CAR_Public/030717.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, July 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 140

                        Headlines                            

AMERICASH-INC.COM: FL Court Enters Investment Suit Judgment
CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit
DISCOVER CAPITAL: SEC Launches Action To Block Fraudulent Scheme
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
ENROTEK LTD.: SEC Charges Robert Clawson With Securities Fraud

GUNTHER INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Securities Lawsuit Settlement
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Orders Insurers To Cover Settlement
JP MORGAN: Nears Securities Pact As Investors Express Concern
KEVIN KIRKPATRICK: Court Enters Permanent Injunction Over Fraud
LYSINE ANTITRUST: Suppliers Ink Out-of Court Settlement For Suit

MINIMED INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Stockholder Suit
MODELING AGENCIES: NY Court Certifies Model's Antitrust Lawsuit
PRESIDENT CASINOS: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Faces Actions Over Mutual Funds Policy
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated

SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Derivative Suits Consolidated in CA Court
STANSBURY HOLDINGS: Common Stock Registration Revoked Over Fraud
UNITED STATES: Vanderbilt Law Professor Supports New Bill
UNITED STATES: Legal Reform Group Supports New Bill
VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Australian Court Allows Lawsuit To Proceed

WD40 CO.: Consumers Sue Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners in FL Court
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CIT GROUP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
COSI INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CREE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
CREE INC.: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. NC

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Lodges Stock Suit in FL
EDISON SCHOOLS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
SINGING MACHINE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

                          *********


AMERICASH-INC.COM: FL Court Enters Investment Suit Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entered a final judgment of permanent injunction
against Norman Benjamin, the president and director of
Americash-Inc.Com, Inc., a Florida corporation.   

The final judgment, entered by his consent and without admitting
or denying the allegations of the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission's complaint, enjoins Mr. Benjamin from
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

In addition to enjoining Mr. Benjamin, the final judgment orders
him to pay disgorgement in the amount $65,365.40 plus
prejudgment interest thereon, but partially waives disgorgement
and does not impose a civil penalty based on Benjamin's Sworn
Statement of Financial Condition and other supporting documents.

The SEC earlier filed an emergency civil action against
Americash-Inc.com, Inc., National Business Concepts, Inc. d/b/a
Americash and Norman Benjamin and relief defendant World
Business Systems LLC, d/b/a World Business Systems, Inc.  The
SEC alleged that the defendants, through a boiler room, raised
approximately $1.2 million from more than 45 investors to fund a
purported "payday advance" business.   

In raising money for this enterprise from investors, the
defendants falsely represented that the investment was low risk,
that a 36% return was guaranteed and that all monies were lent
out to Americash customers.  According to the SEC complaint,
Americash in fact operated as a Ponzi scheme, paying interest to
existing investors with new investor monies, and spending
investor funds on salaries, commissions, and expenses to operate
its boiler room.  


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Cyberguard Corporation and certain of its
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida.  This action seeks damages
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock during various periods from
November 7, 1996 through August 24, 1998.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that as a result of
accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue
recognition policies, the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading and that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly published these financial
statements which caused the Company's common stock prices to
rise artificially.

The action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Subsequently, the
defendants, including the Company, filed their respective
motions to dismiss the consolidated suit.

The court denied the Company's and Robert L. Carberry's (the
Company's CEO from June 1996 through August 1998) motions to
dismiss.  The court granted the motions to dismiss with
prejudice for defendants:

     (1) William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from November 1997
         through August 1998),

     (2) Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO from April 1996
         through October 1997),

     (3) C. Shelton James (the Company's former Audit Committee
         Chairman), and

     (4) KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order.  The Court ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration that the previously
dismissed defendants William D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and
C. Shelton James should not have been dismissed from the action
and shall be defendants in this action under the control person
liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
that the plaintiffs may amend the consolidated suit to bring
claims against C. Shelton James under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs then filed their second consolidated and amended
class action to include amended claims against C. Shelton James.  
The Company answered the suit and filed affirmative defenses.  
On August 14, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified the class to include all
investors who acquired the Company's common stock between
November 7, 1996 and August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the
purchase of such stock.  The trial is scheduled for March 2004.


DISCOVER CAPITAL: SEC Launches Action To Block Fraudulent Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission brought an
emergency action in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia to halt an ongoing fraudulent scheme
largely aimed at retirees who were customers of brokerages that
have gone out of business.

The Commission's request for a temporary restraining order was
granted by the Honorable Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who also
froze $1.1 million of the assets of two of the defendants,
Discover Capital Holdings Corporation and Indianapolis
Securities, Inc., pending a preliminary hearing.
     
The Commission alleges that the defendants, Eli Dinov, his
brother Ari Dinov, and David Rubinov used spam e-mail touts and
misleading, high pressure sales calls to raise more than one
million dollars through the sale of private placement shares of
Uniondale, New York-based Discover Capital Holdings Corporation,
a company controlled by the individual defendants, through
Discover's wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Indianapolis
Securities, Inc.
     
Eli Dinov is Discover's president, Ari Dinov is Indianapolis
Securities' secretary and treasurer, and Mr. Rubinov is a 27-
year-old securities law recidivist previously barred from
association with any broker or dealer.  All three reside in
Brooklyn, New York.
     
In its complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants
attained customer accounts from defunct brokerages and used the
firms' customer lists to identify potential victims.  Having
already bilked mostly elder or retired investors in Florida,
Michigan and Wisconsin, the defendants were targeting customers
from a recently bankrupt Colorado firm when stopped by the
court's order.

