CAR_Public/030718.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Friday, July 18, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 141

                        Headlines                            


AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 22,700 Fireworks For Injury Hazard
APOLLO GROUP: Trial Still To Be Set in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
ASARCO: Misses $1.8M Payment To Ruston, Washington Residents
ATARI INC.: High Court Refuses Writ of Certiorari For KY Lawsuit
ATARI INC.: Included as Defendant in Dismissed Columbine Lawsuit

BEAR STEARNS: Named As Defendant in Securities Suit in CO Court
CELLSTAR CORPORATION: Investors File Corporate Waste Suit in DE
CHATTEM INC.: Court Approves Settlement of Consumer Fraud Suit
CHATTEM INC.: Faces Suits Over PPA-Containing DEXATRIM Product
COCA-COLA CO.: Women Say Law Firm Misrepresented Their Interests

COREL CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
COREL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
INTERLAND INC.: Former MEI Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fails To Reach Settlement in Mediation

INTRAWARE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
INTRAWARE INC.: Dismissed From FL Stock Lawsuit V. Credit Suisse
INVESTMENT FIRMS: Move Closer To Pact With Regulators Over Enron
LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL: Settles Safety-Kleen Acquisition Lawsuit
LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL: Forges Settlement For Bondholder Lawsuits

LATINO REPATRIATION: Suit To Seek Apology For Removal To Mexico
LEHMAN BROTHERS: NY Court Approves Final Global Stock Settlement
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Named as Defendant in Fleming Securities Suit
MODELING AGENCIES: NY Ruling Allows Expansion of Antitrust Suit
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit

PHILIPPINES: Court Awards Frozen Marcos Swiss Deposits To State
PRINCESS CRUISES: CA Appeals Court Upholds Settlement Rejection
TORO COMPANY: Recalls TimeCutter Lawn Mowers For Injury Hazard

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Back Moves for Asbestos Provisions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Senate Nears Passage of Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Says Asbestos Claims Number Unchanged
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Reveals Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Reveals Asbestos Related Liabilities

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC Continues to Battle Asbestos Lawsuits

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE RHINO: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files MA Securities Suit

                        *********

AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 22,700 Fireworks For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Promotional Events, Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 22,700 "TNT" Reloadable Tube Fireworks.  The
firework device has a defective base and can break during
launch.  If reused, the launching device could then send
fireworks in unintended directions, possible causing injury.

There have been two reports of the base of these fireworks
devices breaking.  No injuries were reported.

The firework device consists of a black base with a multicolored
PVC material tube having approximate dimensions of 11 inches
high by 1.25 inches in diameter.  Each product is sold with six
shells with fuses.  The product is labeled "Model No. CP983,"
"Item No 460070," "TNT," and "#1 SELLING BRAND."

Firework display stands and tents and retail operations in those
states where the sale of consumer fireworks is legal. They were
sold from June 2003 through July 2003 for about $35.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 243-1189
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


APOLLO GROUP: Trial Still To Be Set in CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial has not been set in the class action pending against the
Apollo Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Solano.  

The plaintiffs, one current and two former enrollment advisors
with University of Phoenix, filed this class action on behalf of
themselves and current and former enrollment advisors employed
by the Company in the State of California and seek certification
as a class, monetary damages in unspecified amounts, and
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs allege that during their
employment, they and other enrollment advisors worked in excess
of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and contend that the
Company failed to pay overtime.  

Three status conferences have been held, but no trial date has
been set.  While the outcome of this legal proceeding is
currently not determinable, management does not expect the
results of this action will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.


ASARCO: Misses $1.8M Payment To Ruston, Washington Residents
------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco, a mining company located in Phoenix, has missed a recent
deadline to pay $1.8 million to residents of Ruston, Washington,
a Tacoma-area community affected by pollution from Asarco's now
defunct copper smelter, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  
It is the second payment Asarco has missed this year.   The
company has cited as the cause its cash-flow problems.

The residents were awarded the funds in the 1995 settlement of a
class action against Asarco.  Asarco's attorney in Seattle, John
Phillips, has said the residents eventually will be paid.  
However, the company's failure to make the June 30 payment and a
smaller one in January, worries activists who have seen other
large mining operations declare bankruptcy, thereby leaving
taxpayers with hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

"It is one thing to refuse to clean up your messes, but it is
another to refuse to pay people who have won a legal judgment
against you," said Whitney Painter of the Mineral Policy Center,
a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Phillips said that $1.4 million will be available from funds
set up under the 1995 settlement to compensate local property
owners and to ensure the medical monitoring the area residents
also were granted under the terms of the settlement.  The
company also plans to tap a $1.5 million insurance payment due
next year, said Mr. Phillips.

That $2.9 million will more than cover the $2.5 million in past-
due payments, Mr. Phillips added, and can be used to meet the
unmet obligations if the residents and the court agree.  The
class action was filed over contamination left behind by the
copper smelter in Rushton, which operated for about a century
under various owners before closing in 1985.  Asarco's cleanup
of the Rushton site has cost about $80 million so far, and is
expected to cost an additional $60 million.  The cleanup is
scheduled for completion in 2005.

Plaintiff Richard Hamm said he is more concerned about Asarco
completing the cleanup than about continuing to receive
payments.  Still, Mr. Hamm said, he would like to see more
money, because the money the residents have received was not
enough to do the remediation of their yards.

Originally known as the American Smelting and Refining Co.,
Asarco has cleanup liability at smelters, mines and other
facilities across the country.  When the company was acquired,
in 1999, by Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V., federal officials sued,
concerned that the sale would gut Asarco's assets and leave the
company unable to meet its cleanup obligations.  The lawsuit was
resolved when Grupo agreed to establish a $100 million
environmental cleanup trust fund.

However, critics say the deal also forgave $4.5 million in
cleanup liability, waived millions of dollars in pollution
penalties and capped Asarco's cleanup obligations at $10.5
million over three years.

"It appears to me that Asarco was let off the hook for the full
cost of cleanup," said US Senator Max Baucus, D-Mont., when the
deal was announced earlier this year.

