise the
         real estate investment assets and by not having
         appropriately discussed or considered the impact of Mr.
         Farkas' employment agreement and benefits on the merger
         consideration to be received by the public stockholders
         of Insignia; and

     (2) the proxy statement is materially false and misleading
         for several reasons, including the failure to disclose
         any meaningful information concerning the real estate
         investment assets that are being sold to Island Fund
         (such as the original purchase price, location and size
         of these assets), the failure to provide sufficient
         information regarding the other industry participant
         with whom Insignia has had contacts concerning a
         potential business combination, and the failure to
         disclose in meaningful fashion the facts surrounding
         the extension of Mr. Farkas' employment agreement
         signed in December 2002.

On July 1, 2003, Insignia and the other defendants reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of the consolidated complaint. In connection with
this settlement, Insignia agreed to provide additional
information to its stockholders, which information is contained
below in this press release and should be read in conjunction
with the merger proxy statement. In return, the plaintiffs
agreed to the dismissal of the amended consolidated complaint
and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with such
complaint. In addition, Insignia agreed to pay the legal fees
and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel in an amount to be approved
by the court.

The parties have not yet agreed upon the amount of legal fees
and expenses that plaintiffs will seek, but the parties'
position on the amount will be set forth in a notice to be sent
to Insignia stockholders prior to a hearing before the court to
consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee application.

This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration
to be paid in the merger. The settlement is subject to the
approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New
Castle County.

Insignia and CBRE Holding deny Plaintiffs' allegations in the
amended consolidated complaint and have agreed to settle the
purported class action litigation in order to avoid costly
litigation and eliminate the risk of any delay to the closing of
the merger.

                Insignia's Reasons for Agreeing
           to the Sale of Its Real Estate Investment

Assets to Island Fund for an Aggregate Consideration of Less
Than Their Book Value

Insignia agreed to sell its real estate investment assets to
Island Fund for aggregate consideration that is less than the
$64.5 million book value of these assets as of March 31, 2003,
and is near the low end of the $50.0 to $111.2 million valuation
range attributed to these assets by Bear Stearns, the financial
advisor to the special committee of Insignia's board of
directors, in its analysis of these assets for the purpose of
Bear Stearns' opinion with respect to the fairness, from a
financial point of view, of the merger consideration to the
stockholders of Insignia. Insignia agreed to do so because it
believes that the transaction with Island Fund presented the
best alternative reasonably available under the circumstances in
order to increase the merger consideration to its stockholders
above $11.00 per share of common stock. Among other things,
Insignia considered the following factors:

* Despite efforts by Insignia to market and sell all of the real
estate investment assets, the offer made by Island Fund was the
only offer for all of the real estate investment assets,
interested potential purchasers for some of the assets were
difficult to find and the Insignia stockholders likely would not
receive any additional merger consideration unless all or
substantially all of such assets were sold prior to or
simultaneously with the merger.

* Even if Insignia had been able to find multiple purchasers
that would enter into purchase agreements resulting in an
increase in the merger consideration, the failure to close any
one of those transactions prior to the closing of the merger
could result in the failure to obtain any increased merger
consideration for Insignia's stockholders.

* The principals of Island Fund that include Mr. Farkas, James
A. Aston, Ronald Uretta and Jeffrey P. Cohen, who are executive
officers of Insignia, were already familiar with the real estate
investment assets. Insignia believed that this familiarity
increased the likelihood that a closing of the sale to Island
Fund could occur on or prior to the closing of the merger and
result in the Insignia stockholder receiving additional merger
consideration.

* Bear Stearns' valuation of Insignia's real estate investment
assets was based in part on the assumption that these assets
will be sold in an orderly liquidation over an extended period
of time according to each asset's business plan, and not a sale
in the short period between the signing and the closing of the
merger agreement. Under the terms of the merger agreement, any
sale of Insignia's real estate investment assets must close and
cash proceeds must be received by Insignia on or prior to the
closing date of the merger in order to increase the merger
consideration above $11.00 per share of common stock. Although
an orderly liquidation of Insignia's real estate investment
assets over a longer period of time might have resulted in
greater aggregate consideration for such assets than provided
for in the purchase agreement with Island Fund, such a
liquidation most likely would have resulted in Insignia
receiving a significant portion of the cash proceeds from such
sales after the closing of the merger, in which case, under the
terms of the merger agreement, there would not have been any
increase in the merger consideration to be received by
Insignia's stockholders.

* Insignia's real estate investment assets principally are
indirect interests in real property that are highly leveraged
and speculative, resulting in a wide range of possible
valuations.

* Most of the real estate investment assets consist of minority,
non-controlling interests that Insignia holds in office space,
retail, industrial, apartment and hotel properties, which,
coupled with the volatility and uncertainty of the real estate
market, adversely affected Insignia's and any potential buyer's
ability to evaluate and predict the ability to recover and
obtain a return on these investments.

