CAR_Public/030722.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Tuesday, July 22, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 143

                        Headlines                            

ALCOHOL FIRMS: Alcoholics To File Suit Over Drinking Problems
AOL TIME: Calpers, Calstrs Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
AOL TIME: OH Attorney General Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BRIGHTPOINT INC.: IN Courts Approves Securities Suit Settlement
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents' Suit Set Feb. 2004

COSMETICS ANTITRUST: Reaches Settlement, Offering Free Products
DUCK DELIVERY: Recalls Cut Melons Due To Listeria Contamination
FEDEX CORPORATION: Oral Arguments in Consumer Suit Set July 2003
FERDINAND MARCOS: Human Rights Victims To Share in $680M Award
NEW JERSEY: Files Lawsuit v. Firms Causing Pension Fund Losses

PHILIP MORRIS: Asks IL Court To Prevent Enforcement of $10B Bond
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PIPER JAFFRAY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Antitrust Lawsuit
SERENADE FOODS: Recalls Duck Products Due To Undeclared Allergen
SINGING MACHINE: Investors Lodge Securities Lawsuits in S.D. FL

STAMPEDE MEAT: Recalls Frozen Beef Due to E. Coli Contamination
TRAFFIX INC.: Dismissed As Defendant in Spam Lawsuit in IL Court
TRAFFIX INC.: Seeking Dismissal for Suits Over Spam Mails in UT
UNITED STATES: Lawyers Urged To Fight For Consumers in CA Meet
WADE COOK: Agrees With Atty. Gen. To Keep Private Consumer Info

WAL-MART STORES: FL Court To Decide on Bias Suit Certification

                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TX
CROMPTON COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeger Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.D. GA

MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SINGING MACHINE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
SINGING MACHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in FL
SINGING MACHINE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL


                        *********


ALCOHOL FIRMS: Alcoholics To File Suit Over Drinking Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve alcoholics from Glasgow, Scotland are attempting to file
a class action against the drinks industry for failing to warn
them of the dangers of alcoholism, the Daily Record reports.

The group, the first in the United Kingdom to file a lawsuit
against the multi-billion pound drinks industry, asserts the
lives of its members were destroyed by drinking.  The group will
assert that drinking caused health problems, loss of jobs,
relationship breakdown and adversely affected their quality of
life - which the companies should have warned them about.

Experts from Glasgow solicitors Ross Harper believe they can use
the arguments employed in successful prosecutions against huge
American tobacco companies in 2000 to win their case, the Daily
Record reports.  Lawyer Jim Price said he will apply for Legal
Aid and then take the test case before the Court of Session in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

He told the Daily Record, "Any litigation would have to be based
on whether or not the product causes harm and whether or not the
producer has a duty of care to customers . The purported
illnesses our clients suffer follow the same pattern as the
smoking arguments did."

In America, legislation forcing the drinks industry to carry
health warnings was introduced 10 years ago and similar moves
are being proposed in Ireland.  The move comes after Americans
have filed lawsuits against tobacco seeking compensation for
injuries due to smoking.   


AOL TIME: Calpers, Calstrs Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces lawsuits filed by two of the
nation's largest pension funds in the Superior Court of
California in Sacramento County, over alleged accounting
irregularities at AOL, before and after its 2001 merger with
Time Warner, Reuters reports.

Calpers, the California Public Employees' Retirement System
filed a $250 million suit and Calstrs, the California State
Teachers' Retirement System filed a suit seeking about $200
million, charging the Company with overstating its revenues and
inflating its stock price.  The suits were filed following at
least 30 securities suits filed against the company.

In January 2001, AOL and Time Warner agreed to merge in a $106.2
billion deal.  Last year, however, the Company said it would
restate results and reduce revenue by $190 million, as its
accounting practices were intensely scrutinized.

The Calpers suit alleges that the Company's AOL Internet
division inflated its advertising income by at least $1.7
billion by using fraudulent transactions and accounting
practices before and after the merger.  The suit names as
defendants AOL Time Warner, America Online Inc. and current and
former executives including Stephen Case, Gerald Levin, Robert
Pittman and David Colburn.  The suit also names Salomon Smith
Barney Inc., Morgan Stanley and Co. and Ernest and Young LLP as
agents involved in the merger.

Details of the Calstrs lawsuits were not immediately available,
Reuters reports.  A representative for AOL Time Warner could not
be immediately reached for comment.

AOL Time Warner shares closed at $16.74 per share, up 34 cents
on Friday.  The stock has lost more than 70 percent from a peak
of $56.15 in May of 2001 but has gained about 28 percent so far
this year amid a broad rally in the US equity market, Reuters
states.


AOL TIME: OH Attorney General Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit against AOL Time
Warner, charging it and its predecessor companies - America
Online and Time Warner - with issuing misleading financial
statements to help complete the merger, thus causing the state
public employee pension funds to lose more than $100 million in
investments, the Associated Press reports.  Ohio's public
pensions owned Time Warner stock before the merger and held
about $5 million shares in the combined company.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Justice
Department are looking at the company's financial and accounting
practices.  Atty. General Petro told AP that while a class
action has been filed on behalf of those who owned stock in AOL,
Time Warner and the combined company, the state stands a better
chance of recovering losses by joining a suit brought by larger
institutional investors.