It is hard at this juncture to say what Asarco's total
environmental liabilities are, the Associated Press Newswire's
report said.  In June, the company was sued by Washington's
state Department of Ecology for failing to start the cleanup of
a contaminated neighborhood in Everett, expected to cost $78
million.  Federal officials say Asarco has cleanup obligations
at more than 20 other sites around the country.

Byproducts of copper smelting include toxic arsenic, which can
cause several kinds of cancer; and lead, which can affect
children's brain development.


ATARI INC.: High Court Refuses Writ of Certiorari For KY Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition
for writ of certiorari in the lawsuit filed against Atari, Inc.
by the administrators for three children who were murdered on
December 1, 1997 by Michael Carneal at the Heath High School in
McCracken County, Kentucky.

The suit was brought against 25 defendants, including the
Company and other corporations in the videogame business,
companies that produced or distributed the movie The Basketball
Diaries, and companies that provide allegedly obscene internet
content.  

The complaint alleges, with respect to the Company and other
corporations in the videogame business, that Mr. Carneal was
influenced by the allegedly violent content of certain
videogames and that the videogame manufacturers are liable for
Mr. Carneal's conduct.  The complaint seeks $10.0 million in
compensatory damages and $100.0 million in punitive damages.

The Company and approximately 10 other corporations in the
videogame business have entered into a joint defense agreement
and have retained counsel.  The court later granted a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate
the dismissal of the action.  The court denied this motion.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action to the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs' and defendants' final
appellate briefs were submitted on November 30, 2000, and oral
argument was heard on November 28, 2001.  The Sixth Circuit
issued a complete affirmation of the action's dismissal.  The
plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari
in the United States Supreme Court, which the court denied in a
summary order.


ATARI INC.: Included as Defendant in Dismissed Columbine Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atari, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in the class
action filed by families of the victims of the Columbine High
School murders.  The Colorado State Court has dismissed the
suit.

The family of William David Sanders, a teacher murdered on April
2, 1999 in a shooting rampage committed by Eric Harris and
Dyland Klebold at the Columbine High School in Jefferson County,
Colorado, filed the suit against 25 defendants.  These include
the Company and other corporations in the videogame business,
companies that produced or distributed the movie, The Basketball
Diaries, and companies that provide allegedly obscene internet
content.

The complaint alleges, with respect to the Company and other
corporations in the videogame business, that Mr. Harris and Mr.
Klebold were influenced by the allegedly violent content of
certain videogames and that the videogame manufacturers are
liable for their conduct.  The complaint seeks a minimum $15,000
for each plaintiff and up to $15.0 million in compensatory
damages for certain plaintiffs and $5.0 billion in punitive
damages, injunctive relief in the form of a court established
"monitoring system" requiring video game companies to comply
with rules and standards set by the court for marketing violent
games to children.

On June 6, 2001 the Company waived service of a summons, and on
July 9, 2001 the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs
filed papers opposing the Company's motion to dismiss and on
September 14, 2001 the Company filed its reply brief.

On March 4, 2002 the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
later denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The
plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.  A stipulation of dismissal was filed on
December 9, 2002 and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
dismissed the appeal.


BEAR STEARNS: Named As Defendant in Securities Suit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. was named as a defendant in a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of clients of the
defendants who purchased securities in unspecified companies
between January 1, 1999 and December 21, 2001, as well as other
non-client purchasers of securities during this proposed class
period.  Named as defendants are:

     (1) Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (3) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston LLC,

     (5) UBS Warburg, LLC,

     (6) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (7) JP Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (8) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,  

     (9) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and

    (10) Lehman Brothers, Inc.  

Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that Bear Stearns
violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with recommending stocks without any
reasonable basis and in an attempt to acquire and maintain
investment banking business for the defendants.  Compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount are sought.

Bear Stearns denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted
against it in this litigation and believes that it has
substantial defenses to these claims.


CELLSTAR CORPORATION: Investors File Corporate Waste Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
CellStar Corporation faces a class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste in connection with
the CellStar Asia Transaction.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) James L. Johnson,

     (2) John L. Jackson,

     (3) Jere W. Thompson,

     (4) Dale V. Kesler and

     (5) Terry S. Parker

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste in
connection with the CellStar Asia Transaction, and seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief, rescissory and/or
compensatory damages and reimbursement of attorney's fees and
costs.  

The Company obtained an initial temporary stay of the
proceedings for a period of 60 days from May 1, 2003, and
subsequently obtained another temporary stay until the earlier
of September 30, 2003, or plaintiff's determination that the
transaction is likely to proceed, as a result of the Company's
announced delay of the proposed IPO due to the outbreak and
spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).   

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
claims.


CHATTEM INC.: Court Approves Settlement of Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California State Court approved the settlement proposed by
Chattem, Inc. to settle a consolidated class action filed over
its skin products containing zinc oxide, which in turn contains
lead.

The Company was initially named as a defendant in a lawsuit
brought by the Center for Environment Health (CEH) contending
that it violated the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1998 (Proposition 65) by selling to
California consumers, without a warning, topical skin care
products containing zinc oxide which in turn contains lead.

The lawsuit contended that the purported failure to comply with
Proposition 65 requirements also constituted a violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.  Violations of either
Proposition 65 or the California Business and Professions Code
render a defendant liable for civil penalties of up to $2.5 per
day per violation.

The Company was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on
December 29, 1999, entitled "JOHNSON et al. v. BRISTOL-MYERS
SQUIBB CO., et al."  This was a putative class action brought by
two named plaintiffs on behalf of the general public in
California, against the same entities that are defendants in the
CEH lawsuit.  The suit makes similar assertions as the CEH Suit,
but did not assert claims directly under Proposition 65.  
Instead, it asserted that the alleged failure to comply with
Proposition 65 gave rise to claims under California's Business
and Professions Code and the California Civil Code. The lawsuit
sought injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, the
disgorgement of allegedly wrongfully obtained revenues and
damages.

The plaintiffs in the two separate actions filed a consolidated
amended complaint that included a claim based upon the
allegation that zinc oxide allegedly also contains cadmium.  
During the third quarter of fiscal 2002 a settlement was
finalized among the parties for these two cases pending final
court approval.