                   CBRE Holding's Reasons for
          Agreeing to the Sale of Real Estate Investment

Assets to Island Fund

CBRE Holding intended for the real estate investment assets to
be sold at the earliest time that such a sale would be
commercially reasonable. CBRE Holding's reasons for entering
into the purchase agreement with Insignia and Island Fund to
sell the real estate investment assets prior to the merger and
agreeing to amend the merger agreement to provide that a portion
of the sale proceeds would be received by Insignia's
stockholders, instead of retaining the real estate investment
assets to sell to one or more other parties after the closing of
the merger and being able to keep all of the proceeds of such
sales, are the following:

* The continued ownership of the real estate investment assets
by CBRE Holding would represent real estate investments
significantly greater than those currently held by CBRE Holding
and generally would not be consistent with its business strategy
of continuing to focus its lines of business in the commercial
real estate services industry.

* CBRE Holding's continued ownership of the real estate
investment assets and the marketing of these assets for sale to
third parties after the merger would be a significant
distraction for CBRE Holding's senior management and prevent
them from focusing exclusively on business opportunities
available to CBRE Holding in the commercial real estate services
business.

* CBRE Holding's desire to avoid the risk of a future reduction
in the value of the real estate investment assets due to
potential adverse developments in the specific real estate
markets in which the real estate investment assets were located
or in the United States real estate market generally.

* The sale of all of the real estate investment assets to Island
Fund was significantly more certain to be completed than
potential future sales to one or more unidentified third party
buyers after the completion of the merger.

* CBRE Holding believed at the time it entered into the purchase
agreement, after discussions with personnel in its valuation
line of business, that in light of the relatively short time
frame in which CBRE Holding desired to dispose of such assets it
was not likely to receive a higher price for the real estate
investment assets than the price being paid by Island Fund.
Although CBRE Holding consulted with certain of its employees
regarding the potential value of the real estate investment
assets, CBRE Holding did not ascribe particular values to any of
the assets or otherwise conduct any appraisals of the values of
such assets.

* CBRE Holding believed that Island Fund was the only party that
would be willing to buy all of the real estate investment assets
in a single transaction, and that future sales of the portions
of the real estate investment assets to multiple buyers could
involve significant selling expenses, as well as a greater
distraction to members of CBRE Holding's senior management team.

* The cash proceeds from a sale of the real estate investment
assets to Island Fund prior to the closing of the merger
represented a financially superior alternative to the cash
financing that CBRE Holding would be required to obtain from its
stockholders in the absence of such a sale in order to partially
finance the merger.

Reasons CBRE Holding Decided Not to Invest in Joint Ventures
Proposed by Andrew L. Farkas with respect to the Real Estate
Investment Assets

Between December 24, 2002 and February 9, 2003, CBRE Holding
discussed participating in one or more joint ventures with Mr.
Farkas and other third parties that would hold some or all of
the real estate investment assets after the closing of the
merger. On February 9, 2003, Raymond Wirta, the Chief Executive
Officer of CBRE Holding, informed Mr. Farkas that CBRE Holding
did not wish to invest in the joint ventures that had been
proposed by Mr. Farkas on February 3, 2003, and that its strong
preference at such time would be for Insignia to sell all of its
interests in the real estate investment assets and not retain
any joint venture interest. The reasons for CBRE Holding's
decision to no longer consider an investment in the joint
ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas were the following:

* The aggregate contributions that would be made by CBRE Holding
in connection with the two joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas
represented a retained investment of approximately $27.4 million
in the real estate investment assets, and CBRE Holding believed
that an investment of this size in the real estate investment
assets was inconsistent with both its business focus on
commercial real estate services, as well as its financing needs
in connection with the merger with Insignia.

* The joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas contemplated that
Mr. Farkas would raise approximately $35.55 million of cash
financing from third party investors between the signing of
definitive joint venture documents and the closing of the
merger. CBRE Holding believed that the absence of firmly
committed financing arrangements at the time definitive
documents would be signed did not provide sufficient certainty
that the joint ventures could be implemented prior to the
closing of the merger.

* Based upon the promotional interests and other fees included
in the joint venture proposal of Mr. Farkas, CBRE Holding did
not consider an investment in the joint ventures to be
sufficiently economically attractive for CBRE Holding.

* CBRE Holding did not believe that definitive agreements
regarding the joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas could be
negotiated by the parties in the limited time available to them
prior to February 12, 2003 (the deadline the parties had imposed
for the conclusion or termination of discussions regarding the
merger as a result of the public announcement of negotiations),
especially in light of the significant negotiations that
remained with respect to the merger agreement and the related
financing documents.

Insignia's Discussions with Another Industry Participant
Regarding a Potential Business Combination

In November 2002, Insignia was approached by another industry
participant regarding a possible transaction in which Insignia
would be acquired. On December 17, 2002, the board of directors
of Insignia met to discuss, among other things, the status of
the discussions with both CBRE Holding and the other industry
participant. The board was advised that no formal offer had been
made by the other industry participant and then discussed some
of the pros and cons of a potential transaction with that party.
The board's view was that a transaction with the other industry
participant was not a viable possibility because the other
industry participant's market capitalization was small and it
did not appear to have the necessary financial resources to
complete a transaction to acquire Insignia. Nevertheless, the
board decided to allow the other industry participant to conduct
due diligence in order to increase the likelihood of a possible
offer from the other industry participant.