BRIGHTPOINT INC.: IN Courts Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brightpoint, Inc. (NASDAQ:CELL) announced that the courts have
approved the settlements referred to in the Company's press
release dated April 30, 2003, and have dismissed all pending
shareholder related litigation against the Company and others,
including its current and former officers and directors.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana has approved the settlement and dismissal of the class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, consolidated under the caption In
re Brightpoint Securities Litigation.  On July 2, 2003, the
Marion Circuit Court, Indianapolis, Indiana approved the
settlement and dismissal of the shareholder derivative action
entitled Nora Lee v. Robert J. Laikin, et al., filed in the
Marion Circuit Court, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Brightpoint is one of the world's largest distributors of mobile
phones.  Brightpoint supports the global wireless
telecommunications and data industry, providing quickly
deployed, flexible and cost effective third party solutions.

For more details, contact Steven E. Fivel by Phone:
(317) 707-2355


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Travel Agents' Suit Set Feb. 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the travel agents' class action against Continental
Airlines and other air carriers is set for February 2,2004 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.

A travel agent filed this class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated US travel agents, challenging the
reduction and ultimate elimination of travel agent base
commissions by certain air carriers, including the Company and
other domestic and international air carriers.

The amended complaint alleges an unlawful agreement among the
airline defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate commissions in
violation of federal antitrust laws during the years 1997 to
2002.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages,
injunctive relief and their attorneys' fees.  The class was
certified on September 18, 2002.  Discovery has been completed.  
Summary judgment and other motions are pending.  

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.  
A final adverse court decision awarding substantial money
damages, however, would have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations, it disclosed in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


COSMETICS ANTITRUST: Reaches Settlement, Offering Free Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several big cosmetics companies have followed Estee Lauder's
example and agreed to settle a cosmetics price-fixing lawsuit by
giving away $175 million worth of products, the Associated Press
reports.  

The suit, filed on behalf of people who bought cosmetics from
several retail stores between May 29,1884 and June 1,2003,
alleged that the retail price of the "prestige" cosmetics sold
in department and specialty stores was collusively controlled by
the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the
Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.  

The Companies will implement the settlement in about a year, and
would involve products specially manufactured for the occasion,
according to lawyers involved in the case.  "Virtually every
woman who buys cosmetics knows that department store cosmetics
are never discounted, never go on sale and are priced
identically in any department store in any city through the
country," Terry Gross, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers told the
Associated Press.  "This kind of conduct does not happen in a
competitive environment without collusion."

Sally Susman, a spokeswoman for Estee Lauder, said the companies
deny the allegations.  "We strongly disagree with the claims and
have moved to settle to get on with our business and not get
tangled in a protracted lawsuit," Ms. Susman told AP.

Other defendants in the suit are:

     (1) L'Oreal,

     (2) Clarins Boucheron,

     (3) Chanel,

     (4) Christian Dior,

     (5) Conopco,

     (6) Guerlain,

     (7) Bloomingdale's,

     (8) Dillard's,

     (9) Federated Department Stores,

    (10) Gottschalk's,

    (11) May Department Stores,

    (12) Neiman Marcus,

    (13) Nordstrom,

    (14) Saks and

    (15) Target


DUCK DELIVERY: Recalls Cut Melons Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duck Delivery Produce, Inc. of Portland, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling cut honeydew and cut cantaloupe melons because they
have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The cut honeydew and cut cantaloupe melons are sold as single
fruit items or in various combinations with other fruits and
packaged in plastic trays, plastic cups or plastic bags and sold
in retail stores in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.  Products
contain a "sell by" date on or before 07-21-03.  Some of the
fruit has the brand "Mary's Select" and other product does not
have a brand name.  All products are labeled "distributed by
Duck Delivery Produce."  No illnesses have been reported to
date.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture conducted routine
sampling of the product held for retail sale.  Analysis found
samples to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

For more details, contact John Rich at Duck Delivery Produce
from 8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday by Phone:
1-800-452-2481.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Oral Arguments in Consumer Suit Set July 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for the appeal of the United States District
Court in San Diego, California's ruling against Fedex Express is
set for July 2003.  

A class action lawsuit is pending against the Company generally
alleging that customers who had late deliveries during the 1997
Teamsters strike at United Parcel Service were entitled to a
full refund of shipping charges pursuant to our money-back
guarantee, regardless of whether they gave timely notice of
their claim.

At the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,
the court ruled against the Company.  Including accrued interest
through May 31, 2003 and fees for the plaintiffs' attorney, the
judgment totals approximately $70 million.

The Company has denied any liability with respect to this claim.  
The Company has appealed the judgment to the US Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit and expects a ruling in the next nine
months.


