CAR_Public/030714.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Monday, July 14, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 137

                        Headlines                            

CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Faces Suit Over Religious Land Use Act
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles to Settle Homeless Lawsuit For $170,000
COMFORT WOMEN: Appeals Suit Refuses To Allow Suit in US Courts
ENRON CORPORATION: Court To Set Securities Trial For Oct. 2005
GENCORP INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Retirees' Lawsuit in N.D. OH

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Retained To Sue Over Ancure
LITTLE LEAGUE: Ex-players Sue For Alleged Sex Abuses, Negligence
NEBRASKA: Court Orders Reinstatement of Single Moms' Medicaid
RAMBUS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
SECURITIES LITIGATION: Study Measures Effects of Sarbanes-Oxley

SECURITIES LITIGATION: Court To Decide on Evidence For NY Suit
SONY CORPORATION: Recalls Vaio Laptop For Electric Shock Hazard
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Enters Lawsuit Settlement Discussions
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIRMS: To Settle Right-of-Way Suit in N.D. IL
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Negotiating To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Court Freezes Severance Payment To Former CEO
WEGENER CORPORATION: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE

*Mobile Phone Users Sue Over Added Fees For Number Portability

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
ASTROPOWER INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in DE
AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BARRICK GOLD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

BLUE RHINO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
CARREKER CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in TX
COrTS TRUST: Stull Stull Commences Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
DIVINE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
FEDERAL HOME: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA

FEDERAL HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in FL
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA

READ-RITE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SARA LEE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL

                        *********

CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Faces Suit Over Religious Land Use Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
The League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates (LRNA), a new
non-profit organization formed to protect and preserve
homeowners rights, the integrity of neighborhoods and serve as a
resource for neighborhoods under threat of inappropriate uses of
buildings for religious purposes, filed a lawsuit against the
City of Los Angeles and the Congregation of Etz Chaim which
seeks, in part, to prevent use of a rebuilt neighborhood home
for what is expected to be a three-story, 8,100-square-foot
synagogue in the heart of the long-time residential community.

Many homeowner groups around the country are anxiously watching
how this lawsuit develops because of its implications for land
use issues involving religious organizations in their respective
communities.  The lawsuit is expected to lead to a Supreme Court
challenge of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), which effectively takes away zoning
control from local communities and governments by giving
religious organizations special consideration on land use
issues.

"Home ownership is a cornerstone of the American dream, but in
too many communities across the country, those dreams have
become nightmares of traffic, noise and congestion as buildings
owned by religious groups are situated alongside single family
homes without concern for the impact on the community," Larry
Faigin, lead plaintiff said in a statement.  "Homeowners expect
their government to apply regulations consistently and not to
jettison local zoning laws to give special consideration to
religious or any other groups."

Throughout the United States, religious organizations have used
RLUIPA as the basis for lawsuits against local governments who
have tried to apply area land use laws to the religious groups.  
Communities facing similar threats from RLUIPA include:

     (1) Abington, PA;

     (2) Austin, TX;

     (3) Boyle Heights, CA;

     (4) Castle Hills, TX;

     (5) Cheyenne, WY;

     (6) Granada Hills, CA;

     (7) New Berlin, WI;

     (8) New Milford, CT;

     (9) Morgan Hills, CA; and

    (10) Lake Elsinore, CA

The LRNA case is believed to be the first lawsuit in the nation
in which local homeowners are challenging a City's zoning
decision related to a place of worship and, in essence, RLUIPA.  
"When Congress passed RLUIPA, Washington usurped local
governments' authority and ignored a long-held and fundamental
principle of zoning laws -- that local land use decisions should
be made by local government in consultation with local
communities," said Marci Hamilton, J.D., Professor of Law at the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University and a
leading expert on RLUIPA.

Mr. Hamilton is lead counsel and one of the attorneys who filed
the case.  "In this case and under the shadow of RLUIPA, the
City of Los Angeles entered into what we believe is a void
settlement that permits the construction of what will be a major
neighborhood nuisance," he continued.

The suit alleges in part, that the City violated its own zoning
ordinances by entering into a void settlement agreement,
granting a de facto conditional use permit (CUP), and issuing a
building permit, all without community input or disclosure.  The
allegations in the case stem from actions by the Congregation
over the past six years as it attempted to construct a building
to be used for a religious purpose in the residential area of
Hancock Park, which has maintained its residential character for
75 years.

Since 1996, the congregation made a series of unsuccessful
attempts to gain approval under local zoning laws; all were
rejected at each step of the City's administrative review
process and subsequently by a state and appeals court.  The suit
claims the situating of a religious building that attracts more
than 50 people each week and 200-500 people for special events
causes a substantial burden on the neighborhood due to parking,
traffic and noise problems.  This intense use is inconsistent
with the character of the neighborhood.

The congregation was repeatedly denied a CUP after multiple
public hearings.  Nonetheless, it continued to use the property
as a religious institution.  When neighborhood residents
complained, they were given assurances by city officials that
their quality of life and their community would be protected.

The repeated rejection of the congregation's CUP and the Court's
upholding of those decisions were subsequently circumvented when
Congress passed RLUIPA in 2000.  Shortly after that, the
congregation asserted its right to build in the residential
community based on RLUIPA.

The City of Los Angeles then entered into a settlement agreement
granting a de facto CUP to the congregation without public
hearings or notice.  While the settlement agreement contained a
provision that ensured the "residential character and
architecture" of the property would be restored and maintained,
the City later issued a building permit that ignored the terms
of the settlement.  The congregation then demolished a
residential home to build a new structure almost three times
larger than the size of the original home for what is expected
to be use as a religious building.

LRNA has been formed to assist homeowners across the country to
expand the efforts to preserve the character, tranquility and
quality of life of residential neighborhoods through the
enactment and consistent enforcement of zoning and land use
laws, as well as public education.  This lawsuit is the first in
what is expected to be a series of actions by the group to
protect the residential character of neighborhoods.

"Residents must speak out and be pro-community and pro-
neighborhoods, even as they risk being unfairly labeled `anti-
religion,'" said Mr. Faigin.  "In fact LRNA board members,
plaintiffs and supporters represent many religions."