On December 27, 2002, the other industry participant entered
into a confidentiality agreement with Insignia, but declined to
enter into an agreement restricting or prohibiting each party's
ability to hire the other party's employees, similar to that
entered into by CBRE Holding. In the following weeks, counsel to
the other industry participant conducted due diligence and
reviewed the materials in the data room, but the other industry
participant never indicated the price per share that it would be
willing to pay Insignia's stockholders in a sale transaction or
otherwise made a definitive offer relating to any transaction to
acquire Insignia or any part of its business.

    Nature of Insignia's Real Estate Investment Assets

The real estate investment assets that are subject to the
purchase agreement with Island Fund are generally those that
relate to Insignia's principal investment activities, which
include:

* Insignia's minority investments of 1% to 30% in approximately
31 office space, retail, industrial, apartment and hotel
properties;

* Insignia's minority investments of 25% to 33% in four office
development projects and a related parcel of undeveloped land;

* Insignia's wholly owned investments in real property in
Norman, Oklahoma, and in the U.S. Virgin Islands; and

* Insignia's investments in two private equity funds that invest
primarily in real estate debt securities.

A list of the assets and properties underlying Insignia's
interests that are subject to the purchase agreement with Island
Fund, including their respective book values as of December 31,
2002 and as of March 31, 2003, and, where applicable, the
location and size of the underlying real property, is set forth
in the table attached as Annex A.

       Amended Employment Agreement of Andrew L. Farkas

The employment agreement of Mr. Farkas under which he is
entitled to the payments and benefits described in the merger
proxy statement was amended in December 2002. Although
Insignia's discussions with CBRE Holding regarding the proposed
merger were ongoing at the time the amendment was executed, the
outcome of these discussions at that point was uncertain and Mr.
Farkas' original agreement was about to expire on December 31,
2002. In addition, the terms of the amended agreement were
approved in principle by the compensation committee of
Insignia's board of directors in February 2002, well before
Insignia commenced the discussions with CBRE Holding that led to
the proposed merger. The agreement in principle reached with Mr.
Farkas concerning the amendment to his employment agreement and
the financial terms of that agreement were disclosed to
Insignia's stockholders in the proxy statement, dated April 15,
2002, relating to the 2002 annual meeting of stockholders of
Insignia. Insignia's compensation committee, at a December 18,
2002 meeting, again approved the terms of the amendment to Mr.
Farkas' employment agreement. Mr. Farkas' amended employment
agreement was described in Insignia's Annual Report on Form 10-
K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2003. Mr. Farkas' amended employment agreement extended his
employment with Insignia until December 31, 2005, and its terms
are otherwise similar in all material respects to the terms
agreed upon in principle with Mr. Farkas in February 2002.

         About Insignia Financial Group, Inc.

Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: IFS), based in New York,
is among the world's foremost real estate services and
investment banking firms with a leadership position in the
commercial sector. Its major operating units are: Insignia/ESG,
one of the largest providers of commercial real estate services
in the United States; Insignia Richard Ellis, one of the premier
real estate services firms in the United Kingdom; and Insignia
Bourdais, one of France's premier commercial real estate
services companies. Insignia also deploys its own capital,
together with the capital of third-party investors, in principal
investment activities, including co-investment in existing
assets and real estate development, and provides investment
management services to investment funds sponsored by the
Company. Additional information about the Company is available
on the corporate Web site at www.insigniafinancial.com.

               About CB Richard Ellis

Headquartered in Los Angeles, CB Richard Ellis is one of the
world's leading real estate services companies. With
approximately 9,500 employees, CB Richard Ellis serves real
estate owners, investors and occupiers throughout approximately
250 owned and affiliated offices in 47 countries. CB Richard
Elllis' core services portfolio includes property sales, leasing
and management, corporate services, facilities and project
management, mortgage banking, investment management, capital
markets, appraisal and valuation, research, and consulting. CBRE
Holding, the parent of CB Richard Ellis, reported net revenues
of $1.17 billion in 2002. For more information about CB Richard
Ellis, visit its Web site at http://www.cbre.com


MAYNE GROUP: Recalling Pan Products Resupplied to the Public
------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's Mayne Group Ltd. (A.MAY) is recalling more than 350
over-the-counter products made by Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
(A.PPH), which the company accidentally resupplied to the
public, Dow Jones reports.

This move is being done after Mayne received reports that some
of its previously recalled Pan manufactured products had been
recently sold in Queensland to the general public.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration in April suspended Pan
Pharmaceuticals' license to manufacture medicines for six months
due to breaches of safety and quality guidelines, including the
substitution of ingredients.

As a result, the TGA ordered the urgent recall of hundreds of
vitamin and nutritional supplements, pain relievers and other
products that Pan Pharmaceuticals manufactured and supplied in
Australia. The case represented Australia's largest ever medical
product recall, according to Dow Jones.