In particular, the Commission alleges that:

     (1) the defendants orchestrated a fraudulent, multi-front
         sales campaign.  In addition to a mass email
         misleadingly touting Discover to the general public,
         the defendants made use of traditional boiler room
         sales techniques, including misleading sales calls
         targeting new customers culled from client lists
         acquired from small, defunct broker-dealers; sales
         visits to the homes of some investors; and sponsorship
         of an investment "seminar" pitching the private
         placement;
  
     (2) the defendants failed to disclose to investors the
         significant role played at Discover by Mr. Rubinov, who
         is barred from association with any broker or dealer
         and permanently enjoined from violating the anti-fraud
         provisions of the federal securities laws in connection
         with prior allegations by the Commission that he
         engaged in fraudulent sales practices;

     (3) the defendants created and supported the public market
         for Discover's common shares, creating an artificial
         price which they highlighted for investors, claiming
         that purchasers of the preferred shares would
         effectively make a 150% profit, instantly.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks, against each, civil
penalties, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment
interest, and preliminary and permanent injunctions barring
future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws.  


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's shares between November 29,1999 and
January 16,2002.  The suit also names as defendants two of the
Company's officers.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws and
regulations.  The suit further claims that the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false or misleading
statements or omissions regarding revenues and receivables and
regarding whether our operations complied with various federal
regulations.

The Company and the officers moved to dismiss the complaint on
February 25, 2003.  Plaintiffs have responded to the Motion, and
it is now submitted to the Court for decision.  Because no
discovery can take place unless and until the case survives the
motion to dismiss, this action remains at an early stage.


ENROTEK LTD.: SEC Charges Robert Clawson With Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission found that
Robert Thomas Clawson willfully violated Securities Act Section
17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing
to disclose that he anticipated receiving payments from an
issuer in return for his sales to customers.
     
Mr. Clawson was associated with Cruttenden Roth, Inc., a broker-
dealer.  He was a long-time acquaintance of Kevin Woodbridge.  
Mr. Woodbridge had been retained by Enrotek Ltd. to raise
Enrotek's price to $5 per share.  Enrotek had no revenue and its
sole asset was undeveloped Portugese land.  To induce
salespersons to sell Enrotek stock to their customers, Mr.
Woodbridge and others made undisclosed payments to salespersons
at various firms throughout the United States to sell Enrotek to
their customers.
     
The Commission found that Mr. Clawson anticipated receiving
these payments when he made sales to his customers.  The
Commission found that Mr. Clawson knew that Mr. Woodbridge was
promoting Enrotek and knew that he could receive payments from
Enrotek for his sales.  Mr. Clawson recommended Enrotek to his
customers although he knew it was speculative.   

When Cruttenden prohibited its salespersons from soliciting any
further sales of Enrotek, Mr. Clawson nonetheless recommended
that one of his customers continue purchasing Enrotek and opened
an account for that customer at another broker-dealer, which
would normally mean that Mr. Clawson would not receive
compensation for his customer's transactions.  After a trip to
Canada to meet with Enrotek's management, Mr. Clawson sent a
bill to Enrotek seeking payment for his sales.
     
While the record did not demonstrate that Mr. Clawson actually
received payment from Enrotek, the Commission found that he
violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws by
failing to disclose that he anticipated receiving such payments.  
The Commission has previously held that, when a salesperson
recommends a security, the salesperson must disclose any self-
interest that could influence the salesperson's recommendations.  
The Commission barred from associating with a broker-dealer or
participating in a penny stock transaction Mr. Clawson and
ordered him to pay a $100,000 civil money penalty.  


GUNTHER INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Securities Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action litigation filed against Gunther International,
Ltd., its then-current chief executive officer and its then-
current chief financial officer in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.

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

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

In April 2001, prior to the entry of the final order approving
the settlement of the purported class action, the Company
commenced separate legal proceedings against Arthur Andersen,
LLP, its former auditor, in the Superior Court for the Judicial7
District of New London, Connecticut.

The Malpractice Proceedings sought damages sustained by the
Company as a result of Andersen's failure to comply with
professional standards in the conduct of certain of its audits
of the Company's financial statements.  In May 2001, Andersen
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, but the court remanded the complaint to
the state court upon the motion of the Company.

The Company asserted in the Malpractice Proceedings that
Andersen breached its duties to the Company by, among other
things, negligently and/or intentionally misrepresenting the
Company's true financial condition to the Company, its Board of
Directors and its Audit Committee.  

Andersen vigorously denied any wrongdoing and filed a
counterclaim against the Company alleging claims for fraud,
negligence, breach of contract, interpleader and
indemnification.  In addition, Andersen asserted that the class
action final order interposed an effective bar against any
recovery in the Malpractice Proceedings.

On June 7, 2001, the Company filed a motion to amend the class  
action final order to clarify that it has no application to the
Malpractice Proceedings.  The court granted the Company's
motion, and Andersen appealed the court's decision.  In February
2003, the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second District entered an Order Voluntarily Dismissing that
appeal with Prejudice.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Orders Insurers To Cover Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California Superior Court jury has returned a favorable
decision in a lawsuit brought by International Paper against 22
insurers, which seeks indemnification from these insurers for
payments resolving property owners' claims under the 1998 Judy
Naef v. Masonite and International Paper class action
settlement.  

That settlement relates to certain exterior siding products
manufactured by International Paper's formerly owned business,
Masonite Corporation.  International Paper has paid
approximately $485 million in exterior siding claims through
June 30, 2003 under the class action settlement.  Of this $485
million, approximately $470 million was at issue in the
California trial.