"We strongly believe that RLUIPA is unconstitutional.  It is
beyond the power of Congress, violates states rights and ignores
the separation of church and state by giving preferential
treatment to religious organizations.  And, in this case, it led
to the violation of the community's right to due process and
equal protection under the law," said Mr. Hamilton.

For more details, contact Robert Alaniz of Rogers & Associates
by Phone: 310/552-6922


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles to Settle Homeless Lawsuit For $170,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Los Angeles agreed to pay nearly $170,000 to settle
a class action filed on behalf of homeless persons who were
allegedly improperly arrested during the controversial Los
Angeles Police Department (LAPD) sweeps of Skid Row last year,
NBCTV4 reports.

The suit accused the city of arresting the homeless without
proper documentation of a violation.  The sweeps were "the wrong
way to go about getting something done," Carol Sobel, an
attorney representing the National Lawyers Guild, which filed
the suit with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California, told NBCTV4.

Under the settlement, about $75,000 will go to as many as 58
people, and the rest will be used to pay for attorneys' fees.  
The settlement was approved Wednesday with a 10-4 vote from the
City Council.

The sweeps are part of Police Chief William Bratton's "broken
windows" theory of law enforcement, focusing on smaller quality-
of-life crimes as well as felonies, NBCTV4 reports.  "(Bratton)
believed then and believes now that the department acted
appropriately," police department spokesman Sgt. John
Pasquierello said, adding that homeless sweeps will continue.


COMFORT WOMEN: Appeals Suit Refuses To Allow Suit in US Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld a
lower court's 2001 ruling refusing to allow the suit filed by 15
Asian women who were raped and tortured by Japanese soldiers
during World War II to proceed in US courts, law.com reports.  

The "comfort women" were used as sex slaves by Japanese soldiers
and come from China, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines.  
They filed the suit in 2000.  It is estimated than more than
200,000 women were forced into sexual slavery and three-quarters
of them did not survive the war.  Similar cases have been filed
against the Japanese government, but none have prevailed.

Federal Judge Henry Kennedy earlier rejected the suit,
concluding that, unlike ordinary prostitution, the atrocities
were an aspect of Japanese government policy and thus, not
commercial in nature.  He scrutinized whether the sexual torture
to which the "comfort women" were subjected was actually a
"commercial activity" that would permit Japan to be sued, but
decided that the case presented a "political question" not
suitable for the courts.

Lawyers for Japan contended that the nation enjoys sovereign
immunity and that the case raises "political questions" amenable
to diplomatic or legislative solutions but not to lawsuits,
law.com reports.  The State Department also supported Japan's
position, citing the 1951 peace treaty as applicable to Japan's
sovereign immunity - a position that was hugely criticized by
Asian-American activist groups.

The circuit court wrote that  "much as we may feel for the
plight" of the women -- who are Chinese, Taiwanese, South Korean
and Filipino nationals -- "the courts of the United States
simply are not authorized to hear their case," law.com reports.

The court ruled that the US government does not recognize a
"commercial activity" exception to sovereign immunity for any
acts committed before 1952.  Thus, Japan, as a foreign country,
is immune from suit for its activities before and during World
War II.

Michael Hausfeld of D.C.'s Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, an
attorney for the women, calls the decision "tragic" and says he
will seek rehearing by the full DC Circuit, law.com reports.  
"Trafficking in women and children is a modern-day scourge," Mr.
Hausfeld said.  "This opinion basically skirts the whole issue
on a technicality."

In a statement, the Japanese government expressed its view that
the court decision was correct, while noting that it has
expressed "deep regret and apology" to the comfort women and has
made contributions to a welfare fund for their support, law.com
reports.


ENRON CORPORATION: Court To Set Securities Trial For Oct. 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court in Texas Judge Melinda Harmon is
considering an October 2005 trial for dozens of shareholder
lawsuits against fallen energy trader Enron Corporation over
losses they incurred due to the Company's bankruptcy filing in
late 2001, the Associated Press reports.

Several suits were filed against the Company, former executives
and various banks and brokerages, the biggest of which is a $25
billion claim with the University of California as the lead
plaintiff.  The suits allege that the defendants, Enron's one-
time auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, and several financial
institutions artificially inflated profits and hid debt to
defraud investors, before the Company collapsed.

Judge Harmon initially set trail for December 2003, but the
claims kept growing as more defendants and lawsuits were added.  
Judge Harmon put the claims on hold in May 2002 so she could
read and rule on requests from defendants that she either
dismiss the cases or release them from the litigation.

In December 2002, Judge Harmon decided to keep most of the
defendant financial institutions as part of the litigation.  In
April, she also retained former Enron executives, including
former chairman Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling as
defendants.

In May 2003, Judge Harmon and US Bankruptcy Judge Arthur
Gonzalez, the New York judge overseeing Enron's Chapter 11 case,
ordered the plaintiffs to work with a mediator to negotiate a
settlement with Enron and the financial institutions, AP
reports.  She said other defendants may be ordered to try to
settle as well in the future.  Those talks, with Senior US
District Judge William C. Conner of White Plains, NY acting as
mediator, began late last month.  Similar efforts to settle with
Arthur Andersen were abandoned in May last year.

Attorneys proposed that they should produce almost 100 million
documents by the end of this year and conduct an estimated 500
depositions next year.  Judge Harmon did not rule yet on this
proposal.