MCI/WORLDCOM: Wins District Court Nod for $750M SEC Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MCI (WCOEQ, MCWEQ) received U.S. District Court approval for its
amended proposed settlement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

The settlement calls for a civil penalty to the company of $2.25
billion to be satisfied by a $500 million cash payment and $250
million in common stock to shareholders and bondholders upon
emergence from Chapter 11 protection.

In his ruling, Judge Rakoff stated:

"The Court is aware of no large company accused of fraud that
has so completely divorced itself from the misdeeds of the
immediate past and undertaken such extraordinary steps to
prevent such misdeeds in the future."

Referring to the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), Judge Rakoff said the SEC "with the
full cooperation of the company's new management and significant
encouragement from the Court- appointed Corporate Monitor
(Richard C. Breeden, Esq.), has sought something different:

* Not just to clean house but to put the company on a new and
  positive footing;

* Not just to enjoin future violations but to create models of
  corporate governance and internal compliance for this and
  other companies to follow;

* Not just to impose penalties but to help stabilize and
  reorganize the company and thereby help preserve more than
  50,000 jobs and obtain some modest, if inadequate, recompense
  for those shareholder victims who would otherwise recover
  nothing whatever from the company itself."

The following statement should be attributed to Michael D.
Capellas, MCI chairman and chief executive officer:

"We have made significant strides in rebuilding our company and
we believe today's ruling is a positive reflection of the hard
work and dedication of MCI's 55,000 employees, the loyalty of
our customers and the support of our creditors. We have
committed to being a role model of corporate governance and the
significant changes we have already implemented are a testament
to that commitment.

"The approved SEC settlement marks a significant milestone in
the company's emergence from Chapter 11 protection, which
remains on track for later this fall."

                 About WorldCom, Inc.

WorldCom, Inc. (WCOEQ, MCWEQ), which currently conducts business
under the MCI brand name, is a leading global communications
provider, delivering innovative, cost-effective, advanced
communications connectivity to businesses, governments and
consumers. With the industry's most expansive global IP backbone
and wholly-owned data networks, WorldCom develops the converged
communications products and services that are the foundation for
commerce and communications in today's market. For more
information, go to http://www.mci.com.


MCI/WORLDCOM: Files Supplemental Disclosure Statement
-----------------------------------------------------
MCI (WCOEQ, MCWEQ) filed new revised exhibits to the Supplement
to Disclosure Statement which it filed on July 3, 2003 with the
U. S. Bankruptcy Court.

The Supplement filing includes a description of the company's
previously announced amended settlement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), which was approved by the U.S.
District Court. Also included are a proposed settlement between
the company and a group of financial institutions that would
resolve pending litigation, as well as the revised projected
financial information supporting the company's plan of
reorganization.

The company's revised financial guidance projects 2003-2005
revenue will be $24.5 billion, $24.6 billion and $25.0 billion
respectively. This compares to previously projected 2003-2005
revenue of $24.7 billion, $25.8 billion and $27.8 billion
respectively.

The revenue reductions are primarily in the company's consumer
and small business segments, reflecting intense pricing
competition fueled by new entries of unlimited bundles,
aggressive new DSL offerings and rapid adoption of national Do
Not Call legislation. Collectively these impacts have reduced
consumer and small business effective rates in key markets by as
much as 40 percent since April 2003. Projections for the
company's large and global business segments remain relatively
unchanged for 2003 and 2004, reflecting continued customer
loyalty.

Projected earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) for 2003-2005 are now expected to be $2.7
billion, $3.7 billion and $4.1 billion respectively, reflecting
the lower revenue projections partially offset by lower sales,
general and administrative expenses. This compares with
previously projected EBITDA of $2.8 billion, $4.1 billion and
$5.4 billion respectively.

"While we have been meeting our plan, we believe these
adjustments better reflect the changing market conditions," said
Bob Blakely, MCI chief financial officer. "Our cash position
remains strong and customer loyalty in our large and global
customer base remains solid. Moving forward, we remain on track
to emerge from Chapter 11 protection later this fall."

Under the revised financial projections the return to WorldCom
bondholders remains virtually unchanged, with lower EBITDA being
offset by a projected improved cash position.

"We have reviewed the company's revised financial projections
and continue to remain fully supportive of MCI's Plan of
Reorganization," said Mark Neporent, Managing director and chief
operating officer of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. and co-
chair of MCI's Unsecured Creditors Committee. "MCI's management
team has made tremendous progress on the company's
reorganization efforts in a very short amount of time. We look
forward to their continued success in bringing the company out
of Chapter 11 protection and driving future stakeholder value."