The jury determined that $383 million of International Paper's
payments to settle these claims are covered by its insurance
policies.  The next phase of the case will determine how much of
the $383 million will be allocated to the policies issued by
insurance companies that are defendants in this case.

The company is unable at this time to estimate the amount it
will ultimately recover from the defendants in the California
lawsuit, but is pleased with the results in the first phases of
the case.  The company anticipates that the California court
will also make a determination about indemnification for future
claims, based on this verdict.  In addition, the company will be
pursuing indemnification from other insurance carriers in
arbitration proceedings as required by the policies.  

The company cannot predict at this time the amount it will
ultimately recover in connection with arbitration proceedings
with these insurance carriers.  To date, the company has
received $94 million from nine insurance companies other than
the defendants in this case, and one of those insurance
companies has agreed to pay International Paper an additional
$10 million in 2004.

In 2001, Masonite's exterior siding business was closed, and
International Paper subsequently sold Masonite Corporation to
Premdor Inc.  International Paper retained liability for claims
under the Naef class action settlement.


JP MORGAN: Nears Securities Pact As Investors Express Concern
-------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. is close to reaching two separate
settlements with regulators.  The second-largest bank in the
United States is negotiating with Manhattan District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and is ready to pay as much as $175 million to these
regulators in order to resolve allegations that the bank wrongly
helped Enron Corp. enhance its finances, The Wall Street Journal
reports.  These cases have been a source of concern to the
bank's investors, who have privately expressed particular
concerns about the criminal inquiry by Mr. Morgenthau's office.

Signs that the bank appears to have averted criminal charges
will come as a relief to investors, who have watched the bank's
stock surge 49 percent so far this year amid rising hopes for a
global economic rebound.  A criminal indictment would have been
devastating for the bank, because it would have banned JP Morgan
from acting as a fiduciary for its clients, a role that is
crucial to vast aspects of the bank's operations.

Mr. Morgenthau's office has been seeking to apply a 1921 New
York New York State law known as the Martin Act, which can hold
a party liable for misleading the investing public, even absent
any proof of intent to deceive. This is the same law New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer used to pursue an inquiry into
the analysts' coverage of stock performance at Merrill Lynch.

However, a person involved in negotiating the JP Morgan
settlement said Mr. Morgenthau decided against charging the bank
with a felony, or even a misdemeanor, so as to avoid grave harm
to the firm, its employees and its investors.  A settlement like
this protects JP Morgan from having to pay out potentially large
damages in a series of separate class actions it faces in
connection with Enron, because it is not admitting criminal
guilt.  However, it still could be found liable for damages on
the basis of other evidence.

A particular deal between Enron Corporation and JP Morgan, which
came to light soon after Enron filed for bankruptcy protection,
involved the bank's helping to finance Enron through a series of
so-called gas prepay contracts.  That particular deal caused
months of grief for JP Morgan.  The US Senate conducted high-
profile hearings into the trades, and that same deal also has
sparked a series of civil cases, including a class-action
lawsuit naming JP Morgan and other banks as defendants.  Those
cases are still pending.

Mr. Morgenthau's office impaneled a grand jury months ago as
part of an inquiry into the role JP Morgan played in allegedly
helping Enron conceal debt and otherwise burnish its financial
statements before the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
court protection in December 2001.

The deal that came to light, as indicated above, was the bank's
involvement in the gas prepay contracts.  Using these contracts,
the bank channeled money to Enron, which returned those payments
through the future delivery of gas through a series of off shore
vehicles, including one with the name Mahonia Ltd.  The bank
defrayed the risk of financing Enron with the help of insurance
companies that issued surety bonds to guarantee the delivery of
the gas.  When Enron failed, the insurers refused to pay, saying
the gas trades were a ruse to disguise loans, thereby leading to
a lawsuit in which the sides settled in January, just days
before a jury was to begin its deliberations.

The exact structure of the settlement between the bank and the
Manhattan District attorney is still being negotiated.  People
familiar with the matter say it could involve a payment of
roughly $25 million to avoid prosecution; a portion of money
would likely go to a restitution fund for defrauded investors,
and some portion would be paid to New York State and New York
City.  The settlement also is expected to include promises by
J.P. Morgan to change its business practices.  The proposed
settlement would be reviewed by the bank's board and could be
announced by the end of the month.

In separate negotiations, JP Morgan also is nearing a
considerably larger settlement with the SEC, over the same Enron
transactions, however, people close to the negotiations say.  
The SEC settlement is likely to be somewhere between $100
million and $150 million.

Earlier this year, JP Morgan set aside nearly $600 million to
help defray the cost of settling with regulators and with Enron
investors who have sued JP Morgan and other financial
institutions for their role in Enron's failure.


KEVIN KIRKPATRICK: Court Enters Permanent Injunction Over Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Tena Campbell, the United States District Judge for
the District of Utah, Central Division, entered a judgment of
permanent injunction as to Kevin Kirkpatrick of Salt Lake City,
Utah.  

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed the
complaint, which alleged that Mr. Kirkpatrick, then a trader at
a brokerage firm in Salt Lake City, engaged in a scheme with
other defendants from July through November 2000 to manipulate
the public trading market for stock issued by Freedom Surf, Inc.  
The complaint alleged that Mr. Kirkpatrick, Allen Wolfson and
other defendants participated in a scheme to artificially run up
the price of Freedom Surf stock.  