GENCORP INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Retirees' Lawsuit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery will proceed in a class action filed against Gencorp,
Inc. and OMNOVA Solutions, Inc. by a group of hourly retirees,
disputing certain retiree medical benefits, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The retirees seek rescission of the then current Hourly Retiree
Medical Plan established in the spring of 1994, and the
reinstatement of the prior plan terms.  The crux of the dispute
relates to union and GenCorp negotiated modifications to retiree
benefits that, in exchange for other consideration, now require
retirees to make benefit contributions as a result of caps on
Company-paid retiree medical costs implemented in the Fall of
1993.  A retiree's failure to pay contributions results in a
termination of benefits.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status.  The trial court
has not yet ruled on the class action certification. The
putative class representatives currently consist of four hourly
retirees from the Jeannette, Pennsylvania facility of OMNOVA,
the company spun-off from GenCorp on October 1, 1999, two hourly
retirees from OMNOVA's former Newcomerstown, Ohio facility, and
three hourly retirees from GenCorp's former tire plants in
Akron, Ohio, Mayfield, Kentucky, and Waco, Texas.  The putative
class encompasses all eligible hourly retirees formerly
represented by the unions URW or USWA.  The unions, however,
are not party to the suit and have agreed not to support such
litigation pursuant to an agreement negotiated with GenCorp.
GenCorp prevailed in a similar class action filed in 1995,
arising at its Wabash, Indiana location.

Plaintiff retirees and the defendants filed cross-motions for
summary judgment, which were denied on December 20, 2002.  In
February 2003, the court approved a case management plan and
discovery will proceed throughout most of 2003.

GenCorp has given notice to its insurance carriers and intends
to vigorously defend against the retirees' claims.  OMNOVA has
requested defense and indemnification from GenCorp regarding
this matter.  GenCorp has denied this request.  OMNOVA's defense
and indemnification claims will likely be decided through
binding arbitration pursuant to agreements entered into during
the GenCorp-OMNOVA spin-off in 1999.  GenCorp and OMNOVA have
exchanged letters to initiate the arbitration process and are in
the process of selecting an arbitrator.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Retained To Sue Over Ancure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP has been retained by several
clients to pursue claims on their behalf against Guidant
Corporation, Inc. (NYSE:GDT), an Indiana Corporation and
Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Guidant Corporation, Inc.

Before September 30, 1999, and March 16, 2001, Endovascular
Technologies sold 7632 stent graft devices in the United States.
During this time, 2800 complaints were received by the company.
In a criminal act, the company failed to notify the Food and
Drug Administration of more than 90% of these complaints.

The device in question, the Ancure Endograft System, was used to
treat a weakened blood vessel in the abdomen without surgery.
This condition is called Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.  The
problems with the device centered on the system used to insert
it.  The equipment could become lodged, potentially requiring
emergency surgery to remove it.

Guidant has agreed to pay $92.4 million in government fines for
their role in this scandal.  Kevin V. Ryan, the United States
attorney in San Francisco, summed up the case this way: "Because
of the company's conduct, thousands of patients underwent
surgeries without knowing the risks they faced, and their
doctors -- through no fault of their own -- were unprepared to
deal with those risks."

For more details, contact Steven A. Owings or Gina Cothern by
Mail: 11001 Executive Center Drive, Little Rock, AR 72211 or
P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 501-312-8505 by E-mail:
Ancure@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


LITTLE LEAGUE: Ex-players Sue For Alleged Sex Abuses, Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Little League Baseball, Inc. faces a possible class action filed
by two ex-players, alleging it did not do its part to protect
children from sexual abuse by not checking the background of
participating adults thoroughly, NBC4TV reports.  The suit,
filed in Los Angeles, California Superior Court also names as
defendants:

     (1) East Baseline Little League of Highland, in San
         Bernardino County,
     (2) Norman Watson, a former East Baseline coach who pleaded
         guilty in 1998 to molesting five players - four boys
         and a girl ages 12 to 15 - and is serving 84 years in a
         state prison,

     (3) Mike Legge, described as the Western Region director
         for Little League Baseball, and

     (4) Dave Bonham, Mr. Legge's assistant

The suit alleges that Little League officials knew that Mr.
Watson was listed in the Megan's Law high-risk sex offender
database and had spent time in Patton State Hospital, papers
filed by Los Angeles attorney David R. Lira states.  

The suit makes claims under deceptive business practices and
false advertising, and seeks compensation for Little League's
allegedly ill-gotten gains, as well as an injunction preventing
LLB from referring to itself as a safe haven for children,
NBC4TV reports.

The case "arises from the intentional failure of Little League
Baseball to safeguard its youth participants from pedophiles,"
the suit states.  "Despite this failure, LLB continued to
advertise its activities as wholesome and safe for the
children."

In January, the Little League enforced new rules ordering ball
clubs to conduct background checks on managers, coaches, members
of boards of directors and any other persons, volunteers or
hired workers who provide regular service to the league and have
contact with players or teams.

LLB media director Lance Van Auken did not immediately return a
call for comment on the class action, NBCTV4 reports.


NEBRASKA: Court Orders Reinstatement of Single Moms' Medicaid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state
of Nebraska to pay an estimated 10,000 single working parents
who were kicked off Medicaid while a lawsuit over the matter is
pending, the Associated Press reports.

Two low-income mothers who lost Medicaid coverage due to the
state's budget cuts filed the suit.  The state cut people from
the program to save itself approximately $18 million, during a
special budget-cutting legislative session last year.

Plaintiffs Teresa Kai and Stacy Noller claim they have chronic
medical problems and are unable to work without prescription
drugs provided under Medicaid.  They further asserted that under
federal law, they are entitled to continuing Medicaid coverage
through the Transitional Medical Assistance program.  The
program provides up to a year of additional health-care coverage
for those terminated from Medicaid, AP reports.  

In March, the United States District Court in Nebraska refused
to have the plaintiffs' Medicaid reinstated, saying the
likelihood of women winning the case was small.  The appeals
court disagreed, saying the women's claim is likely to succeed.

"There doesn't appear to be any doubt that the 8th Circuit
believes we have a very strong success on the merits," Milo
Mumgaard, director of the Appleseed Center for Law in the Public
Interest, which filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf, told
AP.  He said he expected the state to settle the lawsuit
quickly.

"I think they should read the writing on the wall," Mumgaard
said.  "They will not win this case."

Attorneys for the state Health and Human Services System did not
have time to review the opinion Thursday and had no immediate
comment, spokeswoman Kathie Osterman told AP.  Chris Peterson, a
spokesman for Gov. Mike Johanns, said an appeal was possible.


RAMBUS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware State Court dismissed without prejudice the amended
shareholder derivative suit filed against Rambus, Inc., Silicon
Strategies reports.