Final court approval of the settlement was made on April 23,
2003.  In the settlement, the Company paid an amount that was
within the expected range that had been previously accrued by
the Company.  The settlement amount was not material to its
results of operations.


CHATTEM INC.: Faces Suits Over PPA-Containing DEXATRIM Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. has been named as a defendant in approximately 320
lawsuits involving claims by approximately 1,500 plaintiffs
alleging that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of
ingestion of products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA),
since July 1, 2003.  PPA is an active ingredient in most of the
Company's DEXATRIM products until November 2000.

The Company anticipates that additional lawsuits will be filed
with similar or other allegations related to its DEXATRIM
products containing PPA.  Because of the number of lawsuits
filed, the early stage of discovery in many of these cases, the
non-specific factual allegations against a broad group of
defendants in most cases, the unspecified amount of damages in
most of the cases, and the unresolved evidentiary hearings and
other legal matters presently pending before the various state
and federal courts, it is impractical to state with certainty at
this time the amount being sought in these cases.

The lawsuits that are federal cases have now been transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1407).  The remaining cases are state court
cases which have been filed in a number of different states.

As a result of a recent evidentiary hearing in the federal
cases, the Company expects that lawsuits involving claims for
injuries other than ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke will be
excluded from the federal PPA litigation.  Also, plaintiffs in
the federal cases were required under a recent court order to
identify by June 30, 2003 the specific PPA containing product
they have taken.  The Company anticipates that these two
developments could significantly reduce the number of lawsuits
and plaintiffs who are parties to those lawsuits pending against
it.

There are no cases involving an alleged ingestion of DEXATRIM
with PPA currently set for trial in 2003.  However, it is
anticipated that significant evidentiary and other hearings will
be held during the course of the year in the federal cases.  
Slightly more than half of the existing suits represent cases
involving alleged injuries by products manufactured and sold
prior to the Company's acquisition of DEXATRIM in December 1998.

Of the approximately 150 lawsuits, involving approximately 1,285
plaintiffs that the Company is defending, approximately 185
plaintiffs allege injury as a result of ingestion of DEXATRIM
containing PPA, approximately 770 plaintiffs allege injury as a
result of ingestion of a product other than DEXATRIM, and
approximately 330 plaintiffs have not identified a product.

The Company currently believes that there are approximately 88
identified plaintiffs who allege that they suffered a stroke
within three days of ingesting DEXATRIM products containing PPA
that were sold after our acquisition of DEXATRIM in December
1998.  Of these 88 plaintiffs the Company believes, based on
discovery conducted to date that a smaller number of plaintiffs
present claims that are significant.  As additional lawsuits are
filed and discovery in the existing lawsuits continues, the
Company expects to know more about the characteristics of the
cases.


COCA-COLA CO.: Women Say Law Firm Misrepresented Their Interests
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Willie Gary law firm, based in Stuart, Florida, is on the
receiving end of two more complaints relating to its alleged
misrepresentation of the women's interests in lawsuits against
Coca-Cola Co., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

Motisolah Abdallah and Dana Allen announced recently that they
have joined Marietta Goodman and Sharron Magnum in a complaint
involving Mr. Gary.  In June, Ms. Goodman and Ms. Magnum filed a
claim with the Florida State Bar alleging that Mr. Gary failed
to "exercise competence and due diligence in representing his
clients' interests against Coca-Cola Co.

These four women were among the 17 current and former Coke
employees who sought representation from Mr. Gary's firm instead
of taking a settlement from Coke in a racial discrimination
class action.  Ms. Abdallah also was among the eight original
plaintiffs in the class action, which was filed against Coke in
1999.

Like Ms. Goodman and Ms. Magnum, before them, Ms. Abdallah and
Ms. Allen claim that Mr. Gary did not disclose that the TV
network he founded, Atlanta-based Major Broadcasting Cable
Network, had an advertising deal with Coca-Cola.  The deal was
widely publicized when it happened.

The class action against Coke alleged that the company
discriminated against African-American employees.  A large
majority of workers in the class took settlements from Coke.


COREL CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval to the settlement
proposed by Corel Corporation for the class action filed against
it and Dr. Michael C.J. Cowpland on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Corel common shares between
December 7, 1999 and March 20,2000.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated various
provisions of US federal securities laws, including Section
10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about Corel's financial condition.  The complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

The Company and co-defendant Dr. Cowpland have filed their
answers to the amended Complaint, denying all liability to
Plaintiffs and asserting various affirmative defenses.  By order
dated February 1, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and on May 3, 2002, approved the expanded
class period as claimed in the amended consolidated suit.

The Company has responded to extensive interrogatories and
plaintiffs have conducted numerous depositions of both current
and former Corel employees and directors.  Following the
attendance of a mediation in April 2003, the parties signed in
June 2003 a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to resolve
all claims in the case.  In entering into the settlement, the
parties acknowledged that Corel continued to deny any
wrongdoing, that it had entered into the Settlement in view of
the uncertainties and expense of further litigation and that the
Settlement was not an admission of fault.  

On July 1, 2003, the court granted Preliminary Approval to the
proposed Settlement.  The class will be notified about the
Settlement and will be given the opportunity to opt out or
object to the Settlement.  This notification will indicate the
terms of the Settlement.  The court will then determine whether
to grant final judicial approval to the Settlement.  This
procedure is expected to last at least until the Fall of 2003.


COREL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against Corel
Corporation filed an amended suit in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Derek Burney,

     (2) James Baillie,

     (3) Lyle Blair,

     (4) David Galloway,

     (5) Hunter Grant,

     (6) James Hopkins,

     (7) Jean-Louis Malouin,

     (8) The Hon. Barbara McDougall, and

     (9) Germaine Gibara

The suit arises from the non-disclosure and standstill agreement
for the acquisition of Corel by Vector Capital, entered into by
Corel and Vector on March 24, 2003, and claims unspecified
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants breached their duties to take steps
to ensure that the shareholders receive maximum value for their
shares in a change of control transaction.

On June 5, 2003, Corel and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff's claim for breach of
fiduciary duty is a Canadian corporate law question which ought
not be heard in the courts of New York and that the court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the defendants.  