Mr. Kirkpatrick and others advanced the bid quotation in Freedom
Surf stock without relation to genuine market demand or worth of
the company.  Further, Mr. Kirkpatrick and other defendants made
arranged purchases and sales among brokerage accounts that Mr.
Wolfson controlled.  The complaint also alleged that Mr.
Kirkpatrick made unregistered sales of securities.

The judgment against Mr. Kirkpatrick enjoins him from future
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The judgment also
orders that the Court will retain jurisdiction to decide the
appropriate amount, if any, of disgorgement, prejudgment
interest and penalties against Mr. Kirkpatrick.  

     
LYSINE ANTITRUST: Suppliers Ink Out-of Court Settlement For Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several major suppliers of Lysine, an amino acid feed additive,
in Canada negotiated an out-of-court settlement for the class
action charging them with conspiring to fix lysine prices,
porknet.com reports.  The suit charges the firms with violations
of the country's Competition Act.

Under the settlement, Canadians who purchased Lysine in any form
or products derived from animals that consumed Lysine between
June 1, 1992 and June 27, 1995 will receive compensation.

Charles Wright, a partner with Siskinds, says the settlement,
which has been approved by the courts, effectively resolves all
claims in Canada.

"The total settlement is 5.25 million dollars.  The majority of
it is being paid out by Archer Daniels Midland Company which had
the greatest market share in Canada but other defendants in the
case who settled included Ajinomoto, a Japanese company, and
their American subsidiary was Heartland lysine and a company by
the name of Kyowa Hakko and their sales into Canada would have
been through their American subsidiary Biokyowa," Mr. Siskinds
told porknet.com.  "For those who bought lysine or feed
containing lysine between '92 and '95 are eligible to file
claims, both those at the feed mill level or if you are a
chicken or hog or other farmer and you bought product containing
lysine you are eligible to file a claim for compensation."

To receive compensation eligible distributors, feed mills, and
farmers must complete their claim forms and submit certain
required supporting documentation by September 6, 2003.  The
deadline for opting out of the class action is July 23, 2003.

For more details, visit the Website: http://www.classaction.ca.  


MINIMED INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Stockholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles granted class certification to a lawsuit filed
against MiniMed, Inc. and its directors on behalf of a class of
MiniMed's stockholders.

The suit asserts claims in connection with Medtronic, Inc.'s
acquisition of the Company, alleging violation of fiduciary
duties owed by the Company and its directors to its
stockholders.  Among other things, the complaint sought
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent
completion of the acquisition.

In August 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief to prevent completion of the acquisition.  
Plaintiffs have amended their complaint.  The class is defined
as holders of record of MiniMed common stock on July 16, 2001,
excluding any such shareholders who were also shareholders of a
related company, MRG, on that date.  The court has under
consideration defendants' motion for summary judgment.


MODELING AGENCIES: NY Court Certifies Model's Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Manhattan, New York granted
class certification to a lawsuit filed against top modeling
agencies, including Elite Model Management and Ford Models,
Inc., charging them with conspiring to cheat models by charging
inflated commission fees and expenses, Reuters reports.

Judge Harold Baer's ruling allowed thousands of models to take
part in the suit, which alleges that the agencies fixed models'
commission rates at 20 percent, twice the 10 percent allowed by
state law for employment agencies.  The defendants also
allegedly conspired to evade state pricing regulations by
calling themselves model management companies.

The defendant companies argued against class certification on
several grounds, including that the plaintiffs did not allegedly
suffer the same impact and that a class action would not be the
best way to proceed, Reuters reports.

However, Judge Baer ruled, "All of the class members share a
common interest in proving the existence, scope and effect of
the defendants' ongoing price fixing, which allegedly led to
inflated and unlawful commission rates and expenses."  


PRESIDENT CASINOS: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida's decision refusing class
certification to a lawsuit filed against President Casinos,
Inc., thirty-seven (37) other casino operators, and certain
suppliers and distributors of video poker and electronic slot
machines.  

The consolidated suit alleges that the defendants fraudulently
marketed and operated casino video poker machines and electronic
slot machines, and asserting common law fraud and deceit, unjust
enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.  Various motions
were filed by the defendants seeking to have this new complaint
dismissed or otherwise limited.  

The court, in general, ruled on all motions in favor of the
plaintiffs on all pending motions.   The plaintiffs then filed a
motion seeking class certification and the defendants opposed
it.   On June 21, 2002, the court entered an order holding the
action could not proceed as a class action.

The decision has been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The last briefs are scheduled to be filed July 14,
2003.  Extensive paper discovery has occurred.  A motion to stay
pending the Company's bankruptcy proceedings has been filed.  

Although the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
management, after consultation with counsel, the Company
believes the action will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: Faces Actions Over Mutual Funds Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed two
enforcement actions - one settled and one unsettled  - involving
sales of mutual fund shares by Prudential Securities, Inc.

In the settled action, the Commission found that from 1998 to
2000, Prudential, a registered broker-dealer, had inadequate
systems in place to effectively monitor and enforce its policies
and procedures relating to sales of different classes of mutual
funds.  In resolving the matter, Prudential agreed, without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $82,000, which
will be returned to investors harmed by the conduct described in
the actions, and a civil penalty in the amount of $300,000.  The
respondents in the unsettled action are two former employees of
Prudential.  
  
In multi-class mutual funds, the primary differences among the
classes of shares are the type and amount of fees charged to
investors.  In the actions, the SEC's Division of Enforcement
alleges that a former Prudential registered representative sold
Class "B" shares to his customers, while failing to disclose
that if they purchased Class "A" shares, they were eligible for
breakpoint discounts based on the size of their mutual fund
purchases.  