The suit was filed over the Company's attendance at a standard
setting body called JEDEC from 1991 to 1995. The plaintiffs in
this case agreed to stipulate the dismissal without prejudice
following rulings favoring Rambus from the US Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit in Washington, according to the company,
Silicon Strategies states.

"Dismissal of this derivative case follows the path set by the
Federal Circuit in its January ruling and in its en banc ruling
in April," John Danforth, vice president and general counsel for
Rambus, said in a statement.  "As with the recent dismissal of
the shareholder class action against Rambus, we view this
deference to the reasoning of the Federal Circuit as a further
positive step."


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Study Measures Effects of Sarbanes-Oxley
---------------------------------------------------------------
NERA, an international economic consulting firm, released its
2003 study of recent trends in securities class action
litigation, revealing that, contrary to some expectations, the
rate of securities class action filings - as well as the average
value of litigation settlements - so far appears unaffected by
either public indignation over the Enron corporate scandal or
the subsequent passage of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) anti-fraud
legislation.

The NERA Study, "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation," looks at federal class action litigation filings,
settlement values and dispositions between January 1991 and late
June 2003.  The study identifies the following trends since the
Enron scandal and the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation:

     (1) Securities class action filings did not increase
         dramatically after Sarbanes-Oxley.  From the bill's
         passage on July 25, 2002 until late June 2003,
         securities class action suits were filed at an annual
         rate of 214, comparable to the average rate of 208
         filings per year between 1996 and 2001;

     (2) Filings did not increase after the Enron scandal came
         to light, occurring at an annual rate of 212 from
         November 2001 through late June 2003, comparable to the
         average annual rate in previous years;

     (3) Dismissals have fallen sharply since SOX, with only
         half as many cases dismissed since its passage as in
         the previous 11 month period;

     (4) Average settlement values actually fell modestly in the
         first ten months after SOX passed, dropping from $25.5
         million for the period of January 1996 - July 2002 to
         $22.7 million for the period of August 2002 - June       
         2003.  They remained unchanged after the Enron scandal.

"Securities litigation has been increasing as a long-term trend,
but not as a result of either Enron or Sarbanes-Oxley," said
NERA economist Elaine Buckberg, co-author of the study with
colleagues Todd S. Foster, Ronald I. Miller and Adam Werner.  
According to NERA, the likelihood of a public company being sued
rose approximately 40 percent between 1995 and 2002.  Filings of
securities class action suits increased from an annual total of
190 to 280 during that period - an increase of over 47 percent.

"Many people expected that the angry public mood, combined with
tough Sarbanes-Oxley standards and penalties, would bring on a
spate of new securities litigation - in addition to increasing
the bargaining power of plaintiffs and eventual case
settlements.  But if you look closely at the numbers, these
predictions have not come true," Ms. Buckberg said.

The NERA Study, "Recent Trends In Securities Class Action
Litigation," will be available later today in its entirety at
http://www.nera.com/recenttrends. In addition to examining the  
aftermath of Enron and SOX, the report also identifies the
following long-term developments:

     (i) Top settlements are on the rise, but plaintiff
         recoveries relative to losses are declining;

    (ii) Average settlements more than tripled from $8.6 million
         in 1996 to $27 million in the first half of 2003, in
         nominal dollars.  However, controlling for the
         characteristics of the cases, settlements, in constant
         dollars, have been declining by approximately 8 percent
         per year, between 1996 and mid-2003;

   (iii) settlements have not kept up with rising investor
         losses in the stock market; the median percentage of
         investor losses paid in settlements fell from a high of
         7.2 percent in 1996 to 2.7 percent in 2002;

    (iv) 70 percent of settlements in the first half of 2003
         fell below $10 million, while only 5 percent (4 cases)
         exceeded $100 million;

     (v) Cases involving accounting allegations will raise
         average settlement values by 20 percent or more;

    (vi) Settlements were also found to be about 20 percent
         higher where the lead plaintiff is an institutional
         investor;

   (vii) Fully 80 percent of federal securities class action
         lawsuits end in settlement; approximately 19 percent
         are dismissed and about 1 percent end in judgments.

The NERA study also looks at developments since the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which aimed to
reduce frivolous litigation by raising the burden on plaintiffs
in securities class actions.  The authors assert that the
increase in securities litigation despite this legislation
"suggests that the plaintiffs' bar is pursuing fraud more
aggressively since PSLRA, rather than being limited by it."

Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Public Company Accounting
Reform and Investor Protection Act in July 2002, in the wake of
accounting scandals at Enron and other public companies.  The
Act is intended to deter securities fraud by increasing the
accountability of company executives and directors, increasing
oversight via enhanced disclosure requirements and stricter
auditor independence standards, and extending the statute of
limitations for securities fraud claims and other measures.

NERA is a leading global economic consulting firm.  Founded in
1961 as National Economic Research Associates, its focus is on
the practical application of economics to complex business and
legal issues.

For more details, contact Christine Creager by Phone:
617-621-2651 or by E-mail: christine.creager@nera.com or contact
Elizabeth Ames by Phone: 212-727-1680 or by E-mail:
eames@boldepr.com


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Court To Decide on Evidence For NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin will hear
arguments over how many documents Wall Street giants will have
to turn over as evidence in a $5 billion consolidated securities
class action, accusing 55 investment firms of manipulating stock
prices, the New York Post reports.

Lawyers will present arguments in the suit, also named as the
"IPO Securities" Litigation and filed on behalf of purchasers of
more than 300 stock offerings between 1998 and late 2000. The
litigation charges the institutions with reaping excess profits
and inflating IPO prices by using "laddering" schemes.  The
banks allegedly required some investors to buy more shares of an
IPO after the price had risen in exchange for allocations to the
hot offerings, the Post reports.

Judge Scheindlin will decide on several issues, including the
time frame for possible designation of the case as a "class
action," and how the case will be organized.  

There have been "serious differences of opinion" over what the
55 banks are required to release.  "The banks want to give up as
little information about their clients as possible," one person
involved in the case told the Post.  "We think they are
misreading the judge."


SONY CORPORATION: Recalls Vaio Laptop For Electric Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is recalling 18,000 Vaio laptops that went on
sale in May, due to a faulty modem assembly which could result
in a minor electric shock to users, the Associated Press
reports.  13,000 units were sold in Japan, 3,000 in the United
States and 2,000 in Europe, the Tokyo company said.

Spokesman Shigenori Fujita told AP that a person who touches
some metal parts in the back of the laptop might feel a slight
electric shock when the dial tone goes off while using the
modem.  The modem is also unusually slow when using an adapter
to connect to an outlet.

He continued that there have no cases of electronic shock
reported, although several cases of the slow modem have already
been reported in Japan.  The recall costs, including shipping
and repair, will total an estimated 500 million yen ($4.2
million), the company said.


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Enters Lawsuit Settlement Discussions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Talarian Corporation has entered settlement discussions with
plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against it,
certain of its underwriters, and certain of its former directors
and officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit claims that the purported improper underwriting
activities were not disclosed in the registration statement for
the Company's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased Talarian securities
during the time period from July 20, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims
in the complaint. The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the remaining claims.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIRMS: To Settle Right-of-Way Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four major telecommunications carriers plan to settle a class
action filed in the United States District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging they laid fiber cables on 36,000
miles of rights of way controlled by railroads without getting
the permission of the adjacent landowners, phoneplusmag.com
reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Level 3 Communications Inc.,

     (2) Qwest Communications International Inc.,

     (3) Sprint Corporation and

     (4) WilTel Communications Inc.

Judge Wayne Andersen earlier told defendants to revise the
settlement agreement, one person familiar with the case told
phoneplusmag.com.  "The indication was if those changes were
made that he is likely to approve the settlement agreement,"
said the source.

Total amount for claims is believed to be $142.5 million.  
However, one attorney representing the landowners said the judge
rejected that settlement agreement and required changes that
will "result in much greater value to the landowners."

The case could enjoin dozens of similar lawsuits pending in
federal and state courts and dictate settlement terms in those
cases.  Hearing is set for July 15.  


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Negotiating To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software, Inc. entered settlement discussions with
plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its directors and officers and certain
investment bank underwriters in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs generally allege that certain underwriters engaged in
undisclosed and improper underwriting activities, namely the
receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in
exchange for allocations of IPO shares.  Plaintiffs also allege
that various investment bank securities analysts issued false
and misleading analyst reports.

The complaint against the Company claims that the purported
improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in the
registration statements for the IPO and secondary public
offering and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of persons who purchased the Company's securities or sold
put options during the time period from July 13, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order
denying the motion to dismiss certain of the claims in the
complaint.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations in the complaint and intends to
defend the case vigorously.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Court Freezes Severance Payment To Former CEO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marie Messier's chances of receiving a golden parachute
payment of EUR20.6 M (US$23.3 M) from Vivendi Universal, as he
departs that company, seem to have all but vanished, the
Financial Times reports.  The French stock regulator, Commission
des Operations de Bourse (COB), made a dramatic eleventh-hour
intervention by the COB's president, Jean-Francois Lepetit, on
behalf of the company's shareholders.    

Mr. Lepetit told the Paris court that the "termination
agreement" was invalid under French law because it lacked board
and shareholder approval.  The result of the intervention was
that the Paris high court has ordered Vivendi to freeze payment
to Mr. Messier, the company's former chief executive, until it
has received shareholder approval.  Few persons believe the
shareholders will approve the settlement if it is put to a
vote at next April's annual meeting.

Mr. Messier's foray to the Paris high court came when, last
week, Mr. Messier seemed to have won his right to the
controversial golden parachute.  The American Arbitration
Association panel ruled unanimously in his favor and ordered
Vivendi Universal to pay him the EUR20.6 M.  Mr. Messier
immediately called on a US court to enforce the decision, which,
in turn, triggered the urgent action of the COB in the Paris
court.

Still alive, however, is a consolidated class action in the
United States, on which a federal judge in New York is expected
to rule shortly.


WEGENER CORPORATION: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wegener Corporation faces a class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, In and For New Castle County.  
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Robert A. Placek,

     (2) Thomas G. Elliot,

     (3) Joe K. Parks,

     (4) C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.,

     (5) Wendell Bailey, and

     (6) Ned Mountain

The suit alleges that the individual defendants have violated
their fiduciary duties due to him and other shareholders, the
members of an alleged class of shareholders of the Company.  The
plaintiff seeks relief, such as:  

     (i) an order that this action is properly styled as a class  
         action;  

    (ii) a declaration that the Defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duties;

   (iii) an injunction against the Defendants continuing their
         allegedly unlawful conduct;

    (iv) a direction to the Defendants to account for the
         damages they have allegedly caused; and

     (v) an award of Plaintiff's costs in bringing the action,
         as well as applicable attorneys' and experts' fees.  

The defendants have not yet answered this complaint as the time
to do so has not yet run, but will vigorously oppose this
litigation.  This complaint is substantively similar to a
complaint which was commenced in Fulton County, Georgia and was
subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff.


*Mobile Phone Users Sue Over Added Fees For Number Portability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Greenfield, a class action attorney based in Royal Oak,
Maryland, filed a lawsuit last week, against Sprint PCS in Palm
Beach County, Florida's Circuit Court, the Charlotte Observer
(NC) reports.  Mr. Greenfield has previously filed two
complaints against Nextel and is one of many attorneys being
called on by cell-phone users who wonder why they are being
asked to pay fees which in fact are part of the normal cost of
doing business.

These suits are stemming from a federal appeals court decision
last month, which granted consumers a victory in a ruling that
said cellular-phone companies must allow customers to take phone
numbers with them when they switch carriers.  However, the
victory is coming at a price.

Most of the major carriers are tacking on surcharges to cover
the costs the carriers are paying to make number switching a
reality by the November 24 deadline set by the Federal
Communications Commission.  These higher fees are already
appearing in consumers' bills.  Mr. Greenfield calls these extra
fees "jack-in-the box charges because they are buried in the
back of the customer's monthly bill with the state and local
taxes, and then they jump out at the consumers, if they are
vigilant about reading their bills.  As a result of these number
portability fees, cell phone bills will jump $13.20 to $21 per
year.

Mr. Greenfield contends the cellular carriers "are trying to
recoup at the back door what they are losing through the front
door because of increased competition," which brought about
lower prices for cell phone users.

However, the wireless providers assert they have a right to
recover the costs incurred to upgrade their networks to
facilitate customers' taking their phone numbers with them when
they switch carriers - known in industry jargon as number
portability.  The carriers point out to persons contending that
the service is not yet available to consumers, that the costs
are incurred in the process of making the service available in
November.

Verizon announced that it is not passing on these costs to its
customer.  However, the company also said they will revisit the
issue in November, once portability is under way to determine
whether or not it will impose a fee at that time. So far, said
the company, the "substantial costs we have incurred so far .
have been included in our general cost of doing business."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Allou
Healthcare, Inc. (Amex: ALU) publicly traded securities during
the period between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 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 June 28, 1998 and April
9, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Allou
securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results.  In particular, the Complaint
alleges:

     (1) that Allou was materially overstating its accounts
         receivables by at least $78 million, thereby
         overstating its revenues and earnings;

     (2) that Allou was materially overstating its inventory,
         thereby overstating its net worth; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, Allou's financial
         statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP
         and were therefore materially false and misleading.

On April 9, 2003, Allou announced that "its lenders have filed
an involuntary petition for bankruptcy in the Eastern District
of New York under the provisions of chapter 11, title 11, of the
United States Code."  Following this news, on April 9, 2003,
AMEX suspended trading in Allou's common stock.

Thereafter, press reports revealed that an outside restructuring
expert that had been retained to run Allou discovered, among
other things, that "only $30 million of $108 million in accounts
receivable reported by Allou to its banks seemed to be valid."  
Furthermore, on April 24, 2003, Allou announced that it
"believes that the levels of assets collateralizing loans were
substantially overstated in recent reports submitted by the
Company to its senior lenders.  The preliminary results of the
Company's investigation indicate that inventory was overstated
by approximately $35,000,000 and that accounts receivable may be
overstated by $75,000,000 to $80,000,000, for a total
overstatement of $110,000,000 to $115,000,000.  The Company has
retained a forensic accounting firm to assist with the
continuing investigation of this matter."

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


ASTROPOWER INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
AstroPower, Inc. (Nasdaq: APWR) between February 22, 2002 and
August 1, 2002, inclusive, and who suffered damages thereby.  
The action, is pending against the Company, Allen M. Barnett
(CEO and President) and Thomas J. Stiner (CFO).

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 22,
2002 and August 1, 2002.  The complaint alleges that AstroPower
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a range of solar
electric power generation products.

The complaint further alleges that the company claimed that it
was well positioned to take advantage of the increasing demand
for solar power products.  The complaint further alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, the Company reported strong revenue
and earnings growth and that, as a result of these statements
and reports, which were disseminated to the investing public,
and which formed the basis for research analysts' reports on the
Company, the Company's per share stock price reached a Class
Period high of $27 on March 28, 2002.

In truth and in fact, throughout the Class Period, the Company
was unable to effectively manage its expanding and increasingly
complex operations; it was, inter alia, unable to allocate
resources among its various manufacturing facilities to
effectively meet regional demand or to tailor its production
capacity to actual demand.  Consequently, during the time that
the Company was stating that it was well positioned to take
advantage of the increased demand for solar products, it was in
fact losing ground to more effective competitors.  

Additionally, to maintain the illusion that its operations were
successful, the Company throughout the Class Period reported
artificially inflated revenue and earnings by, inter alia,
recording revenue in advance of shipment, contrary to its stated
principles of revenue recognition.

The truth was revealed on August 1, 2002 when, after the close
of trading, the Company announced its results for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2002. Analysts were stunned. Reported
revenue and net income had not grown but, on the contrary,
second quarter income was $365,000, or $0.02 per diluted share
compared to $1.7 million, or $0.07 per diluted share in the
year-earlier second quarter and revenue of $20.4 million
represented only a one percent increase over reported revenue
for the prior quarter and was approximately $4.9 million below
analysts' consensus estimate.  On this news, AstroPower's share
price plunged 48%, or $7.12, to $7.77, its lowest price in
almost three years.

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


AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE: AVY) from July 24,
2001 through April 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Avery and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that Avery
failed to disclose that its financial results during the Class
Period were a product of a tacit and illegal anti-competitive
scheme with its leading competitor, UPM-Kymmene, OYJ (UPM),
whereby the Company and UPM manipulated the labelstock supply
market.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Avery's
shares.  The statements disseminated by the defendants during
the Class Period failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that Avery was engaged in an illegal anti-competitive
         scheme with UPM to drive a more stable price
         environment within the labelstock industry;

     (2) that the Company's financial results were a product of
         its anti-competitive behavior;

     (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
         behavior could possibly subject the Company to
         regulatory scrutiny in the future if such anti-
         competitive behavior was discovered; and

     (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive
         behavior.

On April 14, 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
issued a press release wherein it announced that it intended to
file a civil antitrust lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago to block
UPM from acquiring Morgan Adhesives Company (MACtac).  Among the
reasons given for filing the suit, the DOJ stated that its
investigation had revealed that the merger between UPM and
MACtac was one in which Avery and UPM sought to coordinate.

Additionally, on April 14, 2003, Avery announced that the DOJ
had started a criminal investigation into competitive prices in
the labelstock industry and would shortly issue a subpoena to
the Company in connection with that investigation.  On April 15,
2003, the DOJ filed its complaint against UPM.  Therein, the DOJ
alleged that UPM and Avery were in ``positions of marketplace
dominance and had significant incentives to engage in explicit
competitive coordination.''  The DOJ also alleged that evidence
of competitive coordination was enhanced by a ``longstanding
strategic paper supply relationship'' between UPM and Avery.  
The DOJ further alleged that ``the supply relationship provided
UPM and Avery with the motivations, opportunities, and means to
coordinate on price, monitor adherence, punish cheating, and
engage in side payments that could be hidden in label paper
transactions.''