FERDINAND MARCOS: Human Rights Victims To Share in $680M Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said that victims
of human rights abuses during the Ferdinand Marcos regime should
take part in the hundreds of millions in his assets that a
Philippine court awarded to the government, the Agence France
Presse reports.

"I support the allocation of part of the funds for the
compensation of human rights victims," Pres. Arroyo said. " We
must lend recognition to the Filipino people's struggle for
freedom, justice and redemption - and the individuals who
sacrificed life and limb."

The Philippine Supreme Court earlier ruled that the government
should be awarded the Swiss bank funds worth an estimated US$680
million - a ruling that was regarded as a victory against the
Marcos family.  The funds were frozen after Mr. Marcos was
overthrown in a popular revolt in 1986, and were transferred to
an escrow account in Manila in 1998.  The funds are believed to
be part of a huge fortune amassed by the dictator during his 20-
year regime.

In 1995, the United States District Court in Hawaii awarded US$2
billion to 10,000 human rights victims who filed a class action
against the Marcos Estate.  The group later agreed to settle
with the government of former president Joseph Estrada to split
the Swiss bank funds if the High Court rules favorable, AFP
reports.  Mr. Estrada was later overthrown in another popular
uprising in 2001, and is now facing massive corruption charges.

President Arroyo did not elaborate, however, how the money would
be made available to the victims and which government agency
would be authorized to disburse it.  Under the law, any
recovered ill-gotten wealth by the Marcos family would go to the
government's agrarian reform program.


NEW JERSEY: Files Lawsuit v. Firms Causing Pension Fund Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey's Acting Attorney General Peter C. Harvey told the
Associated Press recently that the state is the lead plaintiff
in at least four of the eight cases being brought as class
actions claiming that the corporation sued cost the state
pension fund millions of dollars in losses.  Settlement
negotiations with at least one of the corporations are nearly
underway, Mr. Harvey said.

The legal distinction of being lead plaintiff gives New Jersey
lawyers power to determine everything from what motions will be
filed to how much should settle the lawsuits.  Most of the
lawsuits likely will be settled, Mr. Harvey said.

"I do not think anybody has the expectation that any of these
cases will be tried, given the enormous amount of money at
stake," said Mr. Harvey.

New Jersey is one of many states suing corporations, claiming
that fraud, mismanagement or other wrongdoing caused stocks to
lose value, forging large losses to pension funds and other
public investments.  Most of the corporate defendants have
declined to comment publicly.  In their court papers, some have
said New Jersey's accusations do not meet federal standards for
filing claims and should be dismissed.

New Jersey filed its first four cases late last year after the
state pension funds lost $22 billion in the stock market
downturn of the past two years.  Payments to retirees have not
been threatened by the investment drain, but the losses mean
taxpayers might have to pay $1 billion into the fund to meet
reserve requirements, thus adding to the state's fiscal
difficulties.

Across the nation, class actions by investors rose dramatically
last year.  The 224 class actions filed in state and federal
courts was 31 percent higher than the 172 for 2001.

Settlements are also on the rise, the Stanford review found,
with $2.3 billion being paid to end 98 lawsuits nationwide last
year.  Since 1995, settlements have averaged $12 million; most
were $6 million.

One of the reasons for the rising of settlement amounts is the
quality of the lawsuits themselves, a byproduct of a 1995
federal law that increased standards for filing, said John
Beckerman, an associate dean at the Rutgers-Camden School of
Law.

Another change is that more of the larger institutional
investors, like New Jersey and California, which leads the Enron
lawsuits, are driving cases, rather than the law firms doing the
work, said Professor Beckerman an associate dean at the Rutgers-
Camden School of Law.  Public agencies save money by having
specialized law firms do the work.  New Jersey will use at least
12 specialized law firms in their suits.  A retired Superior
Court judge, with extensive experience in civil litigation and
complex settlements, oversees the litigation and reports to
Acting Attorney General Harvey.

Professor Beckermann said law firms usually collected between
eight and 15 percent of the settlement; whereas, before the
change in federal regulations, firms usually were paid 30
percent.  The state also is being very cautious as to what
lawsuits it actually does file.

"You have to pick your targets wisely because you have to
protect your resources and prevent your losses," said Mr.
Harvey.  Where the state does proceed, the circumstances are
usually clear, Mr. Harvey added.  "In some cases, it is
essentially fraud."


PHILIP MORRIS: Asks IL Court To Prevent Enforcement of $10B Bond
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA asked the Illinois Supreme Court to prevent
the Price class action plaintiffs from attempting to enforce a
$10.1 billion judgment until it decides whether the reduced bond
established by the trial court was proper.

Earlier this week the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals,
at the request of the Price plaintiffs, ruled that Madison
County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron exceeded his authority
by setting a bond lower than the amount of the judgment, plus
interest and costs.

The court returned the case to the Madison County trial judge
for the sole purpose of reconsidering the amount, terms,
conditions and security of the bond.  A 30-day stay is in place
while the trial court conducts those proceedings.