The Division further alleges that the respondents stood to make
more money through sales of Class B shares than they would from
sales of Class A shares.  Mutual fund breakpoints are sales
charge discounts available to customers who purchase large
amounts of certain classes of shares in mutual funds that charge
commissions.
     
"Mutual fund offerings have diversified with the industry's
dramatic growth," said Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC's
Division of Enforcement.  "Unfortunately, in some circumstances,
abusive sales practices have accompanied the increasing sales of
the various classes of mutual fund shares.  Brokerage firms have
a duty to ensure that the information they give their customers
about different classes of mutual fund shares is complete and
accurate, and that their recommendations are made for the
benefit of customers, not themselves."
  
In the unsettled action, the Commission issued an administrative
order instituting proceedings against Robert Ostrowski, a former
Prudential registered representative, and Rees T. Harris, a
former Prudential branch office manager.
     
The Division alleges that on at least 42 occasions, Mr.
Ostrowski, a registered representative in Prudential's Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania branch office and a top seller of Prudential
mutual funds, violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws in connection with sales of mutual funds to his
customers.  

Specifically, the Division alleges that on each of these
occasions, Mr. Ostrowski sold his customers more than  $100,000
of Class B shares in certain Prudential proprietary mutual funds
without disclosing the existence of multiple classes of shares
within the same fund, the fact that he had decided to purchase
Class B shares for their accounts, and the existence of
breakpoint discounts available with the purchase of Class A
shares of the same funds.  These discounts would have made large
purchases of the funds' Class A shares less expensive
investments for these customers than the same level of
investment in Class B shares, which do not offer breakpoints.  
The Division alleges that Mr. Ostrowski received approximately
$51,500 in excess commissions from his improper sales and that
Prudential received approximately $63,000 in excess commissions.
  
"Prudential's settlement of the Commission's charges is a
positive and constructive response to a serious supervisory
failure," said Arthur S. Gabinet, District Administrator of the
SEC's Philadelphia District Office.  "The Division of
Enforcement has alleged that Mr. Ostrowski was one of
Prudential's top mutual fund salesmen, but his customers
suffered because he maximized his own returns rather than
providing accurate and appropriate information to his
customers."
     
The Division also alleges that Mr. Harris failed reasonably to
supervise Mr. Ostrowski by failing to monitor his compliance
with Prudential's policies and procedures regarding the sale of
mutual fund shares.  Mr. Harris approved all 42 of Mr.
Ostrowski's sales of Class B shares in amounts exceeding
$100,000 despite policies and procedures that specifically
required him to ensure that registered representatives under his
supervision discussed with customers, among other things, the
availability of multiple classes of mutual fund shares and the
various sales charges prior to a sale.
     
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
in the action against Mr. Ostrowski and Mr. Harris to determine
whether the allegations contained in the order are true, to
provide Mr. Ostrowski and Mr. Harris an opportunity to respond
to them, and to determine whether any remedial action should be
ordered, or penalties imposed, by the Commission.
  
In the settled action, the Commission's order found that,
although Prudential had policies and procedures prohibiting the
type of sales practices that Mr. Ostrowski utilized, it did not
have any systems in place to effectively monitor and enforce
those policies and procedures above the branch office manager's
level.  As a result, when Mr. Harris failed in his supervisory
responsibilities, Prudential had inadequate means to detect his
failure.  The Commission found that, as a result, Prudential
failed reasonably to supervise Mr. Ostrowski with a view to
preventing his violations.
  
In July 2001, following completion of an internal review,
Prudential revised and enhanced its mutual fund policies and
procedures, including those related to the sales of Class B
mutual fund shares, and implemented systems to monitor
compliance with them.

In addition to paying $82,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment
interest and a $300,000 civil penalty, the Commission ordered
that Prudential be censured and that it comply with its
undertakings to, among other things, maintain the revised
policies, procedures and systems that it has implemented.  


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered plaintiffs in the securities class actions
pending against Solectron Corporation and certain of its
officers to file an amended consolidated suit.

The suits uniformly allege claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleged that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain
press releases and SEC filings issued between September 17, 2001
and September 26, 2002.  

In particular, plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to
disclose and to properly account for excess and obsolete
inventory in the Technology Solutions business unit during the
relevant time period.  The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount
of damages on behalf of the putative class.

On June 2, 2003, the court appointed lead counsel and plaintiffs
to represent the putative class in a single consolidated action.
A consolidated amended complaint filing is anticipated within
the next few weeks.  



SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Derivative Suits Consolidated in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit
against Solectron Corporation, all of the current members of its
Board of Directors, and two former officers, in the Santa Clara
County, California Superior Court.

The plaintiff alleged that he should be permitted to pursue
litigation, purportedly for the benefit of Solectron, against
the individual director and officer defendants for alleged
mismanagement and waste of corporate assets during the period
from May 2001 to the present, purported breaches of fiduciary
duty, "constructive fraud," "abuse of control," and alleged
violations of the California Corporations Code by certain of the
individual defendants who sold some of their Solectron
stockholdings during the period from September 2001 through
September 2002.  

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages, and the relinquishment of all profits realized
by those individual defendants who sold Solectron stock during
the relevant period, together with statutory penalties under
California Corporations Code section 25402 which plaintiff
alleges to be applicable to those sales of Solectron stock.

On May 19, 2003, Solectron and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.  In the meantime, two substantively
identical derivative lawsuits were filed in the same Court on
May 14 and May 15, respectively.  Counsel for the plaintiffs in
all three suits subsequently advised the Court that they would
be filing a consolidated amended complaint, and accordingly,
defendants' motion to dismiss was taken off calendar pending
the filing of the consolidated amended complaint combining the
three lawsuits.