The plaintiff served Corel and the individual defendants with an
amended complaint on June 27, 2003, updating references to the
price of the acquisition as reflected in the acquisition
agreement signed between Corel and Vector on June 6, 2003.  The
allegations are otherwise identical to the complaint.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. faces six class actions filed
against it, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and two accounting firms who previously audited the
Company's financial statements.

The suits, filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, allege violations of
federal securities laws, including improper recognition of
revenue in the financial statements presented in certain public
reports of the Company.  The complaints generally seek among
other things, certification of a class of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between March 16, 1999 and May 20,
2003 and unspecified damages.

The Company has not yet responded to any of the complaints.  The
Company believes the complaints are without merit.  


INTERLAND INC.: Former MEI Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interland, Inc. faces an employee class action filed in the
United States District Court for Idaho.  In this case, five
individual plaintiffs claim that when they were employees of
Micron Electronics Inc. (MEI) between 1999 and April 2001, they
and other similarly situated employees did not receive overtime
pay to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Company disputes these claims and believes the plaintiffs
are not entitled to any material additional wages.  The court
conditionally certified a class of not more than eight hundred
former employees, and notices of the litigation are being sent
to these persons to give them the opportunity to "opt in" to the
litigation.  The parties are continuing to conduct discovery.

At this early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to
estimate its total expenses, possible loss or range of loss that
may ultimately be connected with the matter.  This potential
liability remains with Interland even though it sold the PC
Systems business.


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fails To Reach Settlement in Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation for the consolidated securities class action filed
against Intervoice-Brite, Inc. in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division failed to
lead to a settlement.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of the Company during the period from October 12, 1999
through June 6, 2000, alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company as well as
certain named current and former officers and directors of the
Company on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the class period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the
Company's merger with Brite and the alleged future business
projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these
alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock
prices.

The Company believes that it and its officers and directors
complied with their obligations under the securities laws, and
denies the allegations.  The Company responded to this complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated
proceeding.  The Company asserted that the complaint lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this
basis, the Company requested that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas dismiss the complaint
in its entirety.

Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal.  On
August 8, 2002, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In the order
dismissing the lawsuit, the court granted plaintiffs an
opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
23, 2002.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss.

At the direction of the court, the parties attended a mediation
with a neutral third-party mediator during June 2003.  The
mediation did not result in a settlement.  All discovery and
other proceedings not related to the dismissal have been stayed
pending resolution of the Company's request to dismiss the
amended complaint.


INTRAWARE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intraware, Inc. has reached a tentative settlement for a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
February 25, 1999 (the date of its initial public offering)
through December 6, 2000.  

The suit names as defendants the Company, three of its present
and former officers and directors, and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public
offering.  The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the registration statement for the offerings did not
disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of the
Company's stock.  No specific damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which Intraware and its three named current and former officers
and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.  On
October 9, 2002, the court entered and ordered a stipulation of
dismissal, which dismissed the three named current and former
officers and directors from the litigation without prejudice.

On February 19, 2002, the Court entered an order denying in part
the issuer defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss, including
those portions of the motion to dismiss relating to Intraware.  
No discovery has been served on us to date.  A special committee
of the Company's Board recently approved a tentative settlement
proposal from plaintiffs.  

There is no guarantee that the settlement will become final, as
it is subject to a number of conditions, including court
approval.  However, based on this proposed settlement, the
Company does not believe it will suffer material future losses
related to this lawsuit.


INTRAWARE INC.: Dismissed From FL Stock Lawsuit V. Credit Suisse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intraware, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer have been dismissed as defendants in the
amended securities class action filed in the United States
District Court in the Southern District of Florida.

The defendants were Credit Suisse Group, several of Credit
Suisse Group's current and former directors and officers, and
several public companies and certain of their current and former
directors and officers, including the Company and its chief
executive officer and former chief financial officer.

The suit alleged that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
under-price initial public offerings and then artificially
inflate prices of those stocks in the aftermarket, in violation
of Florida blue sky law, Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the common law of fraud and
negligence.  The suit sought unspecified damages, restitution,
and injunctive relief.

On June 19, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
dismissing the Company and its chief executive officer and
former chief financial officer from the suit without prejudice.  
Based on this dismissal, the Company does not believe it will
suffer material future losses related to this lawsuit and
therefore have not accrued for any losses.


INVESTMENT FIRMS: Move Closer To Pact With Regulators Over Enron
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two major banks tied to a number of questionable Enron
Corporation transactions may be close to settlements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York City
District Attorney's Office, the Houston Chronicle reports.

The Wall Street Journal, according to the Houston Chronicle's
report, said J.P. Morgan Chase may pay between $ 100 million and
$150 million in fines to the SEC and up to $25 million to the
office of Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.  The
Financial Times, the Chronicle reports, quoted a Citigroup
executive as saying Citigroup expects to reach settlements with
the SEC and the district attorney during this fiscal quarter.

The course of these settlement talks, particularly, whether
criminal prosecution results, are of pronounced interest to the
plaintiffs in the pending class actions brought by former Enron
shareholders and employees, who seek evidence of wrongdoing by
the banks to support their class action charges.  Chase and
Citigroup remain entrenched in these class actions after US
District Judge Melinda Harmon refused a request by the banks to
get out of the lawsuits.  The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals
refused to review a claim by Chase and other banks that Judge
Harmon abused her discretion.  The civil trial is scheduled for
October 2005, but at the present time the parties are engaged in
court-ordered mediation.

The Chase and Citigroup settlement talks are thought to relate
to transactions the banks helped Enron arrange, called prepays.  
In these deals, Enron received payment up front for the future
delivery of a commodity, such as electricity, oil or natural
gas.  A report by court-appointed bankruptcy Examiner Neal
Batson has described such transactions as little more than
disguised loans from the banks, because the bank employees had
verbal guarantees from Enron that they would not lose money; in
most cases, no commodity was delivered.

Citigroup has said, the Chronicle reports, that it relied on its
accountants and advisers to report the transactions properly.  
Chase officials have noted they were not responsible for how
Enron reported the transactions.

If settlements are reached, penalties paid, and prosecution
avoided, it is likely Chase and Citigroup will be told to change
certain business practices and to cooperate with ongoing
investigations, according to the Chronicle.


LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL: Settles Safety-Kleen Acquisition Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laidlaw International, Inc. settled the consolidated class
action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws that the Company's financial statements
had accounting irregularities based on the Company's
incorporation and/or consolidation of the financial results of
Safety-Kleen in the reported consolidated financial results of
the Company.  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Canada) have agreed to a settlement
with the plaintiff class.

The suit was previously pending against Safety-Kleen Corporation
and others.  Safety-Kleen, which is in a chapter 11
reorganization proceeding, was dismissed as a defendant.  In the
currently active complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, in violation of the federal securities laws, the
defendants disseminated to the investing public false and
misleading financial statements and press releases concerning
the financial statements and results of operations of LESI and
Safety-Kleen.

Plaintiffs further allege that the proxy statement, prospectus
and registration statement pursuant to which LESI and Old
Safety-Kleen were merged contained false and misleading
financial information.  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has agreed to
a settlement with the plaintiff class.

A consolidated amended class action complaint for violations of
federal securities laws was later filed against the Company and
other parties.  In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants caused to be disseminated a proxy statement that
contained misrepresentations and omissions of a materially false
and misleading nature.  

On June 7, 2001, the court dismissed the claims against the
Company and some of the defendants.  The plaintiffs then filed a
motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint that asserts a
common law claim for negligent misrepresentation against the
Company and other defendants.  The court granted the motion
after the Company's chapter 11 filing, then subsequently
vacated its order granting the motion with respect to the
Company.

Certain of the defendants in the above actions asserted claims
for indemnification against the Company.  As a result of the
Safety-Kleen settlement described above, claims of the seven
Safety-Kleen Directors will be withdrawn with prejudice.  


LAIDLAW INTERNATIONAL: Forges Settlement For Bondholder Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laidlaw International, Inc. forged a "Bondholder Settlement
Agreement" for the securities class actions pending against it,
and the other defendants, including some of the Company's
current or former officers and directors, the underwriter
defendants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Canada).  

The other defendants, including the Company, will also release
or have already released various claims against each other.  The
Bondholder Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy
Court and the Canadian Court on August 30, 2002 and September
11, 2002, respectively, and by the federal court in South
Carolina on December 17, 2002.

Subject to the Bondholder Settlement Agreement being fully
implemented on the current terms, the plaintiff bondholder
classes would be paid $42.875 million, and the estate of the
Company would receive $12.5 million.  The settlement provides
for two different effective dates.  The settlement between
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(Canada) and all other parties has already become effective, and
the estate of the Company has received $11.5 million of the
settlement proceeds.  The remaining $1.0 million was received
upon the Company's emergence from bankruptcy.  

The Bondholder Settlement Agreement encompasses the following
cases:

     (1) John Hancock Life Insurance Company, New York Life
         Insurance Company, Aid Association for Lutherans,
         American General Annuity Insurance Company and the
         Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company filed a
         securities fraud class action in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of New York
         against the Company, certain of the Company's current
         or former officers and directors, various underwriters
         in the Company's sale of certain notes (the
         "Prepetition Notes"), and its auditors,
         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers
         LLP (Canada).  Plaintiffs assert claims under the
         federal securities laws and the common law of South
         Carolina, alleging that the registration statement and
         prospectus for the Prepetition Notes contained
         misleading statements with respect to the Company's
         financial condition and the relative priority of the
         Prepetition Notes.  This action was transferred to the
         District of South Carolina;

     (2) Barbara Meltzer filed a securities fraud class action
         complaint in the United States District Court for the
         District of South Carolina against the Company and
         certain of its current or former officers and
         directors.  Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal
         securities laws that, during the class period,
         defendants disseminated to the investing public false
         and misleading financial statements and press releases
         concerning the relative priority of the Company's
         Prepetition Notes and the Company's publicly reported
         financial condition and future prospects.  This action
         and the Hancock action discussed above were
         consolidated by order of the South Carolina federal
         court dated June 20, 2001, and the caption of the case
         was changed to In re Laidlaw Bondholders Litigation.

     (3) The Bondholder Settlement Agreement also includes the
         settlement of a class action brought by certain Company
         bondholders against Citibank, N.A., the indenture
         trustee for the Prepetition Notes.

     (4) Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, New York Branch,
         filed a securities fraud class action complaint against
         the Company in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.  Other defendants in the
         proceeding include certain of the Company's current or
         former officers and directors, various underwriters in
         the Company's sale of the Prepetition Notes,
         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers
         LLP (Canada).  Plaintiff alleges that defendants
         disseminated to the investing public false and
         misleading financial statements and press releases
         concerning the Company's obligations with respect to
         prepetition indentures entered into in 1992 and 1997
         and the Company's prepetition credit facility.


LATINO REPATRIATION: Suit To Seek Apology For Removal To Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a campaign carried out by Los Angeles County and city
authorities, in cooperation with federal immigration officials,
hundreds of families of Mexican descent were loaded aboard
trains in the mid-1930s and moved to Mexico.  This scene was
repeated as part of a decade-long, nationwide effort to reduce
unemployment and public welfare rolls during the Depression by
forcing more than one million Mexicans and Mexican Americans to
leave the United States, according to some scholars who have
studied that campaign, the Los Angeles Times reports.

As part of a movement to win reparations and an apology for
victims of that largely forgotten campaign, a class action is
being prepared and will soon be filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court, seeking unspecified damages from the city and county of
Los Angeles, the state of California and possibly other
defendants, said attorney Raymond P. Boucher, of the Los Angeles
law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson.  The plaintiffs will
allege that their constitutional rights were violated by the
removal effort, said Mr. Boucher.

The scholars estimate that 60 percent of the people sent to
Mexico in the 1930s "repatriation" campaign were United States
citizens.

State Senator Joseph Dunn (D-Santa Ana) also is involved in the
effort to win reparations and an apology for victims of the
repatriation campaign.  Senator Dunn recently presided over a
Senate hearing that will examine the 1930s removal of Mexicans
and Mexican Americans.  Senator Dunn also is preparing
legislation that would extend the statute of limitations for
victims who wish to file claims for damages.  The legislation
also would commission a state study of the repatriation and
ask Congress to review the issue.

"It is important for us as a society to recognize the wrong that
was committed," Senator Dunn said.  "The best approach would be
for Congress to enact a reparations program similar to that
which was done for victims of the Japanese American internment."

Civil right advocates have said about the repatriation campaign
that the issue resonates far beyond the victims.  "We learn from
lessons of the past," said Dale Shimasaki, former director of
the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, a program created by
the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, to educate people about the
Japanese American internment.

The foundation for Senator Dunn's effort was laid by two
Southern California scholars:  Francisco Balderrama, a
California State L.A. professor of Chicano studies and history;
and Raymond Rodriguez, a retired history professor from Long
Beach City College.  They pooled their passion and years of
research to write the 1995 book "Decade of Betrayal."

Ironically, many of the Mexican nationals who were forced to
leave the United States in the 1930s, had been encouraged to
come here by industries in need of cheap, reliable labor,
particularly California's agricultural industry.  The onset of
the Depression, however, created support for a growing action
against Mexican and Mexican American laborers, which grew during
the 1930s as worsening unemployment and growing demands for
public aid produced a national clamor.

In Washington, Republican President Herbert Hoover initiated a
repatriation program in 1930.  However, federal support ended
when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933.  
State and local governments continued their efforts throughout
the decade.

Across the country, Mexicans, or people suspected of being
Mexican, were stopped on the streets and asked to show papers to
prove their right to be in the United States.  The campaign
spread to pool halls, parks and other gathering places.

Senator Dunn said the issue is still relevant because of the
ongoing debate over immigration, especially during times of
economic difficulty.  "The deportation program of the 1930s is
not a proud chapter in American history," Senator Dunn said.  
"Hopefully, by acknowledging this, we can minimize the
likelihood of unjustly treating future immigrants to this great
nation."


LEHMAN BROTHERS: NY Court Approves Final Global Stock Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the Southern District of New
York Hearing Panel granted approval to the final global
settlement forged by Lehman Brothers, Inc. (LBI) and other
investment firms with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the New York State Attorney General's Office,
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD) and the North American Securities
Administrators Association (on behalf of state and territory
securities regulators).  

The settlement was forged to resolve the firms' industry-wide
investigations relating to allegations of research analyst
conflicts of interest at various investment banking firms,
including the Company.  The settlement involves several of the
leading securities firms in the United States, including LBI,
and various federal and state regulators and self-regulatory
organizations.

Without admitting or denying any of the allegations of
violations of certain NASD and NYSE rules relating to investment
research activities, the Company entered into consents and
agreements with the SEC, the NYSE, the NASD and the Alabama
Securities Commission (which acted as LBI's lead state regulator
in connection with the Final Global Settlement) to resolve their
investigations of LBI relating to those matters.  Pursuant to
the Final Global Settlement, LBI agreed to:

     (1) pay $25 million as a penalty;

     (2) pay $25 million as disgorgement of commissions and
         other monies;

     (3) contribute a total of $25million over five years to
         provide third-party independent research to clients;

     (4) contribute a total of $5 million over five years
         towards investor education;

     (5) adopt internal structural and operational reforms that
         will further augment the steps it has already taken to
         promote research analyst independence; and

     (6) be enjoined from the alleged violations of NASD and
         NYSE rules.

In connection with the Final Global Settlement, LBI also
voluntarily agreed to adopt restrictions on the allocation of
shares in initial public offerings to executives and directors
of public companies.  LBI expects to reach similar arrangements
with most or all of the other states, the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  Any monetary penalties and
other payments required by these individual arrangements are
expected to be included within the aggregate amounts discussed
above.

In April 2003, to effectuate the Final Global Settlement, the
SEC filed a Complaint and Final Judgment in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Final
Judgment has not yet been entered by the court, and the court
has asked for certain additional information.  

Also in April, the NASD accepted the Letter of Acceptance,
Waiver and Consent entered into with LBI in connection with the
Final Global Settlement and in May 2003, the NYSE advised LBI
that the Hearing Panel's Decision, in which it accepted the
Final Global Settlement, had become final.  Payment will be made
in conformance with the payment provisions of the Final
Judgment, once the Final Judgment is entered.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Named as Defendant in Fleming Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers, Inc. was named as defendant in a lawsuit
captioned Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund v. Fleming
Companies,Inc., et al., filed in the 160th District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, asserting claims arising under Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The action was brought on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased in two simultaneous Fleming securities
offerings in June 2002.  The offerings raised approximately $378
million.  

The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration
statement for the offerings contained false and misleading
statements or omitted material facts concerning, among other
things, deductions Fleming took on vendor invoices, its
accounting for recognition of income, amortization of long term
assets and use of capitalized interest, and the performance of
Fleming's retail operations.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  In
addition to Fleming, the suit named ten individual defendants
(officers and/or directors of Fleming), Fleming's auditor, and
the underwriters of the offerings, including LBI.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  Subsequent to that removal, on
April 1, 2003, Fleming filed for protection under the federal
bankruptcy code.  Also in April 2003, plaintiffs filed a
virtually identical second lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.


MODELING AGENCIES: NY Ruling Allows Expansion of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Harold Baer Jr.'s decision granting class
certification to the lawsuit filed against the nation's top
modeling agencies will allow six little-known models from
California to expand the suit, which charges the agencies with
overcharging on commissions for finding them work.  Others who
want to allege the agencies are violating the antitrust laws can
now join the suit.

Judge Baer rejected the agencies' arguments that each model's
case must be treated individually by the court because each
model is unique, with different looks, talent, gender and age.  
A sampling, however, of contracts for the models shows that
about 95 percent of them are contracted to pay the industry
standard 20 percent commission rate, Judge Baer said.

"Given the plethora of differences between models, as laundry-
listed by the defendants, the fact that the overwhelming number
of models were charged the same rate belies any claim that the
rates vary as a function of services needed," Judge Baer said.

The models' lawsuit alleges that the modeling agencies conspired
to fix commission rates for finding the models work and charged
them unlawful expenses as well, forcing them to pay fees and
expenses that are disallowed by federal antitrust laws.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Manhattan, in US District Court,
says Wilhelmina, Ford, Elite and other New York City-based
agencies, conspired to maintain matching, nonnegotiable
commissions of 20 percent.  The conspiracy began in the 1970s,
when the agencies quietly raised the commissions above a ten
percent ceiling set by state law, the lawsuit says.