"Philip Morris USA believes the appellate court's interpretation
is in conflict with the letter and the spirit of the Illinois
Supreme Court's rules and decisions regarding a lower court's
discretion in establishing the amount of a bond and staying
collection of a judgment," a company statement stated.  

"Since the Supreme Court is the body that makes these rules, it
is entirely appropriate at this point for the Supreme Court to
interpret its rules," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris
USA vice president and associate general counsel.  "The company
is simply asking the Supreme Court to halt any action by Judge
Byron to change the terms of the bond he set and reaffirm the
trial judge's discretion that the reduced bond is adequate to
protect the financial interests of both the Price plaintiffs and
Philip Morris USA."

"While that appellate review is under way, the company also is
asking the Supreme Court to issue a stay that would prevent
Price plaintiffs from attempting to seize any of the company's
assets to satisfy the $10.1 billion judgment Judge Byron handed
down," he said.

Judge Byron initially ordered the company to post a $12 billion
bond in order to stay enforcement of his $10.1 billion verdict,
but after lengthy hearings decided to require the company to
place a $6 billion note owed PM USA, the $420 million annual
interest the note generates and an additional $800 million in
cash payable in quarterly installments in an escrow account
controlled by the court clerk.

Attorneys for the class appealed the bond order because they
contended it was insufficient to protect the financial interests
of the class during the course of the appeal and that, by rule,
Judge Byron had no discretion to reduce the bond below the
amount of the judgment, plus interests and costs.

Plaintiffs asked the intermediate appellate court to fix a
$14.645 billion cash or surety bond.  If the bond is secured by
other forms of security, plaintiffs asked for a bond in excess
of $30 billion.

Mr. Ohlemeyer said Supreme Court review is necessary at this
point because "this is a matter of critical importance, not only
for Philip Morris USA but for any defendant facing a lawsuit in
Illinois . The appellate court's decision seriously jeopardizes
Philip Morris USA's due process rights to pursue its appeal
under both the Illinois and United States constitutions; that
reason alone is sufficient for the Illinois Supreme Court to
intervene now."

At issue is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305(b) that states, in
part, "on notice and motion, and an opportunity for opposing
parties to be heard, the (trial) court may stay the enforcement
of any judgment . conditioned upon such terms that are just . It
makes little sense that the Illinois Supreme Court would on the
one hand require a bond for the entire amount of a judgment plus
interest and costs be posted in order to stay execution of a
judgment, and on the other hand adopt a rule that gives the
trial court flexibility to reduce that amount to one that is
'just'," he continued.

"No one, not even the Price plaintiffs, can argue the bond Judge
Byron ultimately set is not 'just'.  While it is onerous to
Philip Morris USA, it is more than adequate to protect the
plaintiffs' financial interests during the course of an appeal,"
Mr. Ohlemeyer said.

"Philip Morris USA made it abundantly clear to the trial court
that it could not post a $12 billion bond; the court reviewed
the facts, agreed and accordingly exercised its discretion by
reducing the bond required to an amount that could be met by the
company while still providing financial security to the
plaintiffs during the appellate process," he added.

During hearings before Judge Byron, even Price plaintiffs'
attorney Steven Tillery conceded that the trial court "had
absolute discretion" and "a wide degree of latitude" to change
the terms of the bond required, a position in direct opposition
to the one he took before the state appellate court.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the coordinated class actions filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York involving the
allocation of securities in certain initial public offerings.

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based, in part, upon allegations that:

    (1) between 1998 and 2000 the underwriters of certain
        initial public offerings of technology and Internet-
        related companies obtained excessive compensation by
        allocating shares in these initial public offerings to
        preferred customers who, in return, purportedly agreed
        to pay additional compensation to the underwriters who
        failed to disclose the additional compensation; and

    (2) that the underwriters' customers who received favorable
        allocations of shares in initial public offerings agreed
        to purchase additional shares of the same issuer in the
        secondary market at pre-determined prices.

These complaints seek unspecified damages.  The defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaints filed on July 1, 2002 and oral
argument on the motions to dismiss was heard on November 14,
2002.  The court entered its order largely denying the motions
to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  Discovery has commenced
pursuant to an agreement between the parties and it is
anticipated that a formal scheduling order will be entered by
the Court in the future.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies, along with other leading securities
firms asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action filed against them on behalf of purchasers of shares
issued in certain initial public offerings for US companies.

The suit alleges that defendants conspired in offerings between
$20 and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7
percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The court dismissed this consolidated action with
prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and include an issuer plaintiff.  The court stated that its
decision did not affect any class actions filed on behalf of
issuer plaintiffs.  

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court.  A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is impliedly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a
motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in
further support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  A
ruling on the motion to dismiss is currently pending.  Limited
discovery has been approved during the pendency of the motion to
dismiss and is proceeding at this time.

A consolidated securities class action has also been filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting substantially
similar antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7 percent
underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Act.  

The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint on September 30, 2002.  Defendants filed a motion to
certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October 15, 2002.  
On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity was also filed in connection with this action.  As
described above, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion
to dismiss on April 25, 2003 and limited discovery is proceeding
at this time.