On June 27, 2003, the plaintiffs served their consolidated
amended complaint now alleging that "since January of 1999," all
of the current members of Solectron's Board of Directors, as
well as three former officers, purportedly breached their
fiduciary duties and participated in or permitted "constructive
fraud," "unjust enrichment," and alleged violations of the
California Corporations Code.  

Solectron does not believe plaintiffs have adequately alleged a
basis for plaintiffs to appropriate for themselves the duties of
Solectron's Board of Directors under applicable Delaware law,
and believes that the consolidated amended complaint contains
various factual errors and legal deficiencies.

Solectron intends to seek dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint.  The Company may be forced to incur substantial
litigation expenses in defending this litigation.


STANSBURY HOLDINGS: Common Stock Registration Revoked Over Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Administrative Law Judge has revoked the registration of the
common stock of Stansbury Holdings Corporation in Administrative
Proceeding No. 3-11108, In the Matter of Stansbury Holdings
Corporation.  

The initial decision concludes that Stansbury violated Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a-1 and
13a-13 thereunder by failing to file its annual report for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, and its quarterly reports for
the periods ending September 30, 2002, and December 31, 2002,
and by failing to file within the time permitted its annual
report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001.  

The initial decision also concludes that Stansbury violated
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and
13a-13 thereunder by failing to disclose material facts in
certain annual and quarterly reports.


UNITED STATES: Vanderbilt Professor Supports New Bill
-----------------------------------------------------
A Vanderbilt professor says that the Class Action Fairness Act
currently pending in the US Senate would go a long way toward
curbing rampant systemic abuse by both plaintiffs' attorneys and
defendants.  The Class Action Fairness Act would make it easier
to bring into federal court class action lawsuits originally
filed in state courts, he said.

Richard A. Nagareda, professor of law at Vanderbilt University
Law School, asserted in a statement, "The bill proceeds from the
common-sense idea that class actions directed at nationwide
wrongdoing should be handled primarily by federal, not state,
courts.  The Class Action Fairness Act won't solve everything,
but it would make a solid start toward curbing the worst sorts
of abuses in class action litigation-abuses by both plaintiffs'
lawyers and defendants."

He continued, "The most important part of the bill would make it
more difficult for the attorneys on both sides to stick class
members nationwide with an inadequate settlement agreement by
having it rubber-stamped by a friendly judge in some obscure
state court.  Too many times, lawyers get enormous fees,
defendants shed their liabilities and plaintiffs get almost
nothing."

Mr. Nagareda is available to talk about the reforms embodied in
the proposed legislation and the likelihood it will survive the
battle it faces in the Senate.


UNITED STATES: Legal Reform Group Supports New Bill
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Chamber Institute for Legal Reforms issued
statements supporting the Class Action Fairness Act and refuting
advocacy group Public Citizen's opposition to it.  In the
statement, the Chamber asserted that the act will help ensure
that citizens will get fair settlements, unlike under the
current system, where most of the money goes to the lawyers who
bring the lawsuits.

Under the proposed legislation, citizens will continue to be
able to file class action lawsuits against out of state
companies, the only difference is that the case will likely be
decided by a federal judge, the statement asserts.

The Chamber also stated that, "Under the current system, lawyers
in other states file national class action cases involving
Montana residents in states where they know the judges will
assure the lawyers get large fees.  This system results in
abusive class action settlements like the Blockbuster case in
which class members received coupons for free movie rentals and
the class action lawyers received $9.25 million in fees.  In
another national class action case filed in Alabama against a
bank, class members from around the country ended up losing
money because an Alabama judge ruled that they each had to pay
$75 to $100 for plaintiff lawyers' fees."

The Chamber said Public Citizen didn't tell the full story about
the few settlement examples that they cite.  The Chamber stated
as examples the Tennessee plastic pipe settlement, which was
highly criticized as confusing to consumers.  The Chamber
asserts, "Nor do they mention that the lawyers in that case
received $45 million in fees -- over $2,000 per hour."


VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Australian Court Allows Lawsuit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court in Melbourne, Australia rejected an appeal by
major vitamin companies, seeking to have an antitrust class
action filed against them dismissed, the NutraIngredients.com
reports.  

Vitamin firms Roche, BASF Corporation and Aventis asked the
court to dismiss the suit, asserting that Australian courts do
not have jurisdiction over international companies.  The
companies have already faced fines in the US and the European
Union.

The suit, which charges the firms with price-fixing of animal
grade vitamins in the 1990s, will now proceed to trial.  Law
firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman will spearhead the suit.  

In 2001 the EU fined eight companies EUR855.2 million for fixing
vitamin prices.  This year Roche set aside an extra US$810
million for customers in the US impacted by the continuing price
fixing cases, NutraIngredients.com reports.


WD 40 CO.: Consumers Sue Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners in FL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
WD 40 Co. faces a class action filed in the State of Florida for
damage claims arising out of the use of the automatic toilet
bowl cleaners (ATBCs) sold by the Company under the brand names,
2000 Flushes and X-14.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a class
of plaintiffs consisting of consumers in the state of Florida
who, since September 1, 1998, have purchased and used ATBCs sold
by the Company and who, at the time of the first use of these
products, had a product warranty for a toilet in which the
products were used.

The plaintiff alleges that the product warranty for a toilet may
have been voided by the use of the Company's ATBC.  In addition
to damages attributed to the value of the lost product warranty,
plaintiff seeks damages for the purchase price of the ATBC,
which is allegedly unfit for its intended purpose.

The legal action includes allegations of negligent omission of
information concerning the potential loss of product warranties
and alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Fla. Stat. 501.201 & 501.213) for failing to
inform consumers of the potential loss of product warranties.  
The plaintiff seeks punitive and/or treble damages in addition
to actual or compensatory damages, as well as costs and
attorneys fees as may be provided for by Florida law.

If class certification is granted, it is reasonably possible
that the outcome of the suit could have a material adverse
effect on the operating results of the Company.  The plaintiff
has not quantified the amount of damages.  There is not
sufficient information to estimate the Company's exposure at
this time.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Winnebago Industries,
Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa to reconsider its decision denying class
certification for the suit.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan,

     (2) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula
         Bonus Plan and

     (3) Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan
         and Deferred Bonus Plan Trust

The suit alleges a class consisting of participants in the
Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan and the
Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula Bonus Plan
and alleges 23 separate causes of action including declaratory
and injunctive relief, federal common law unjust enrichment,
breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) vesting provisions and ERISA funding
requirements, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter
story.  The suit asks to negate certain amendments made to the
Plans in 1994, which reduced the benefits some participants
would receive under the Plans.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January
31, 2003 and the Company filed a Resistance thereto.  Chief
Judge Mark W. Bennett later entered a memorandum opinion and
order regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on
May 7, 2003 in which he denied certification because the
plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed class met the
numerosity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(1).

The plaintiffs thereafter on May 12, 2003 filed a motion for
amendment of order denying class certification in which they in
effect request that Judge Bennett reconsider his decision.  The
company opposed the motion.  The parties are currently awaiting
Judge Bennett's decision thereon.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CIT GROUP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud 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 persons who purchased the
common stock of CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT) in or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering")
commenced on or about July 1, 2002, and who have been damaged
thereby.  The action is pending against the Company and:

     (1) Albert R. Gamper, Jr. (CEO and President) and

     (2) Joseph M. Leone (CFO)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because CIT's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained materially false
and misleading statements of fact.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Prospectus falsely represented that CIT's
reserves for losses in its telecommunications finance portfolio
were "adequate" despite recent declines in the sector, which
were expected to continue.  In addition, the Prospectus further
characterized as adequate its reserves for credit losses in
general.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading when made because, among other reasons,
they failed to disclose that the Company's loan loss reserves
for its finance portfolio in the telecommunications industry,
and its loan portfolio in general, were materially deficient in
light of material credit losses that had already been incurred.  
The complaint further alleges that the Company's assets and
shareholders' equity were overstated in the Prospectus by reason
of the foregoing.

On July 23, 2003, CIT announced that it took a $200 million
charge to strengthen the telecommunications loan reserves that
it represented were adequate only three weeks previously.  On
April 8, 2003, the price of CIT common stock closed at $17.40
per share, which is 24% lower than the IPO price of $23 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 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com    


CORE LABORATORIES: Marc Henzel Lodges 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 all purchasers of the common
stock of Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE: CLB) from May 6, 2002
through March 31, 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 May 6, 2002, and March
31, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Core
common stock.

Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC describing the Company's increasing
financial performance.  

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

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

     (2) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect
         on certain accounts receivable;

     (3) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of
         expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from
         certain field locations;

     (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 was materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On March 31, 2003, after the markets had closed trading for the
day, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it would
be restating its financial results for prior 2002 quarterly
operating results because of:

     (i) the issuance of duplicate invoices in the Company's
         Mexico operations;

    (ii) the need for higher provisions for doubtful accounts
         receivables;

   (iii) the need for timely booking of expenses and foreign
         exchange translation losses from certain field
         locations;

    (iv) changes in the estimated life of certain assets; and

      (v) consolidation costs of two Nigerian offices

Following this announcement, shares of Core common stock fell
$1.31 per share, or more than 12.5%, to close at $9.09 per
share, on volume of 515,300 shares traded, or almost four times
the average daily 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 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com   


COSI INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud 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 common stock
of Cosi, Inc. (NASDAQ: COSI) between November 22, 2002 to
February 4, 2003 inclusive and who were damaged thereby.  The
action, is pending against the Company and:

     (1) Andrew M. Stenzler (CEO and Chairman),

     (2) Jonathan M. Wainwright, Jr. (President) and

     (3) Kenneth S. Betuker (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 November 22,
2002 to February 4, 2003.

As alleged in the complaint, the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the Company's November 22, 2002 IPO contained
several sections which discussed the Company's plans for growth
and described how the proceeds raised from the IPO would enable
the Company to implement these plans.

The complaint further alleges Mr. Stenzler made similar
representations in an interview broadcast on CNN.  These
statements were materially false and misleading, according to
the complaint, because:

     (i) they failed to disclose that the funds raised by the
         IPO would be insufficient to implement the Company's
         expansion plan, contrary to defendants' Class Period
         representations; and

    (ii) at the time of the IPO, defendants should have known
         that the costs of expansion would be greater than the
         cash available to the Company (which included working
         capital and proceeds from the IPO), making it highly
         improbable that the Company would be able to
         successfully continue to open numerous new stores at
         such a rapid pace.

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 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com   


CREE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Cree, Inc. (NasdaqNM:CREE) securities
between August 19, 1998 and June 13, 2003, inclusive.

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

     (1) defendants artificially boosted Cree's operating income
         through an undisclosed agreement with defendant Fred
         Neal Hunter's brother, Jeff Hunter, the then chairman
         of C3 Corporation (C3), that required C3 to accept
         shipments of silicon carbide (SiC) crystals for the
         manufacture of moissanite gemstones far in excess of
         market demand;

     (2) defendants failed to disclose that Cree would invest $5
         million of its offering proceeds in World Theatre,
         Inc., a speculative start-up company in which C. Eric
         Hunter, a brother of the Company's Chairman and Chief
         Executive Officer, was a substantial shareholder; and

     (2) defendants falsely told the market that its UltraRF
         division, purchased from Spectrian Corporation
         (Spectrian), would be accretive to earnings and that,
         as part of the acquisition, Spectrian would enter into
         a 2-year supply agreement requiring it to buy
         semiconductor parts from Cree, when Spectrian was
         required to purchase, however, only if Cree sold
         product to it at the lowest available commercial price,
         a fact that Cree did not disclose.

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: CREE@bernlieb.com.



CREE INC.: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Cree Inc. (Nasdaq:
CREE) between January 14, 2000 and June 13, 2003 inclusive, in
the United States District Court in the Middle District of North
Carolina.

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 during the class period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Cree securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants artificially inflated
Cree's stock price by making false statements to the marketplace
during the class period.  Starting on January 14, 2000 Cree
filed a prospectus and registration statement in connection with
the offering of 2,860,000 shares of common stock.  

The "Use Of Proceeds" section of the prospectus failed to
disclose that Cree would invest $5 million of the offering
proceeds in World Theatre, Inc., a speculative start-up company
in which C. Eric Hunter, a brother of the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, was a substantial shareholder.  

In addition, in December 2000, Cree bought the UltraRF division
from Spectrian Corporation for approximately 908,000 shares of
Cree common stock and $30 million in cash.  Cree misrepresented
that UltraRF would be accretive to earnings and that, as part of
the acquisition, Spectrian would enter into a 2-year supply
agreement requiring it to buy semiconductor parts from Cree.

However, defendants failed to disclose that Spectrian was
required to purchase only if Cree sold product to it at the
lowest available commercial price.  On June 13, 2003, Cree
disclosed that Eric Hunter had sued it.  The lawsuit revealed
that Cree had falsified its books to allow certain executives to
receive higher compensation and had intentionally oversold
product to C3 Corporation to artificially inflate Cree's income
and stock price.  Cree's stock dropped nearly 19% on the news.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone:
(212) 889-3700 or 800-889-3701 or by E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.  


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Lodges Stock Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of one of its clients against Cryo-Cell International and
certain other individual defendants.  The action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Cryo-Cell securities
(NasdaqSC:CCCEC) during the period March 16, 1999 to May 20,
2003.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry of the Emerson Poynter
LLP Investor Relations Department by Phone: (800) 663-9817 by
Fax: (281) 488-8867 or by E-mail: shareholder@emersonfirm.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action in
the Chancery Court of Delaware in and for New Castle County on
behalf of holders of shares of Edison Schools, Inc.  The
complaint names as defendants the directors of Edison and
Liberty Partners.

The complaint alleges that Liberty, together with H. Christopher
Whittle, Edison's CEO and founder, is seeking to take the
Company private at the inadequate price of $1.76 cash per share.  
The complaint further alleges that the Company has entered into
a definitive agreement with Liberty and Whittle to effect the
proposed transaction.

For more details, contact David Leifer by Mail: Wechsler Harwood
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: (212) 935-7400 or (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail:
dleifer@whesq.com


SINGING MACHINE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of The
Singing Machine, Inc. (AMEX:SMD) between February 14, 2001 and
July 14, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division, against the Company and:

     (1) Salberg & Company, P.A (the Company's auditors),

     (2) Edward Steele,

     (3) John F. Klecha, and

     (4) April Green

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 February 14, 2001 and
July 14, 2003.  The complaint alleges that Singing Machine
emerged from bankruptcy in 1998, and issued a series of press
releases emphasizing "record" net income to foster the
impression that the Company had profitably emerged from
bankruptcy and had successfully completed its corporate
turnaround.  In response to the Company's barrage of press
release and public filings reporting strong financial results,
Singing Machine's stock price soared to over $26 per share in
March 2002.

On June 27, 2003, Singing Machine shocked the market by
announcing it would restate 2002 and possibly 2001 financial
results, and would not be able to timely file its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 in order
to properly account for income tax provisions for fiscal 2003,
and to report an inventory reserve for fiscal 2003.

As a result, defendants revealed that net income for fiscal 2003
will be significantly below prior expectations.  Singing Machine
announced that the restatement will have the effect of reducing
net income for fiscal 2002 and possibly fiscal 2001.  On June
27, 2003, in late afternoon trading alone Singing Machine stock
lost over 30% of its value on enormous trading volumes of over
460,000 shares traded -- in contrast to average trading volumes
of around 50,000 shares.

On July 14, 2003, defendants issued a press release revealing
additional information about the restatement, and revealed that
the Company's auditors had expressed "substantial doubt" about
Singing Machine's ability to continue as a going concern.  In
response, on July 15, 2003, Singing Machine declined over 22% in
morning trading alone.

As now revealed, at all times during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and
press releases concerning Singing Machine's financial results.  
The financial statements of the Company made during the class
Period, all of which implicitly and/or expressly were prepared
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), were materially false and misleading because the Company
materially overstated its net income in its publicly issued
financial statements.  As a result of the Company's
misrepresentations, Singing Machine investors have sustained
tremendous losses.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: singingmachinecase@milbergNY.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  * * *