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSC Industrial Direct Co. asked the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its directors and
certain of its officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of the Company's
stockholders, sought unspecified damages based on allegations
arising from the Company's announcement that it would restate
its consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 1999
through 2001 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2002.

The suit alleges that during the periods affected by the
restatement, the Company, its directors and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
materially misleading the investing public by making false
statements in order to inflate the price of the Company's common
stock.

A lead plaintiff, International Association of Machinists
National Pension Fund, was named on November 6, 2002.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 3, 2003, and the
Company and the plaintiffs submitted briefs.  Oral arguments on
the motion have not yet been scheduled.  


PHILIPPINES: Court Awards Frozen Marcos Swiss Deposits To State
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court recently awarded the Philippine government the
frozen Swiss bank deposits of former president Ferdinand Marcos,
which, as of early last year, amounted to $658.2 million, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

"In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of
documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses failed to
justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said
assets," the Supreme Court said in a 100-page ruling.  "Hence,
the Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and
forfeited in favor of the State."

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by the anti-graft court
Sandiganbayan that the money was in the name of several
foundations and the government had not fully established that
they belonged to the Marcos family.

A Swiss court transferred around US$570 million in Marcos
deposits in 1999, to the Philippine National Bank, which holds
them in escrow pending a final resolution on ownership.  The
Swiss accounts represent the largest amount to be recovered from
the billions of dollars Mr. Marcos and his wife Imelda allegedly
acquired while in power.

The late President Marcos served as president from 1966, until
he was exiled in a popular revolt in February 1986.   The late
president and his family went into exile in Hawaii, where he
died three years later without admitting wrongdoing.

The Sandiganbayan earlier determined that the combined salaries
of Mr. Marcos and his wife Imelda -- who served as governor of
metropolitan Manila and as minister of human settlements -- were
equivalent to only about US$304,300 over the 20-year period.  
The Swiss bank deposits amounted to about US$356 million when
they were discovered shortly after the Marcos government was
toppled, and the amount has grown with interest.

The Swiss Supreme Court has ruled that the money can be released
to the Philippine government if Imelda Marcos was criminally
convicted in connection with the deposits and if victims of
human rights violations during Ferdinand Marcos's administration
are compensated.  The Marcos estate lost a class action for
human rights violations to 9,539 Filipinos, who were awarded
nearly US$2 billion in compensation by the US District Court in
Hawaii.  None of the claimants has received any money.


PRINCESS CRUISES: CA Appeals Court Upholds Settlement Rejection
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Appeals Court upheld a lower court's rejection of
a settlement proposed by Princess Cruises PLC to settle a class
action filed against it in the Los Angeles County Superior Court
alleging that it inappropriately assessed its passengers with
certain port charges in addition to their cruise fare.  

The plaintiffs have not claimed a specific damage amount but
settlement of this litigation had been agreed in principle with
the plaintiffs for coupons for future travel in amounts between
$5 and $24, with a total face value of approximately $13
million.  

However, on January 17, 2002, a Los Angeles, California Superior
Court Judge ruled that he would not consider the class-wide
settlement agreed by the parties on the grounds that he had
previously ruled that there was no appropriate class.  The
plaintiffs appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal upheld
the lower court's ruling.  The plaintiff's writ to the
California Supreme Court has been denied.  As a result of this
ruling, the case remains pending.


TORO COMPANY: Recalls TimeCutter Lawn Mowers For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toro Company is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 7,500
TimeCutter Z Riding Lawn Mowers.  The actuator arm could fail,
resulting in a loss of transmission control and risk of personal
injury.

One consumer reported loss of control resulting in a tip-over.  
The consumer received a black eye, along with cuts and bruises.

The recalled models are:

     (1) Model 74301, Serial Numbers 230000001-230003210, 14 HP
         38-inch cut zero-turn radius tractor;

     (2) Model 74325, Serial Numbers 230000001-230000500, 16 HP
         42-inch cut zero-turn radius tractor;

     (3) Model 74330, Serial Numbers 230000001-230003070, 16 HP
         42-inch cut zero-turn radius tractor;

     (4) Model 74350, Serial Numbers 230000001-230001145, 17 HP
         42-inch cut zero-turn radius tractor  

The model and serial number decal can be found on the frame
below the seat.  Authorized Toro dealers sold these tractors
nationwide from January 2003 to April 2003 for between $2700 and
$3300.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 525-0059, between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.toro.com.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Back Moves for Asbestos Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Groups in the power industry have formed an alliance with
community support groups to lobby for better health facilities
and support for victims of asbestos-related diseases.

The Gippsland Trades and Labor Council have written to the
Victorian Government saying there are insufficient medical and
associated facilities, despite the high prevalence of the
diseases among power industry workers.

Luke Vandermeulen from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union says the unions and the support groups have come
together in the hope of forcing some action from the Government.

"The Gippsland Asbestos and Related Diseases Support group is
going to be involved, the Latrobe Asbestos Disease Support group
is going to be involved, the medical profession will be involved
and I think also the legal profession will be involved in
pushing the Government towards a decent response to a major
issue in the Latrobe Valley, which is asbestos," he said.

"I think that's going to be the way of the future . that all the
groups get together and push as one, because it's a common issue
and we need to have a common push to a solution," he continued.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Senate Nears Passage of Asbestos Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The US Senate has edged forward in its moves to curb asbestos
litigation.  The bill, which aims to set up a national fund to
compensate people whose health has been ruined by asbestos, is
nearing completion.

On a 10-8 vote last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent to
the floor a business-backed plan to close the courts to all
asbestos claims.  Instead, these claims would be transferred to
a new federal trust fund.  During its 27-year life, the fund is
expected to have $108,000,000,000 to compensate victims of
asbestos-related diseases.

The money would come from about 8,500 companies that made or
sold asbestos products, directly or through subsidiaries, as
well as their insurers.  Most of the firms would pay no more
than $25,000,000 per year.  The Senate bill would cancel all
pending settlements after the passage of the bill.

Attorneys who represent people who have been sickened by
asbestos decries the bill saying it is a bailout for big
business.  "It's a scandal and a disgrace," said Steven Kazan,
an Oakland, California, lawyer who filed the first asbestos
suits in 1974.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Says Asbestos Claims Number Unchanged
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation declares in its latest quarterly filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that there have been
increasing litigation claims throughout the U.S. based on
exposure to asbestos.

There has been no accountable increase in these lawsuits against
the companies based on asbestos exposure charges against
companies that manufacture or distribute asbestos products or
that have these products on their premises.  Certain of PPL's
generation subsidiaries and certain of its energy services
subsidiaries, such as those that have supplied, may have
supplied or installed asbestos material in connection with the
repair or installation of process piping and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning systems, have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

PPL cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or whether
additional claims may be asserted against its subsidiaries in
the future.  PPL does not expect that the ultimate resolution of
the current lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Reveals Asbestos Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards reports in its latest filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it is included in about 375 cases
open as of March 30, 2003, and there are around 570 claimants.  
Todd Shipyards declares that the exact number of claimants is
not determinable as around 150 of the open cases include
multiple claimant filings against 30-100 defendants.  

The filings do not indicate which claimants allege liability
against the Company.  The previously stated 570 claimants is the
Company's best estimate taking known facts into consideration.  
Parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former Company facilities, have
named the Company as a defendant in civil actions.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners,
asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and
equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic
substances.

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, dividing them into two different categories based on
severity of illness.  Based on current fact patterns, certain
diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed
asbestosis are categorized by the Company as "malignant" claims.   
All other claims of a less medically serious nature are
categorized as "non-malignant."  The Company is currently
defending approximately 36 "malignant" claims and approximately
534 "non-malignant" claims.

About 365 claimants do not assert any specific amount of relief
sought.  A total of around 150 claims contain standard
boilerplate language asserting on behalf of each claimant a
claim for damages of $2,000,000 compensatory and $20,000,000
punitive against approximately 100 defendants.  Approximately 20
claims set forth the same boilerplate language asserting
$10,000,000-$20,000,000 in compensatory and $10,000,000-
$20,000,000 in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant
against approximately 30-100 defendants.  

Around 20 cases assert $1,000,000-$15,000,000 in compensatory
and $5,000,000-$10,000,000 in punitive damages on behalf of each
claimant against approximately 30-100 defendants.  

Approximately 10 claimants seek compensatory damages of less
than $100,000 per claim and approximately five claimants seek
compensatory damages between $1,000,000 and $15,000,000.  The
claims involved in the foregoing cases do not specify against
which defendants which claims are made or alleged dates of
exposure.

Based upon settled or concluded claims to date, the Company has
not identified any correlation between the amount of the relief
sought in the complaint and the final value of the claim.  The
Company and its insurers are vigorously defending these actions.

During fiscal year 2003, the Company experienced no material
changes in its bodily injury liabilities and insurance
receivables.  At both March 30, 2003 and March 31, 2002,
respectively, the Company had recorded bodily injury liability
reserves of $9,400,000 and bodily injury insurance receivables
of $7,100,000.  These bodily injury liabilities and receivables
are classified within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets
as environmental and other reserves, and insurance receivables,
respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Reveals Asbestos Related Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International reports that around 12,000 asbestos liability
cases are currently pending against it.  

Like many other companies, Tyco and some of its subsidiaries are
named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  Consistent with the
national trend of increased asbestos-related litigation, Tyco
has observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits in the
past several years.  The majority of these cases have been filed
against subsidiaries in its Healthcare segment and its
Engineered Products and Services segment.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.  Some of the cases involve product
liability claims, based principally on allegations of past
distribution of heat-resistant industrial products incorporating
asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that
incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets or packing.  Each case
typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate
defendants.

Tyco's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because
its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.  Furthermore,
in its experience, Tyco declares that a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by
the courts.  The company's vigorous defense of these lawsuits
has resulted in judgments in its favor in all cases tried to
verdict.  Tyco prides for not having suffered an adverse verdict
in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims.

Tyco believes that together with its subsidiaries, it has
substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage,
subject to applicable deductibles, with respect to asbestos
claims.  These indemnitors and the relevant carriers typically
have been honoring their duty to defend and indemnify.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC Continues to Battle Asbestos Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Company reports that as of April 30, 2003, it
has received notice that it has been named as a defendant in 485
active cases involving around 18,463 asbestos bodily injury
claimants, of which about 450 cases involving some 18,400
claimants were filed before January 1, 2003, according to its
first quarter filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

UIC and its Detroit Stoker subsidiary have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation.
Neither UIC nor Detroit Stoker fabricated, milled, mined,
manufactured or marketed asbestos.  The Company stopped the use
of asbestos-containing materials in connection with its products
in 1981.

The litigation is pending in Michigan, Mississippi, New York,
North Dakota and Wisconsin.  During 2002 UIC and Detroit Stoker
experienced a significant increase in the volume of asbestos
bodily-injury claims.

Most of these lawsuits do not include specific dollar claims for
damages, and many include a number of plaintiffs and multiple
defendants.  Based on historical data and the large increase in
claimants over and above the projected incidence of disease
relative to the Company's products, management believes the
claimants in the vast majority of these cases will not be able
to demonstrate that they have been exposed to the Company's
asbestos-containing products or suffered any compensable loss as
a result of such exposure.  The direct asbestos-related expenses
of the Company for defense and indemnity for the past five years
was not material.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BLUE RHINO: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC 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.

Scott + Scott, LLC filed this complaint against the defendants
for violations of federal securities laws and did so at the
request and as authorized by a shareholder.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415 by
Phone: 800/404-7770 by Fax: 860/537-4432 by E-mail:
drscott@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.scott-scott.com


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of PolyMedica Corporation (NasdaqNM:PLMD) between,
July 23, 2001 and June 30, 2003 inclusive.  The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, PolyMedica understated its operating expenses and
overstated its assets, thus creating a false impression of
efficiency with the overall effect being that PolyMedica misled
investors concerning its growth and earnings.

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