SERENADE FOODS: Recalls Duck Products Due To Undeclared Allergen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Serenade Foods, a Milford, Ind., establishment doing business as
Maple Leaf Farms, Inc., is voluntarily recalling approximately
200 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat duck products because of an
undeclared allergen (sesame seeds), the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced in a
statement.

Serenade Foods is recalling its Roast Half Duckling with
Szechwan Sauce because it is incorrectly labeled as Oriental
Seasoned Roast Half Duck.  The products being recalled are
labeled as 9-lb. cases and individual sample pieces of "Maple
Leaf Farms ORIENTAL SEASONED ROAST HALF DUCK" bearing the code
"003515812" or "003515812PCS."  The 9-lb. cases also bear the
lot code "2340" and the establishment code "P-2375" inside the
USDA seal of inspection.

The products were produced on December 6, 2002, and distributed
to hotels, restaurants and institutions in Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Texas and
Virginia.   The problem was discovered by Maple Leaf Farms,
Inc., which contacted FSIS to initiate the recall.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (574) 658-4121.


SINGING MACHINE: Investors Lodge Securities Lawsuits in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Singing Machine Company, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors face six securities class actions in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
during the various class action periods specified in the
complaints.

The complaints that have been filed allege violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10(b)-5.  The complaints seek compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  While the specific
factual allegations vary slightly in each case, the complaints
generally allege that defendants falsely represented the
Company's financial results during the relevant
class periods.


STAMPEDE MEAT: Recalls Frozen Beef Due to E. Coli Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stampede Meat, Inc., a Chicago, Illinois, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 739,000 pounds of frozen
beef products, mostly vacuum packaged steaks, that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced in a
statement.

The products subject to recall were produced between March 17
and March 22, 2003, and bear the establishment code "EST. 19113"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were
distributed to restaurants, institutions and retail stores
nationwide.  The products were also distributed to consumers
through door-to-door sales.  Additionally, the products were
distributed to institutions in Canada.

The recall was initiated after epidemiological case studies
conducted by public health officials concluded the recalled
product may be linked to five E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in
Minnesota, Kansas and Michigan.

Public health officials from FSIS, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and several state health departments are
continuing to investigate the extent of the outbreak and
determine if additional products are linked to illnesses
reported.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.  Generally, steaks are not considered a
high-risk source of E. coli O157: H7.  However, the products
subject to recall were injected with tenderizers and flavor-
enhancing solutions, and that process may have transferred the
bacteria from the surface to the inside of the product.

Consumers should return the recalled products to the point of
purchase and cook similar (tenderized) products to an internal
temperature of 160 degrees as measured with a food thermometer.

For more details, contact Bill Asleson, company executive
manager by Phone: (800) 353-0933.


TRAFFIX INC.: Dismissed As Defendant in Spam Lawsuit in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted Traffix,
Inc.'s motion asking for its dismissal as a defendant in a class
action entitled "Rydel v. Comtrad Industries, Inc., et al."  The
suit was initially filed against Columbia House, one of the
Company's clients.

Plaintiff claims to have received unsolicited commercial e-mail
from, among others, Columbia House, in violation of Illinois
law.  Columbia House advised the Company that it believes that
they did not approve the email in question when it was sent, and
asserted a claim for indemnification against the Company
pursuant to our contract.  The company and Columbia House agreed
to defer resolution of the indemnification claim (and reserved
each of their respective rights).  Columbia House is defending
against the class action.  Its motion to dismiss the complaint
has been dismissed.

On January 2003, the Company was named as a defendant in the
suit.  In an additional count in the complaint, the plaintiff
asserts that the Company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act by providing to a co-
defendant a list of consumers who had consented to receive
commercial e-mails when, the complaint alleges, they had not.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  
The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in
June 2003, and the plaintiff has filed an appeal.


TRAFFIX INC.: Seeking Dismissal for Suits Over Spam Mails in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Traffix, Inc. is working for the dismissal of two claims filed
in the District Court of Utah, Third Judicial District, Salt
Lake County, Sandy Department:

     (1) WATTERS V. TRAFFIX, INC., MONGLYPH.COM, AND PHILLIP C.
         WILSON AND JOHN DOES ONE THROUGH TEN, (No. 20413327);
         and

     (2) HARRISON V. TRAFFIX, INC. AND JOHN DOES ONE THROUGH
         TEN, (No. 20414190)

In each of these actions, the plaintiff claims to represent a
class of Utah residents who received unsolicited commercial e-
mail in violation of Utah law.  The Watters case was recently
dismissed and the Company is currently engaged in discussions to
resolve the remaining matter for an amount that would not be
material to the results of operations, cash flows or financial
position of the Company.

The Company is unable to determine the ultimate outcomes of any
of the foregoing claims, and, accordingly, no provision for loss
has been recorded in the un-audited financial statements
included in this report.