MCI/WORLDCOM: Gray Panthers "Disappointed" Over Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Will Thomas, director of the Corporate Accountability Project of
the Gray Panthers, issued the following statement:

"Judge Rakoff's unfortunate decision to ratify the SEC-
MCI/WorldCom settlement comes on the heels of MCI/WorldCom's de
facto admission of guilt -- $250 million in new company stock to
those who lost $176 billion, including pensioners and 401(k)
holders. The new arrangement offers eight cents a share to all
those ripped-off investors. It's simply another sweetheart deal
arranged for MCI/WorldCom in the Federal government's ongoing
campaign to keep the company afloat at all costs.

We're disappointed by Judge Rakoff's decision, but we're far
from discouraged. The campaign to hold MCI/WorldCom accountable
for its $11 billion fraud is far from over. Congress is now
questioning the failure of the General Services Administration
to debar MCI/WorldCom from Federal contracting; we know there is
hope that retirees, taxpayers, and investors will see the
company held to account for its epic fraud. Senators Collins,
Hatch, Kennedy, and Santorum deserve much praise and credit for
their leadership on this issue. The American people were
promised that Washington was serious about cleaning up the fraud
in corporate boardrooms. The Gray Panthers want to see results.
We won't stop in our efforts to see to it that MCI/WorldCom is
barred from Federal contracting and off the gravy train."


PDS GAMING: Third Lawsuit Filed Over Proposed Management Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDS Gaming Corporation (Nasdaq:PDSG) announced that it has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed
by a shareholder in District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

The complaint alleges that the members of the Company's Board of
Directors violated their fiduciary duties in approving a letter
of intent with respect to a proposal submitted by a management
group to acquire shares of common stock of the Company as
announced in the Company's press releases dated February 24,
2003 and February 26, 2003.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit.

This is the third such complaint against the Company relating to
the proposed management acquisition. Each of the two prior
lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the respective plaintiffs
in response to the Company's motion to dismiss.

A special committee of the Company's Board of Directors,
consisting of its independent directors and the management group
continue to negotiate toward a definitive agreement. The
proposal is subject to, among other things, the execution of a
definitive agreement, approval by a committee of the Company's
independent directors and by a majority of the Company's shares
not owned by the management group, the procuring of all
necessary consents of the Company's commercial lenders and the
trustees under the indentures covering the Company's outstanding
debt securities, the securing of required approvals from all
gaming regulatory agencies, the obtaining of the necessary
financing, and the receipt by the Company of a favorable
fairness opinion from an investment bank.

For additional information, contact Peter Cleary, Interim Chief
Financial Officer by Mail: 6171 McLeod Drive, Las Vegas, NV  
89120 or by Phone: (702) 736-0700.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Judge To Decide on State Board Intervention
-----------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) may
learn this week whether it will gain jurisdiction over a class-
action lawsuit that claims thousands of gas supply lines and
meters used by Public Service Electric & Gas are dangerously
close to driveways, reported Associated Press Newswires.

Superior Court Judge Ronald Bookbinder will consider the request
during a hearing the end of this week in Mount Holly, New
Jersey. Keith Sheehan, a deputy state attorney general
representing the BPU, made the request to intervene in legal
papers filed in June.

Mr. Sheehan said the agency should be allowed to intervene
because the lawsuit is a matter of public importance that
affects natural gas customers statewide. The BPU has regulatory
control of the utility, Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G),
including jurisdiction over line placement and safety issues.

The location of gas lines and meters, which in some instances
are just inches away from town houses and condominium driveways,
came under scrutiny earlier this year, on February 24, after a
Mount Laurel woman's car skidded on ice and severed her gas
line. The subsequent explosion and fire destroyed three homes
and damaged two others in the Springwood Village complex. The
driver was not hurt and none of her neighbors were injured.

Residents of Springwood Village filed the lawsuit in March,
demanding that PSE&G move or shield gas meters and gas lines
that are in dangerous locations. The utility then asked the BPU
to intervene because it has specific knowledge of the issues
involved. However, the residents' attorneys also say the court
should decide the remedy, as well as determine whether liability
and damages are necessary in the residents' lawsuit.


SARA LEE: Lead Plaintiff Petitions for Fraud Suit Due July 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago law firm Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C. reminds investors that lead plaintiff petitions
for securities fraud lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who
purchased Sara Lee Corporation are due July 14, 2003.

The Complaint that Much Shelist has filed alleges that Sara Lee
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the Class Period. Also named in the Complaint are
C. Steven McMillan, Sara Lee's Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer, and Lambertus M. de Kool, its Chief Financial
Officer. According to the Complaint, these misstatements had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of Sara Lee
securities while Company insiders sold over $23 million of their
own stock.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the statements
concerning the Company's operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

     (a) that, despite the Company Reshaping program, Sara Lee
         was still burdened with numerous poorly performing
         businesses and would have to reevaluate its various
         businesses. Accordingly, Sara Lee did not have "the
         right mix of businesses" in that several material
         businesses were "not growing" or were "in significant
         decline";

     (b) that the Sara Lee's underperforming businesses were
         causing the Company to experience declining results
         and, as a result, Sara Lee would not be growing at the
         rates represented to the market;

     (c) due to a lack of proper internal or financial controls,
         Sara Lee failed to identify or recognize those
         businesses or brands among its portfolio of companies
         that would need to be "run dramatically differently in
         the future"; and

     (d) based on the foregoing, Sara Lee lacked any reasonable
         basis upon which to project it

           (i) would experience "double-digit operating income
               increase" for fiscal 2003 among its "five lines
               of business" or

          (ii) have diluted EPS for fiscal 2003 in the range of
               $1.54 to $1.60.

On April 24, 2003, Sara Lee shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the quarter
ending March 31, 2003. The Company announced that it was
reducing earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50 to $1.52 per share,
significantly below consensus expectations of $1.59. In response
to this announcement, the price of Sara Lee common stock closed
down $1.94 from the previous day's ending price.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden or Michael E.
Moskovitz at Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C., by calling a toll-free number 1-800-470-6824, or by
sending an e-mail to investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


SEITEL INC: Reaches Agreement-In-Principle With Ranch Capital
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seitel, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SEIE; TORONTO: OSL) announced
it has reached an agreement-in-principle with Ranch Capital
L.L.C. for a consensual reorganization of the Company's capital
structure, including all $255 million outstanding principal
amount of Seitel's senior notes, which Ranch Capital previously
purchased.

Ranch Capital, as the successor to the noteholders that filed
the involuntary bankruptcy petitions against the Company and
several of its U.S. subsidiaries, has agreed to extend the time
to respond to the petition to July 21, 2003, to permit
preparation of a proposed plan and related disclosure statement
to be filed with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court with respect to
the reorganization.

Ranch has agreed in principle to fund the proposed plan. The
proposed plan would

     (i) pay in full on agreed terms all of the Company's senior
         secured debt, which total approximately $12 million;

    (ii) pay cash equal to approximately 71% of allowed
         unsecured claims which are owing or are guaranteed by
         entities that conduct Seitel's principal operations;

   (iii) pay cash equal to a percentage to be determined but not
         more than 71% of allowed unsecured claims which are
         owing or are guaranteed by entities not presently
         conducting operations or which have no substantial
         assets; and

    (iv) subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
         distribute approximately $10.2 million in cash to the
         holders of equity interests in Seitel.

The Company estimates that all allowed unsecured claims in all
classes would total approximately $265 million, including the
$255 million of senior notes purchased by Ranch Capital.
Pursuant to the proposed plan, the existing common stock would
be canceled, and upon consummation of the proposed plan, 100% of
the new common stock of the Company would be issued to Ranch
Capital in consideration for its funding of the proposed plan.
Including all of its components, the transactions contemplated
by the proposed plan have an aggregate value of approximately
$287 million.

As previously disclosed, the Company's Canadian subsidiaries are
not parties to the bankruptcy proceedings and the proposed plan
and the payouts described above do not impact any operations or
creditors of Seitel's Canadian subsidiaries.

As noted above, the proposed plan provides for payment of
approximately $10.2 million in cash to holders of equity
interests in Seitel. This distribution, if allocated solely in
respect of the existing common stock, would represent $.40 per
share. The exact payout per share, if any, depends on the
amount, if any, which may become payable pursuant to the class
action litigation presently pending against the Company, and is
conditioned upon the affirmative vote of shareholders and
confirmation of the proposed plan.

If the proposed plan were not confirmed or if shareholders were
to vote against the proposed plan and it were to be confirmed by
the Bankruptcy Court despite their rejection of it, no
distribution would be made to existing shareholders.


ST. PAUL: W.Va. Lawsuit Alleges Insurer's Financial Misdealings
---------------------------------------------------------------
A few executives at what once was the nation's biggest medical
malpractice insurer, St. Paul, reaped more than $45 million in
bonuses, salaries and stock options from a business strategy
that cost more than 40,000 U.S. doctors their coverage, a
recently unsealed West Virginia lawsuit alleges, reports
Associated Press Newswires.

The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, was filed recently in
Kanawha County Circuit Court against insurer, St. Paul. The
lawsuit links a series of dealings by its top executives to the
company's decision in 2001, to abandon the doctors it insured,
including more than 1,000 in West Virginia.

The alleged dealings include the 2000 purchase of MMI, a
significant insurance competitor. For expanding St. Paul's share
of the malpractice market, the deal earned three executives
$1.44 million in bonuses, the lawsuit said. It also cost St.
Paul $638 million within two years to keep insurance regulators
from shutting down MMI's financially troubled U.S. subsidiary,
the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also targets the transfer of $1.1 billion in
premiums paid by the doctors to boost St. Paul's earnings. The
pillaging of these reserves helped executives to reap $5.2
million in bonuses for meeting projections in 1999 and 2000
alone, the lawsuit alleges.

Attorney Neil Dilloff, defendants' representative, and who is
with the Baltimore law firm Piper Rudnick, "There is no driving
pecuniary force that led them to make a stupid acquisition [of
MMI]," said Mr. Dilloff. "It's a very shortsighted theory."

The lawsuit was originally filed last year by three Charleston
surgeons: Eric Mantz, Willis Trammell and Tod Witsberger.
Originally, they sued over the handling of their "tail"
insurance policies after St. Paul stopped selling insurance
nationwide in December 2001. This form of malpractice insurance
covers claims filed after a doctor retires, dies or otherwise
stops practicing. The lawsuit charges St. Paul promised free
tail coverage, then charged premiums for it and then withdrew it
when it quit the market.

When the plaintiffs added two more doctors, it sought class-
action status and expanded the scope of the amended lawsuit to
include the alleged financial misdealings.

Because the amended lawsuit quoted internal company documents,
it remained sealed until a judge's ruling late last month.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Walls, sitting in Newark, threw out two
securities fraud lawsuits against bankrupt cheese maker Suprema
Specialties' former executives, board of directors, outside
auditor and three investment banking firms that handled the
company's November 2001 public stock offering, reports The Star-
Ledger.

Judge Walls states the complaints did not contain enough details
of alleged wrongdoing. However, attorneys for the class-action
case and an institutional investor can still file amended
complaints until late August.


SYNSORB BIOTECH: Court Fixes Settlement Hearing on September 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities fraud lawsuit against Synsorb Biotech Inc. has been
filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
company's common stock from April 4, 2001 through and including
December 10, 2001.

A hearing shall be held before the Honorable Lawrence McKenna,
United States District Judge, on September 12, 2003, at 10:00
a.m. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York
10007, to determine whether an order should be entered

     (i) certifying this action as a class action on behalf of
         the above-defined Class for settlement purposes;

    (ii) finally approving the proposed settlement of the claims
         asserted by Plaintiffs in this Action against
         Defendants Synsorb Biotech Inc., David Cox, Bill Hogg,
         and Dr. Murray Ratcliffe on the terms set forth in the
         Stipulation of Settlement dated May 30, 2003 (the
         "Settlement");

   (iii) dismissing this Action with prejudice; and

    (iv) awarding counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses to
         counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class.

The proposed Settlement affects the rights of Class Members as
defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and as provisionally
certified by the Court on June 6, 2003 (the "Preliminary
Approval Order"). The total settlement fund is $550,000, with
legal fees and expenses not to exceed 30% of the Gross
Settlement Fund. Timely filed objections to the Settlement, if
any, will be heard at the hearing. Members of the Class who do
not oppose the Settlement need not appear at the hearing. The
final order of the Court will be binding on all members of the
Class who do not opt out of the Settlement. Members of the Class
who do not opt out of the Settlement will be deemed to have
released all Defendants and will be unable to pursue any other
claims against the Defendants concerning the claims settled in
this action.

If you are a member of the Class who wishes to opt out you must
do so by sending a written notice to: Claims Administrator,
Synsorb Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.,
P.O. Box 9000 #6122, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, by August 29, 2003.

For queries, contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the
Class: Michael Jaffe, Esq., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016;
by Phone: 212-545-4600 or by E-mail: Jaffe@whafh.com.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial Nearing End   
--------------------------------------------------------
Six months has passed since the class action trial began in New
Orleans to determine whether the tobacco industry should pay for
the medical monitoring of seemingly healthy smokers, as well as
quit-smoking programs. The jury has heard the testimony, and the
attorneys are now prepared to present their closing arguments,
reports the Associated Press Newswires.

Defendants include R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Brown &
Williamson.

As in other suits against the tobacco industry, plaintiffs
contend that the cigarette-makers hid the dangers of smoking
from the public, manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers
addicted and targeted youths with advertising designed to
cultivate new generations of smokers.

The lawsuit does not ask for individual payments for smokers.
There has been no estimate of what a loss might cost the tobacco
industry. However, a smaller class action in West Virginia
seeking only medical monitoring carried a potential price tag of
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although attorneys for the smokers in the West Virginia case
prevailed in their argument that a person with a five-year,
pack-a-day habit has a higher risk of contracting lung cancer,
still, a jury found routine screening for such cancer and other
lung diseases unnecessary. Instead, jurors accepted the
defense's contention that smokers concerned about their health
should just quit.

If the industry in the Louisiana case is found liable, a second
phase of the trial will be held to determine how much the
industry would have to pay to set up the monitoring program.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Body Dumping
---------------------------------------------------------
The University of California at Los Angeles is about to be sued
by 8000 people who claim it illegally dumped the corpses of
relatives donated to its medical school, according to the Herald
Sun.

Thousands of family members accuse UCLA of breach of contract,
negligence and fraud over the way it disposed of bodies willed
to the respected university's medical school for medical
science. Accordingly, they say bodies were stuffed with medical
waste, folded and packed into the university's on-site
crematorium three to four at a time.  

Allegedly, the ashes were also improperly scraped into a bin,
mixed with animal remains and taken to a Los Angeles County dump
for disposal.

But UCLA attorneys argue that those who agreed to donate their
bodies were never promised a full burial and that a planned
burial-at-sea program never took place.

A hearing on the case is scheduled for September 22.

However, a judge urged the family members and UCLA to settle the
seven-year-old proposed class action suit before it goes to
court, warning it would do more harm than good.

The judge said a lawsuit with so many plaintiffs would be
extremely complex and that it would require up to 12,000 trial
days.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ADMINISTAFF INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Administaff Inc. (NYSE:ASF) publicly
traded securities during the period between May 2, 2001 and July
31, 2002.

The complaint charges Administaff and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Administaff is a professional employer organization that
provides a comprehensive personnel management system
encompassing a broad range of services, including benefits and
payroll administration, health and workers' compensation
insurance programs, personnel records management, employer
liability management, employee recruiting and selection,
employee performance management and employee training and
development services.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations artificially inflating the price of
Administaff securities.

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

     (a) that Administaff was improperly calculating pricing on
         worksite employees for employers with declining costs;

     (b) that Administaff's accounting did not match costs with
         pricing on healthcare insurance such that future
         results would be adversely affected by the inadequate
         pricing; and

     (c) that Administaff was improperly grossing up revenues
         with worksite employee payroll costs.

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

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins
of Milberg Weiss by Phone: 800/449-4900, by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com.


ADMINISTAFF INC: Glancy & Binkow LLP Launches Lawsuit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased
securities of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:ASF) between May 2, 2001
and July 31, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Administaff and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff
claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial performance caused Administaff's stock price
to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on
investors. Administaff is a professional employer organization
that provides a comprehensive personnel management system
encompassing a broad range of services, including benefits and
payroll administration, health and workers' compensation
insurance programs, personnel records management, employer
liability management, employee recruiting and selection and
employee performance management.

Plaintiff alleges that the statements disseminated by the
defendants during the Class Period misrepresented or failed to
disclose that:

     (a) Administaff was improperly calculating pricing on
         worksite employees for employers with declining costs;

     (b) Administaff's accounting did not match costs with
         pricing on healthcare insurance, such that future
         results would be adversely affected by the inadequate
         pricing; and

     (c) Administaff was improperly grossing up revenues with
         worksite employee payroll costs.

When Administaff's true financial performance was revealed on
August 1, 2002, the Company's stock declined to $4.20 per share,
compared to the Class Period high of $36.48. The stock has never
recovered to Class Period levels and continues to trade in the
$9 per share range.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire by Mail:
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224,
by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com


POLYMEDICA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders of PolyMedica Corporation (Nasdaq: PLMD)
from July 23, 2001 through June 30, 2003.

The lawsuit alleges that PolyMedica overstated earnings by
capitalizing direct response advertising costs related to the
acquisition of new customers rather than expensing them as
incurred. Consequently, PolyMedica recorded such advertising
costs as assets rather than as expenses.

On June 30, 2003, after the stock market closed, PolyMedica
issued a press release announcing that as a result of
discussions with the SEC regarding the expensing of the
Company's direct response advertising costs, PolyMedica may be
forced to restate results for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003. On
this news, shares of PolyMedica, which had closed at $45.86 on
June 30, 2003, opened for trading on July 1, 2003, at $38.56,
down $7.30, or 15.9%. PolyMedica shares closed later that day at
$37.39 per share for a loss of $8.47 per share, or 18.5%.

For queries, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, by Phone:
(405) 235-1560, by Fax: (405) 239-2112, or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


POLYMEDICA CORP: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of PolyMedica Corporation (Nasdaq:PLMD) between July 23,
2001 and June 30, 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 information, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by Phone: 410/986-0036.


READ-RITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Read-Rite Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: RDRTQ; formerly
Nasdaq: RDRT - news) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 30, 2001 and June 6, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges certain of Read-Rite's officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Read-Rite is an independent supplier of magnetic recording
heads for the hard disk drive ("HDD") and tape drive markets.
The Company designs, manufactures and markets magnetic recording
heads as head gimbal assemblies ("HGAs") and incorporates
multiple HGAs into head stack assemblies. Read-Rite's products
are sold primarily for use in 3.5-inch HDDs for desktop computer
devices, for high-performance enterprise HDDs used in network
and mainframe applications, as well as for consumer electronic
devices such as game stations or personal video recorders.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements about the
Company, and as a result Read-Rite's stock traded at inflated
prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $39 on
January 9, 2002, before the Company announced it would file for
bankruptcy.

The true facts which were known to each of the defendants, but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (a) the Company's 40 GB/platter inventory was overstated by
         $16.7 million;

     (b) the Company's Philippine real estate holdings were
         overstated by approximately $6.8 million;

     (c) the Company needed to restructure its operations and
         the associated charges would cost the Company in excess
         of $20 million and would cause an earnings shortfall in
         coming quarters;

     (d) the Company's Q2 FY03 loss was grossly understated;

     (e) the Company was experiencing massive technical problems
         associated with its 40GB/per platter programs.
         Moreover, the Company was experiencing these problems
         well before January 2002 and beyond April 2002 when
         defendants claimed such problems were fixed; and

     (f) the Company was underfunded and could not complete the         
         production of its 80GB programs.

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