News of Avery's anti-competitive behavior shocked the market.  
On April 15, 2003, Avery's stock fell $4.19 on unusually high
trading volume to close at $55.94.

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


BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX) between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive.  The action, is pending
against the Company and:

     (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12,
         2003),

     (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and

     (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002.

For example, throughout the Class Period, Barrick assured the
markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its
production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn
$0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the
phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which
increases costs) in several of its mines.

These representations were materially false and misleading,
according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that
the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above
the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per
ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to
increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated
assurances that production and costs would continue to improve
in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
(which, the Company misleadingly represented during the Class
Period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002).  In
reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the
Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock
fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to
$15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BARRICK GOLD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:ABX) securities between
February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002, inclusive.

Plaintiff alleges that Barrick assured the markets that it was
improving its operations by keeping its production costs in
check and that the Company expected to earn $0.42-$0.47 per
share in 2002, even taking into account the phasing out of
several mines and decreasing ore quality that increases costs in
several of its mines.

According to the complaint, these representations were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that:

     (1) the Company's expected costs for the year would be well
         above the figures highlighted to the public;

     (2) Barrick's costs per ounce had increased dramatically in
         2002 and would continue to increase throughout the
         year; and

     (3) the Company's repeated assurances that production and
         costs would continue to improve in 2002 were lacking in
         any reasonable basis and were contradicted by facts
         known to defendants, or, at the very least, recklessly
         disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expected to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
that the Company misleadingly represented would be resolved in
the second half of 2002.  In reaction to the announcement, which
came only days after the Company reiterated its positive
expectations, Barrick's stock fell by 10.5% in one day, from
$17.77 per share on September 25, 2002 to $15.90 per share on
September 26, 2002 on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BLUE RHINO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Blue Rhino
Corporation (Nasdaq: RINO) securities during the period between
August 15, 2002 and February 5, 2003.

The complaint charges Blue Rhino and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that each of the defendants is
liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
Blue Rhino securities by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts.  
The scheme:

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

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

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

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

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


CARREKER CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Carreker Corporation (Nasdaq: CANIE) between
May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, and who sustained
damages thereby.  The action, is pending against the Company,
John D. Carreker (Chairman and CEO) and Terry L. Gage (CFO).

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between May 20, 1998 and
December 10, 2002.  According to the complaint, throughout the
Class Period, Carreker filed financial statements with the SEC
which represented that the Company was consistently delivering
numerous consecutive quarters of record, double-digit growth,
which the Company attributed to the strong demand for its
products and Carreker's business model.

In addition, according to the complaint, the Company expressly
assured investors of its "dedication to transparent reporting
practices" and highlighted the supposed "quality and integrity
of (Carreker's) accounting and corporate governance practices."  

These statements were materially false and misleading, according
to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that the
Company had been improperly recognizing revenues throughout the
Class Period, thereby artificially inflating its revenues,
income and earnings per share.

On December 10, 2002, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it was investigating whether revenues were
improperly recognized by being booked at once instead of ratably
over a period of time, as required by applicable generally
accepted accounting principles.  This belated disclosure
severely and negatively impacted Carreker's stock price, causing
it to fall by 22.6% in one day on extremely heavy trading
volume, from a December 9 close of $5.08 per share to close at
$3.93 per share on December 10.

Subsequently, the SEC initiated an investigation, which is
ongoing, into the Company's accounting practices.  On January
28, 2003, the Company announced that it will be restating the
financial reports it has filed since 1998.

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


COrTS TRUST: Stull Stull Commences Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of certificates of UnumProvident
Corporate-Backed Trust Securities issued by CorTS Trust for
Provident Financing Trust I (NYSE:KSA) pursuant to an initial
public offering on or about January 31, 2001 and/or in the
aftermarket through and including March 24, 2003.  The
Certificates are a separate security from, and not part of,
certificates issued by CORTS II Trust for Provident Financing
Trust I (Symbol "KVN") which originated in an initial public
offering on or about April 18, 2001.

The complaint charges CorTS Trust for Provident Financing Trust
I, UnumProvident, Salomon Smith Barney and certain UnumProvident
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  

UnumProvident Corporation is the parent holding company for a
group of insurance and non-insurance companies that collectively
operate throughout North America and in the United Kingdom,
Japan and Argentina.  UnumProvident's principal operating
subsidiaries are Unum Life Insurance Company of America,
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, The Paul Revere
Life Insurance Company (Paul Revere Life) and Colonial Life &
Accident Insurance Company (Colonial).  UnumProvident, through
its subsidiaries, is a provider of group and individual
disability insurance.  It also provides a complementary
portfolio of other insurance products, including long-term care
insurance, life insurance, employer- and employee-paid group
benefits and related services.

According to the IPO prospectus dated on or about January 31,
2001, UnumProvident Corporation guaranteed the payment of
distributions on the Underlying Capital Securities but only to
the extent that the Underlying Issuer had funds legally and
immediately available therefor.  On January 31, 2001, the first
day of the class period, the Certificates were issued pursuant
to a Prospectus and Registration Statement and began to publicly
trade.  The trust consisted of a single class of certificates,
which represented interests in the trust and the certificates
would only be paid through the trust.  Therefore, the
Certificates would only be paid if UnumProvident paid the
original trust.

During the class period, UnumProvident falsely reported
financial results because it did not properly account for the
long-term impairment of its investments.  Moreover, the
financial information was inflated due to UnumProvident's
overzealous denial of legitimate claims of its insureds through,
what one federal judge deemed "a comprehensive system for
targeting and terminating expensive claims."

The financial statements and related press releases by
UnumProvident identified above contained statements that were
materially false and misleading when made.  On March 24, 2003,
UnumProvident issued a press release in which they stated their
intentions to restate financial statements from previous years.
This put the payments of the Certificates in jeopardy.  

As a result of this news and previous adverse news about the
company including the announcement on February 5, 2003 that
UnumProvident was the subject of an investigation by the
Securities Exchange Commission and had recorded losses of $93
million, the Certificates lost as much as 60% of their value.
Plaintiff had purchased the Certificates for $25 per share and
sold most of her shares for $15.35 per share.

For more details contact Howard Longman of Stull, Stull and
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983, by Fax: 212-490-2022 by E-mail: TSVI@aol.com or
contact Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman by
Mail: 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977 by
Phone: 1-800-660-7843 by Fax: 845-356-2570 or by E-mail:
kgg@kgglaw.com


DIVINE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
divine, Inc. (OTC BB:DVINQ.OB) between November 12, 2001 to
February 14, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division against Andrew J. Filipowski and Michael P.
Cullinane.

The complaint charges that certain of divine's officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of divine securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that divine lacked adequate
financial and internal controls with respect to its operations
and, as a result, lacked a reasonable basis to project
profitability or the ability to maintain its operations.  The
Complaint further alleges that Defendants engaged in a scheme to
inflate revenues by instructing employees of its subsidiary
RoweCom to offer discounts to customers who paid by cash in
advance, after divine already decided it would no longer
continue with RoweCom as an entity.  While the cash accounts of
RoweCom surged, divine fraudulently diverted nearly $74 million
from RoweCom's operations.  Even this diversion was not enough
to overcome problems at divine.

Before the start of the trading day on February 18, 2003, 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 off the United States
Bankruptcy Code."

Market reaction to this news was swift and negative with divine
stock falling from a close of $0.35 on February 14, 2003, the
preceding trading day, to close at $0.12 on February 18, 2003,
or a single-day decline of more than 65% on extremely heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-
mail: DVINQ@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


FEDERAL HOME: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of its client and on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
certain of its current and former officers (NYSE:FRE) between
April 18, 2000 and June 6, 2003, inclusive in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between April 18, 2000 and June
6, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Freddie Mac
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 failed to properly classify hedges and
         assets with respect to derivative securities;

     (2) that the Company used ``cookie jar'' accounting wherein
         Freddie Mac deferred gains to subsequent quarters in a
         bid to keep its revenue and earning growth steady;

     (3) that the Company provided investigators with altered
         and misleading documents in order to conceal the
         Company's improper accounting;

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

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

On June 9, 2003, the Company announced sweeping changes in its
management team.  These changes arose out of the Company's
January 22, 2003 announcement that it would have to restate its
financial results for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.  In
response to this announcement, shares of Freddie Mac fell $9.61
per share or 16 percent to close at $50.26 per share, wiping out
$7 billion in market value.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.whesq.com


FEDERAL HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:FRE)
securities between January 27, 2003 and June 9, 2003, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Company's class period earnings
announcement was materially false and misleading because it
failed to disclose that the Company lacked adequate internal
accounting controls and personnel expertise, failed to follow
accounting rules that require derivative securities to be marked
to market, "smoothed out its earnings" using accounting
techniques to lower results in good times and lift results when
business conditions deteriorated, and provided investigators
with doctored records to conceal their improper accounting
techniques.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: FRE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of purchasers of Paradigm Medical Industries,
Inc. (NasdaqSC: PMED) publicly traded securities during the
period from April 25, 2001 through May 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Paradigm and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated Section 10b of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
beginning on April 25, 2001 and continuing through December
2002.

Paradigm develops and sells laser surgical systems, including
the Ocular Blood Flow Analyzer (BFA).  The complaint alleges
that Paradigm misrepresented in its Securities & Exchange
Commission (SEC) filings and in press releases that it had
received authorization from the American Medical Association for
a Common Procedure Terminology code facilitating insurance
reimbursement to doctors for performing medical procedures with
the BFA.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Company
misrepresented in a press release that it had received a $105
million purchase order, when no such purchase order existed.  As
a result of these misrepresentations, according to the
complaint, the price of PMED securities was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

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


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE: PDX) from April
17, 2002 through June 23, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between April 17, 2002 and June
23, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
common stock.  

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

     (1) that the defendants engaged in fraudulent ``upcoding''
         in its billing practices while telling the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate;

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

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

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

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

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

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


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all purchasers of Pediatrix Medical Group,
Inc. (NYSE:PDX) securities between February 7, 2002 and June 23,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Pediatrix's financial results and business prospects.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Pediatrix failed to
disclose, among other facts, that:

     (1) the Company engaged in fraudulent ``upcoding'' in its
         billing practices while representing to the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate;

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

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

As a result, the price of the Company's securities were
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  On June 24,
2003, however, the Company shocked the market when it announced
that the U.S. Attorney's Office was conducting a civil
investigation into Pediatrix's Medical billing practices
nationwide.  Upon this revelation, Pediatrix's common stock fell
in excess of 20% in a single day on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or
(212) 983-9330 by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Printcafe Software, Inc. (NasdaqNM: PCAF) from
June 18, 2002 through October 22, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus in connection with Printcafe's initial public
offering (IPO).

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus were materially false and misleading because
statements made therein failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that demand for the Company's products and services was
         declining to the extent that the Company was not
         performing in line with its internal expectations;

     (2) that the Company's product development efforts were
         experiencing difficulties; and

     (3) that the Company's declining financial performance
         would require it to engage in a material restructuring
         of its operations in order to generate cost savings and
         reverse that negative trend.  

At the time of the filing of the complaint, the price of
Printcafe common stock was $2.57 per share.

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


READ-RITE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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)
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:

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

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

     (3) 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;

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

     (5) 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

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

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


SARA LEE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sara Lee
Corporation, (NYSE:SLE), between August 1, 2002 and April 24,
2003, inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company, C.
Steven McMillan and Lambertus M. de Kool.

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

     (1) 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;"

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

     (3) 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

     (4) based on the foregoing, Sara Lee lacked any reasonable
         basis upon which to project it would experience
         "double-digit operating income increase" for fiscal
         2003 among its "five lines of business" or 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 third
quarter, the period 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
closing price on extremely heavy trading volume.

In addition, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
Sara Lee insiders sold more than $23 million of their Sara Lee
common stock to the unsuspecting public.  

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext. 6883 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.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  * * *