UNITED STATES: Lawyers Urged To Fight For Consumers in CA Meet
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary E. Alexander, San Francisco consumer attorney and president
of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, is bringing 2000
trial lawyers to their national convention in San Francisco July
23 "to strengthen the fight for consumer rights under attack by
Congress and the White House."

Ms. Alexander is asserting, "Consumer rights are under attack in
the Congress and the White House."  She chastised Senate and
House bills to cap damages and block class action lawsuits, as
well as "arbitrary bashing of lawyers", as "good for raising
donations from corporate interests but doing no one any good."

In an op-ed this week in the San Jose Mercury News, Alexander
points out that President Bush has made over 50 attacks against
trial lawyers in speeches since taking office.  She asserts that
the real agenda of the critics is to "reward the insurance
industry and corporations with higher profits and less
accountability and prohibit juries of regular Americans from
holding harmful interests accountable."

She will address the opening and closing of the convention and
will be available to media: 8 AM Sunday, July 20, and 8 AM and 8
PM Wed., July 23; she will also be available to press before and
after the Membership Meeting, Noon Wed., July 23. All events
occur at the San Francisco Hilton, 333 O'Farrell Street.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) has 60,000
members.  Ms. Alexander stated that the convention would work
"to strengthen the fight against the Administration's and
Congress' anti-consumer actions, especially concerning medical
malpractice rights, and class action lawsuits against major
malfeasant corporations like Enron and Global Crossing, who are
almost unaccountable on issues from pensions to pollution."


WADE COOK: Agrees With Atty. Gen. To Keep Private Consumer Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, supported by the California
Attorney General, successfully intervened to protect the
personal financial information of 75,000 Texans - and one
million consumers nationwide - all former customers listed on a
database of bankrupt Wade Cook Financial Corporation.

Wade Cook, a Seattle-based company, previously marketed seminars
and related materials that focused on how to become rich by
trading in the stock market.  While the marketing of seminars by
itself is not unlawful, the company engaged in practices that
Texas and 13 other states found to be deceptive.

The one million consumers whose privacy rights have been
protected are listed on the company's customer database.  In
bankruptcy proceedings, such a database can be considered a
company "asset" which contains confidential information, all of
which could have been compromised, except for the Texas Attorney
General's intervention.

"It is imperative in such cases to require safeguards to protect
consumers from being victimized again by identity theft or
privacy violations," said Attorney General Abbott.  "We believe
there is no legitimate reason for someone to be trafficking in
credit card and other personal financial data.  Moreover, we're
pleased the court appointed a bankruptcy trustee who agreed with
our position to destroy this sensitive financial data before any
transfer of the customer list to a new buyer."

On June 20, the trustee appointed in this Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding in Seattle proposed to sell Wade Cook's customer
database without the new safeguards intact.  The trustee also
proposed to share with the prospective purchaser of the company
a percentage of future earnings from the use of that database.

However, the trustee later agreed to Attorney General Abbott's
pre-sale condition that all personal financial information of
consumers nationwide would be protected from disclosure.  This
includes credit card and social security numbers, personal
financial information or customer profile data.  The Texas
Attorney General as sole state intervener also successfully
obtained specific disclosures from prospective buyers to
ascertain their integrity, a measure that ensures consumers will
not be further victimized.

Potential purchasers, for example, were required to provide
sworn statements that neither they nor their affiliates have
been the subject of enforcement actions, investigations or
lawsuits alleging fraud during the preceding two years.

Texas and 13 other states previously sued Wade Cook Financial,
charging that the Company misrepresented to consumers that its
security trades were highly profitable, which induced consumers
to buy into the seminars and related materials.  However, most
of the Wade Cook profits were derived from the sale of the
seminars and materials, not the securities trading business.


WAL-MART STORES: FL Court To Decide on Bias Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Florida Judge
Martin Jenkins will hear arguments on class certification for a
sex discrimination suit filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, the
Associated Press reports.

Six women commenced the suit against the retail giant, charging
it with discriminating against them in pay and promotions
because of their gender. The lawsuit was filed in 2001 by
plaintiffs:

     (1) Betty Dukes,

     (2) Micki Earwood,

     (3) Kimberly Miller,

     (4) Stephanie Odle,

     (5) Sandra Stevenson and

     (6) Patricia Surgeson

The plaintiffs allege several incidents of discrimination,
including a required meeting for female managers held at a strip
club, and another meeting at a Hooters restaurant, which is
known for scantily clad female servers.  A favorable decision
will allow 1.5 million women to participate in the suit.  A
ruling is not expected for months, however.

Bentonville-based Wal-Mart argues the class would be too big to
manage and claims the plaintiffs did not use commonly accepted
statistical methods in compiling their numbers, the Associated
Press reports.  Also, the company argues that the scope of the
proposed class is without precedent.

Wal-Mart spokesman Mona Williams told AP the company's promotion
rates of women shows that Wal-Mart has "more opportunities for
women than any other employer in the country."  The plaintiffs
say Wal-Mart only started keeping those statistics as the
evidence-gathering period in the lawsuit was coming to a close
in January.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:ASF) securities between April
3, 2001 and July 31, 2002, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations artificially inflating the price of
Administaff securities.  The complaint further alleges that
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts:

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

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

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

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

For more 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: ASF@bernlieb.com.


CROMPTON COMPANY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Crompton Corporation (NYSE:CK) publicly traded securities,
including former Crompton & Knowles and Witco shareholders who
exchanged their shares of stock for CK Witco stock pursuant to
the merger during the period between October 26, 1998 and
October 8, 2002.

The complaint charges Crompton and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Crompton manufactures and
markets a wide variety of polymer and specialty products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Crompton's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements by:

     (1) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and
         otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize
         prices of rubber chemicals sold in the United States;

     (2) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and

     (3) inflating their profits via the above acts.

As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices
enabling the Company to refinance its debt and consummate a
major acquisition using its inflated securities as currency.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeger Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Cryo Cell International, Inc.
(NasdaqSC:CCELE), from March 16, 1999 through May 20, 2003,
inclusive.

Cryo Cell is a corporation with its principal place of business
located in Clearwater, Florida.  Cryo Cell purports that it is
engaged in the business of cryogenic cellular storage and the
design and development of cellular storage devices.  The Company
markets that customers should preserve blood taken from their
newborns' umbilical cords because the blood is believed to
contain a large number of stem cells, which may be useful to the
child or another family member later in life to potentially cure
diseases.  

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Mercedes Walton,

     (2) Gerald F. Maas,

     (3) Mill M. Taymans,

     (4) Edward Modzelewsik,

     (5) Frederick C.S. Wilhelm,

     (6) Wanda D. Dearth,

     (7) Junior Winokur,

     (8) Daniel D. Richard,

     (9) Ronald Richard,

    (10) Charles D. Nyberg,

    (11) John v. Hargiss,

    (12) Cryo Cell International, Inc.,

    (13) Weinick Sanders Leventhal & Co., LLP and

    (14) Mirsky, Furst & Associates, P.A.

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

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

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

    (ii) that the Company continually recognized revenue in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         (GAAP) with respect to related-party transactions,
         revenue sharing agreements and revenue recognition for
         the sale of area licenses.  

As a result of the defendants' actions, the Company's financial
results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On April 15, 2003, Cryo Cell issued a press release disclosing
for the first time that it may be necessary to restate its
financial results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because of
improper recognition of revenue.  On May 20, 2003, defendants
revealed that the Company's new auditor had suddenly resigned,
just a short period after it was retained.  By May 21, 2003,
Cryo Cell stock had lost most of its value, and traded at only
$0.94 per share, a steep decline from the stock's Class Period
high of over $10 per share in August 2001.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, David R. Buchanan,
or Eric T. Chaffin by Mail: One William Street, New York, New
York 10004 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com by Phone:
(212) 584-0700 or (877) 539-4125


INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of InterMune, Inc. (NASDAQ:ITMN) during the period
January 6, 2003 to June 11, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and the Company's CEO, W.
Scott Harkonen, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about one of the its leading products, Actimmune.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware
that demand for Actimmune was declining because:

     (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune
         was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary
         diseases;

     (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing; and

     (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the
         Company's decision to curtail physician education, the
         lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune.

However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated
during the class period that it was on course to meet projected
revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to
reflect lowered demand for the drug.

On June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its
2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings
from Actimmune.  The Company also announced it had overstated
the number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its
earlier representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians
was flat.  These disclosures sent the Company's stock price
plummeting to $16.74, a 33% one-day fall.

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


MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Matria
Healthcare, Inc. (NasdaqNM:MATR) between October 24, 2001 and
June 25, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against Matria Healthcare, Inc. and certain members of its
current and/or former officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action
against Matria Healthcare, Inc., Parker H. Petit, Jeffrey D.
Koepsell, and George W. Dunaway, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The lawsuit was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Matria Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MATR), between October 24, 2001 and June 25, 2002, inclusive.

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 October 24, 2001
and June 25, 2002.

During the class period, the defendants touted the "strong
performance" of all of its diabetes businesses and repeatedly
bragged about the company's growth, noting the signing of new
contracts and anticipated contracts.  Defendants assured the
market during this time that they were ramping up the company's
infrastructure and implementing a major systems change that
would help them fulfill their goal to be the most
technologically advanced provider in their sector of the health
industry and that would significantly increase their
capabilities.  Citing their growth, defendants explained that
the reason expenses had exceeded anticipated revenues at certain
times was that it was difficult to time the need for additional
personnel and infrastructure with the receipt of large contracts
because "contractual negotiations can delay the anticipated
start dates for new disease management programs."

Unbeknownst to the investors, however, the complaint alleges
that the company was experiencing serious known problems that
rendered defendants' Class Period statements false and
misleading and that defendants had a duty to disclose under Item
303(a)(ii) to Regulation S-K.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the defendants failed to disclose until June 25,
2002, despite a duty to do so, the following adverse, known
facts:

     (1) the company's Health Enhancement Segment was
         experiencing significant "information system
         constraints" which led to unfilled customer orders;

     (2) the company's Facet Technologies division was
         experiencing higher costs as a result of undisclosed
         inventory and supply chain management problems;

     (3) Facet's gross margins were materially and adversely
         affected by decreasing price concessions from its major
         suppliers;

     (4) Matria' s gross profit margins were being negatively
         impacted by an increase in the price of one of its key
         drugs; and

     (5) the company's Health Enhancement revenues would be
         negatively impacted by at least $800,000 due to the
         bankruptcy of a health plan whose deteriorating
         financial condition the defendants knew of or were
         severely reckless in disregarding.

The complaint alleges that the defendants were motivated to
conceal these problems in order to inflate the purchase price of
Matria common stock because defendants negotiated two
acquisitions during the Class Period, using Matria common stock
as currency.

On June 25, 2002, after the close of trading, defendants shocked
the market by revising the company's financial outlook for
fiscal 2002 and revealing the problems discussed above.  In
response to the Company's shocking news, the price of Matria's
common stock plummeted on unusually heavy volume the next
trading day, dropping from nearly $12 to $7 before closing at
$8.95 per share.  A chorus of Wall Street analysts also
downgraded the stock as a result.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino by Phone:
888-873-3999/404-873-3900 ext. 6888 or contact Jennifer L.
Morris by Phone: 888-873-3999/404-873-3900 ext.6883 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action against Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner &
Smith and Phua K. Young, a managing director of Merrill Lynch,
on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Tyco
International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) during the period from September
9, 1999 through May 28, 2003, inclusive, in the United States
District Court in the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants engaged in an illegal scheme
to defraud Tyco investors in violation of Securities & Exchange
Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5.  According to the complaint, Mr.
Young wrote and publicly issued hundreds of research reports on
Tyco representing that he was an ``independent'' Merrill Lynch
analyst, when in fact, Mr. Young described himself in an
internal email as a ``LOYAL TYCO EMPLOYEE.''

It is further alleged that Mr. Young regularly sent drafts of
his research reports to Tyco's Investor Relations Department for
review of his opinions and conclusions, flew on Tyco corporate
jets for business trips, accepted unlawful gifts from Tyco CEO
Dennis Kozlowski, and with respect to at least one published
research report, asked Tyco Investor Relations ``did I not sound
pumped up enough?''

On May 28, 2003, the National Association of Securities Dealers
(NASD) filed a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Young
alleging numerous violations against him for issuing research
opinions to the marketplace that he did not personally believe
in and which had no reasonable basis.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


SINGING MACHINE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
The Singing Machine, Inc. (AMEX:SMD) between August 9, 2001 and
June 27, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, is pending 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000, by Fax: 610-660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


SINGING MACHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of The
Singing Machine, Inc. (AMEX:SMD) from February 14, 2001 through
July 14, 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 February 14, 2001 and
July 14, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Singing Machine common stock.

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

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP);

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

     (3) that the Company avoided taking sufficient changes to
         earnings in 2001 and 2002 to account for income tax
         liabilities; and

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

On June 27, 2003, the Singing Machine announced that it would
restate its fiscal 2002 financial statements and possibly fiscal
2001 financial statements to increase the accrual for income
taxes.  Moreover, the Company stated that the restatement will
have the effect of reducing net income for fiscal 2002 and
possibly fiscal 2001.  Market reaction to the news was swift.  
The Singing Machine's shares fell 33%, or $1.80 per share, to
close at $3.60 per share on June 27, 2003.

On July 14, 2003, the Company announced further details about
its restatement and also announced that ``its auditors have
expressed 'substantial doubt' about Singing Machine's ability to
continue as a going concern.''  News of this again shocked the
market.  Shares of the Singing Machine fell 19% percent to close
at $3.03 per share on July 15, 2003.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


SINGING MACHINE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of The
Singing Machine, Inc. (Amex: SMD) common stock during the period
between August 9, 2001 and June 27, 2003, inclusive.  The class
period is being expanded to include purchases between February
14, 2001 and July 14, 2003.

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, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Singing Machine common stock.

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

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP);

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

     (3) that the Company avoided taking sufficient changes to
         earnings in 2001 and 2002 to account for income tax
         liabilities; and

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

On June 27, 2003, the Singing Machine announced that it would
restate its fiscal 2002 financial statements and possibly fiscal
2001 financial statements to increase the accrual for income
taxes.  Moreover, the Company stated that the restatement will
have the effect of reducing net income for fiscal 2002 and
possibly fiscal 2001.  Market reaction to the news was swift.  
The Singing Machine's shares fell 33%, or $1.80 per share, to
close at $3.60 per share on June 27, 2003.

On July 14, 2003, the Company announced further details about
its restatement and also announced that "its auditors have
expressed substantial doubt about Singing Machine's ability to
continue as a going concern."  News of this again shocked the
market.  Shares of the Singing Machine fell 19% percent to close
at $3.03 per share on July 15, 2003.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Candace Randle by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail:
info@cauleygeller.com


                        *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora
Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *