CAR_Public/030723.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Wednesday, July 23, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 144

                        Headlines                            

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Trial in NC Antitrust Suit Set February 2004
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canada Court To Decide on Suit Certification
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Agencies Sue Over 9/11 Ticket Refund Policy
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Amended Breach of Contract Suit Filed in NY
BLUE CROSS: PA Medical Society Urges Members To Opt Out of Pact

CREED: Lead Singer Denies Charges in Suit over Chicago Concert
DOUBLECLICK INC.: Computer Users Sue Over Misleading Banner Ads
ESSO: 38 Bendigo Businesses Join Suit Over 1998 Gas Disruption
GOING PLATINUM: SEC Files Suit over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
GUN MANUFACTURERS: NY Court Dismisses NAACP Lawsuit V. Gun Firms

INDIAN FUNDS: Court Dismisses Sec. Norton's Contempt Citation
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: CO Judge Orders Payment of Penalties
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
MONTANA: Parents Tour School To See How Athletes Were Videotaped
OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Scheme in OR

SPAM LITIGATION: First Wave of Consumer Lawsuits Hit Utah Court
STEWART FINANCE: GA Court To Hear Arguments For Consumer Lawsuit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Arguments End In LA Medical Monitoring Suit
UNITED PARCEL: To Settle Deaf Employees' Lawsuit For $10 Million
UNITED STATES: Contempt Motion V. Agriculture Secretary Refused

* D.C. Tobacco Litigation Expert Takes On Obesity Lawsuits

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTRAL PARKING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in TN
DIVINE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in GA

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in FL
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in MA
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.D. GA
READ-RITE CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in CA
SINGING MACHINE: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in FL

                          *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Trial in NC Antitrust Suit Set February 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the travel agents' class action filed against American
Airlines and other domestic carriers is set for February 2,2004
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina.

The suit alleges that that between 1995 and the present,
American and over 15 other defendant airlines conspired to
reduce commissions paid to U.S.-based travel agents in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The court granted class action
certification to the plaintiff on September 17, 2002, defining
the plaintiff class as all travel agents in the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands, who, at any
time from October 1, 1997 to the present, issued tickets,
miscellaneous change orders, or prepaid ticket advices for
travel on any of the defendant airlines.  

The case is stayed as to US Airways and United Air Lines, since
they filed for bankruptcy. Defendant carriers filed a motion for
summary judgment on December 10, 2002.  A final adverse court
decision awarding substantial money damages or placing
restrictions on the Company's commission policies or practices
would have an adverse impact on the Company.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canada Court To Decide on Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court of Montreal, Canada, Trial Division is set to
hear arguments for certification of a travel agents' suit
against American Airlines, other defendant airlines and the
International Air Travel Association (IATA) on September 2,2003.

The statement of claim alleges that between 1995 and the
present, the defendant airlines, and the IATA conspired to
reduce commissions paid to Canada-based travel agents in
violation of Section 45 of the Competition Act of Canada.  The
named plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of travel
agents.  

The Company vigorously denies the allegations.  A final adverse
court decision awarding substantial money damages or placing
restrictions on the Company's commission policies would have an
adverse impact on the Company.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Agencies Sue Over 9/11 Ticket Refund Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division, alleging that requiring travel agencies to pay
debit memos for refunding tickets after September 11, 2001:  

     (1) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
         and plaintiff;  

     (2) constitutes unjust enrichment; and  

     (3) violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt  
         Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO)

The as yet uncertified class includes all travel agencies who
have or will be required to pay moneys to the Company for an
"administrative service charge," "penalty fee," or other fee for
processing refunds on behalf of passengers who were unable to
use their tickets in the days immediately following the
resumption of air carrier service after the tragedies on
September 11, 2001.   

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Company from collecting the
debit memos and to recover the amounts paid for the debit memos,
plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  Although the Company
believes that the litigation is without merit, a final adverse
court decision could impose restrictions on the Company's
relationships with travel agencies which could have an adverse
impact on the Company.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Amended Breach of Contract Suit Filed in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against American
Airlines and other airlines in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Continental Airlines,

     (2) Delta Air Lines,

     (3) United Airlines, and

     (4) Northwest Airlines

The suit alleges that American and the other defendants breached
their contracts with the agency and were unjustly enriched when
these carriers at various times reduced their base commissions
to zero.  The as yet uncertified class includes all travel
agencies accredited by the Airlines Reporting Corporation -
whose base commissions on airline tickets were unilaterally
reduced to zero by the defendants.  

The case is stayed as to United Air Lines, since it filed for
bankruptcy.  American is vigorously disputing the allegations.  
Although the Company believes that the litigation is without
merit, a final adverse court decision awarding substantial money
damages or forcing the Company to pay agency commissions would
have an adverse impact on the Company.


BLUE CROSS: PA Medical Society Urges Members To Opt Out of Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Medical Society urged members to opt out of a
proposed settlement announced last month by Independence Blue
Cross (IBC) and the Pennsylvania Orthopedic Society, the
American City Business Journal reports.

The settlement was for a class action filed against IBC by the
Pennsylvania Orthopedic Society and three Montgomery County
doctors.  The suit alleged IBC improperly bundled payments to
physicians and failed to disclose fee schedules outlining how
payment decisions were made.  Under the settlement, IBC agreed
to:

     (1) fully disclose actual fee schedule and methods used to
         determine payments for all doctors,

     (2) follow Medicare payment guidelines for procedures
         involving multiple surgeries and

     (3) establish a dispute resolution process

Dr. Edward H. Dench Jr., president of the Pennsylvania Medical
Society, told the Business Journal the organization has several
concerns about the proposed settlement.  Those concerns include
a lack of details about IBC's new payment and dispute resolution
programs and the absence of a guarantee that the $40 million
estimate will be met.


CREED: Lead Singer Denies Charges in Suit over Chicago Concert
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stapp, lead singer of popular rock band Creed, answered
allegations in a class action filed against the band by four
frustrated fans who went to watch a December 29 concert at the
AllState Arena in Chicago, MTV.com reports.  

The four fans filed the suit in late April, alleging that Mr.
Stapp failed to give a good perormance because he was too
intoxicated to perform.  The fans sought reimbursement for
tickets and parking fees on behalf of 15,000 fans in attendance,
which could possibly cost the group $2 million.

In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Mr. Stapp said his
performance was an "over-the-top, dramatic gesture meant to
convey the difficulties he was facing in his personal life at
the time."  

During a performance of the song "Who's Got My Back," Mr. Stapp
was making a gesture in which he lay down to make a point, but
fans mistook it for him passing out onstage. "It was a symbolic,
personal gesture," Mr. Stapp told the Sentinel.  "I had some
things going on in my life.  I kind of felt alone.  And it was a
symbol that I didn't think anybody had my back at the time.  
Some people get it.  Some people don't."

The suit alleges that Mr. Stapp was "so intoxicated and/or
medicated" that he could not sing the lyrics to any of the
band's songs, that he left the stage for long periods of time
and rolled around on the floor as if in pain.  They also claimed
that he appeared to pass out at one point during the show,
MTV.com reports.

Mr. Stapp said he was fighting off an undisclosed illness at the
time. "We didn't feel like it was an awful show," he told the
Sentinel, following his reported review of a videotape of the
Chicago concert.  "That's why it kind of shocked us ... We
appreciate the fans.  We know that the fans are the reason we
are here today.  And that night, we gave it everything that we
had -- like we do every night."

In January, the band apologized to frustrated fans, saying on
their official website that they "... apologize if you don't
feel the show was up to the very high standards set by our
previous shows in Chicago."  It went on to console the fans by
saying they "definitely experienced the most unique of all Creed
shows and may have become part of the unusual world of rock and
roll history!"

The band's attorneys have asked the court to dismiss the suit.
"The motion basically argues that you can't bring a lawsuit
against a band for sucking," the attorney for the disgruntled
fans, Daniel J. Voelker told MTV.com.  "That this is a
subjective issue."

The Sentinel reported that Mr. Stapp said in the past Creed has
performed makeup dates for shows they thought were substandard,
but that the Chicago show did not qualify.  "If these
allegations were true, the band would, of course, feel that the
fans deserved a free show," Mr. Stapp said. "These allegations
are a lie.  They're false."


DOUBLECLICK INC.: Computer Users Sue Over Misleading Banner Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
DoubleClick, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
charging it with fraudulent and misleading advertising,
DMNews.com reports.

The suit was filed over advertisements served using the
Company's DART technology which masquerade as computer warnings
to trick computer users to click on them.  The suit says the ads
are "a diabolical scheme to deceive computer users into
misdirecting their computers to Internet sites of defendants'
clients."   The suit further says the ads are unfair and
deceptive advertising and that they have unjustly enriched the
Company.

Pittsburgh resident Christopher Steelman is the lead plaintiff
for the suit, which defines members of the class as "anyone in
the United States who has encountered banners or pop-up ads
disguised as computer warnings."  The suit also names as
defendants "100 John Does . including but not limited to
directors, officers and employees of DoubleClick Inc., its
affiliates, parent of subsidiary corporations or of other legal
entities, and third-party agents of and/or principals of named
defendants."

The Company is believed to have served in excess of 500 million
such banner ads," a statement by the plaintiffs' attorneys said
July 18.

"In a conspiratorial enterprise having no motive but to procure
pecuniary gain for themselves, (DoubleClick) deceptively and
fraudulently commandeered millions of unwitting Internet users
to the commercial Web sites of defendants' customers through
dissemination of tens of millions of deceptive Internet
advertising banners that impersonated computer system warnings,"
the complaint alleges, DMNews states.

"Through use of such Fake User Interface (`FUI') dialogs that
fraudulently represented themselves as computer system error
messages, defendants tricked millions of Internet users into
interrupting work they were performing to respond to the
fraudulent system message, only to unexpectedly find both
computer and computer user thus hijacked to commercial Web sites
of defendants' customers, where these customers attempted to
hawk services and software," the complaint said.

A DoubleClick spokeswoman said yesterday the company had not
been served with the suit yet and so the company's lawyers were
unable to comment, DMNews.com reports.


ESSO: 38 Bendigo Businesses Join Suit Over 1998 Gas Disruption
--------------------------------------------------------------
38 Bendigo, Australia businesses joined the class action against
Exxon Mobil subsidiary Esso, charging it with failing to provide
continual gas supply in the wake of the 1998 crisis, the Bendigo
Advertiser reports.

Thousands of Victorian businesses, workers and consumers
suffered losses amounting to almost $1.3 billion during gas
disruption in September 1998.  The disruption was due to a huge
explosion at Esso's Longford plant, killing two and injuring
eight men.

The suit seeks compensation for property damage suffered and
consequential economic loss.  Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon
spearheads the suit together with several other law firms.  The
firms this week called for plaintiffs to come forward, citing a
deadline of September 1, when the right to entitlement ceases.

According to Slater & Gordon, Esso, a subsidiary of one of the
largest companies in the world, Exxon Mobil Corporation, has
poured massive resources into trying to stop the class action by
Victorians and Victorian businesses, the Bendigo Advertiser
reports.  The company has unsuccessfully appealed against
decisions by the Federal Court.  The case is likely to proceed
to trial within the next 12 months.


GOING PLATINUM: SEC Files Suit over Fraudulent Investment Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, against Alan H. Catalan and Going
Platinum, Inc., a company owned and controlled by Mr. Catalan,
alleging that Mr. Catalan and Going Platinum fraudulently
solicited approximately $2.4 million from investors and
misappropriated most of that money.

The Commission's complaint alleges that between May of 2000 and
August of 2001, Mr. Catalan and Going Platinum used the broad
reach of the Internet to raise approximately $2.4 million from
close to 100,000 investors in what ultimately became a Ponzi and
pyramid scheme.  

The complaint alleges that approximately $1 million of new
investor money was used to pay obligations to existing investors
for their recruitment of new investors.  The complaint also
alleges that defendants solicited investors through a
combination of false and misleading representations, including
false promises of great riches (up to $160,000 per month return
on a $25 investment), as well as false representations
concerning the company, the participation of advertisers and
other website vendors, and the sources and availability of
financial backing.  

The complaint alleges that, contrary to defendants'
representations, Going Platinum was little more than an empty
shell, with no significant revenues other than investor funds.  
The complaint further alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint seeks permanent injunctions,
disgorgement together with prejudgment interest, and civil
penalties from both Going Platinum and Mr. Catalan.


GUN MANUFACTURERS: NY Court Dismisses NAACP Lawsuit V. Gun Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York dismissed a lawsuit
filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) charging gun manufacturers with endangering
minorities by irresponsibly marketing firearms, the New York
Times reports.  

The suit said the major gun makers did not do anything prevent
dealers from selling firearms to criminals in black and Hispanic
neighborhoods.  However, Judge Jack B. Weinstein ruled that
while there is "clear and convincing evidence" that gun dealers
are guilty of "careless practices," the members of the NAACPO
were not "uniquely harmed" by illegal use of firearms.

The judge further said that courts should create "new legal
solutions . to overriding social problems even when other
branches of the government are heavily involved in attempting to
solve the problems."  He further wrote that the NAACP proved its
members suffered "relatively more harm from the nuisance created
by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New
York," the New York Times states.  However, the civil rights
group did not "show that its harm was different in kind from
that suffered by other persons in New York."

Gun-control advocates told the Times that the ruling that the
NAACP lacked legal standing was based on a "technicality," while
gun owners' groups said the decision showed Congress must act to
stop "frivolous" lawsuits against firearms makers.

Supporters of a pending Senate bill that would protect gun
manufacturers from class actions said Judge Weinstein's ruling
demonstrates the need for congressional action.  In March, the
House overwhelmingly approved a bill to block lawsuits against
gun makers.


INDIAN FUNDS: Court Dismisses Sec. Norton's Contempt Citation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court recently dismissed the contempt ruling
against Gale Norton, Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, saying she cannot be held accountable for her
predecessors' mismanagement of a multibillion-dollar Indian
trust fund, The Commercial Appeal reports.

"She simply cannot be held criminally to account for any delay
(in making an accounting of the monies taken in as royalties
over the years and developing new accounting practices for the
present handling of such funds) that occurred prior to her
assuming office," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the
appeals court's three-judge panel.

The panel also ruled unanimously that Secretary Norton's conduct
did not constitute a fraud on the court of US District Judge
Royce Lamberth.  In issuing contempt citations last September
against Secretary Norton and the assistant secretary for Indian
affairs, Neal McCaleb, Judge Lamberth ruled that by their
actions they had defrauded his court.

The case grew out of a $137 billion class action filed in 1996
on behalf of more than 300,000 Indian plaintiffs.  The lawsuit
alleged the Interior Department failed to manage properly oil,
gas, mining, grazing and timber royalties from land assigned to
Indian ownership more than a century ago.  The Indian landowners
contend that large amounts of royalties to which they were
entitled were lost, squandered, improperly recorded and possibly
not even collected from users of the Indian lands.

The Interior Department has spent more than $600 million to
comply with instructions from Congress and Judge Lamberth, but
still the accounting problems persist.  Secretary Norton,
appointed by President Bush, has blamed most of the problems on
previous administrations.

Judge Lamberth reprimanded both Secretary Norton and Mr. McCaleb
harshly for what he said were attempts to hide their failures to
comply with his 1999 order to account for royalties.  The panel
also dismissed Mr. McCaleb's contempt of court citation.

Ms. Norton was the third Cabinet member that Judge Lamberth has
held in contempt in the Indian trust case, after the Clinton
administration's Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin in 1999.

Keith Harper, an attorney for the Indian plaintiffs, called the
appeals court ruling disappointing, but he cautioned that the
ruling should not be viewed either as an attempt to rein in
Judge Lamberth or exonerate Secretary Norton and her agency.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: CO Judge Orders Payment of Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia S. Kreiger, United States District Judge for the
District of Colorado, entered a final judgment against William
L. Brotherton, an unlicensed chiropractor and the sole executive
officer of International Business Consortium, Inc.  

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission's
complaint, filed July 13, 2001, alleged that Mr. Brotherton and
IBC raised over $300,000 by selling IBC stock without
registration to over 180 investors between January and July of
2001.  

Holding IBC out as a promising start-up preparing to offer
discount workers' compensation insurance, IBC and Mr. Brotherton
deceived investors about, among other things, IBC's true state
of development and operations, a future initial public offering
for IBC securities, the use of investment proceeds and the risks
and returns associated with the ownership of IBC stock.  Mr.
Brotherton misappropriated at least 25% of the offering proceeds
for the personal benefit of himself and some of his relatives.  

The complaint charged Mr. Brotherton and IBC with violations of
the registration provisions, Section 5(a), 5(c) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the antifraud provisions, Section
17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

Some of the proceeds of the defendants' illegal conduct are held
in bank accounts that were frozen by the court's order of July
23, 2001, which was entered upon consent in response to the
Commission's application for a preliminary injunction, asset
freeze and other emergency relief intended to halt the fraud.  

The judge ordered them to pay disgorgement of $325,144, plus
prejudgment interest of $36,602.03, and imposing civil money
penalties of $50,000.  The judgment provides that Mr. Brotherton
and IBC are jointly and severally liable for the judgment debt
totaling $411,746.03.  The court also resolved other pending
motions in favor of the Commission and vacated a trial date
previously set by the court.   

In previous orders, the Court had granted the Commission's
motions for a default judgment against IBC and for summary
judgment against Mr. Brotherton, though the court denied the
Commission's request for injunctive relief against him.
     
     
     
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado approved a
settlement proposed by Microsoft Corporation to settle the class
action filed against it by California consumers, CBS Marketwatch
reports.  The suit alleges the Company breached unfair
competition laws, and overcharged as much as $40 for every copy
of its desktop operating software.

Under the settlement, about 13 million California consumers and
business customers who purchased Microsoft desktop software
between February 1995 and December 2001 will be qualified to get
vouchers ranging from $5 to $29 to buy computer hardware or
software from any manufacturer.  If the vouchers are not
claimed, the Company would pay $367 million to California
schools.  The Company did not admit wrongdoing while entering
into the settlement.

"Whatever Microsoft ends up paying, it's a small penalty
compared with the fruits of its antitrust violations, said Glenn
Manishin, antitrust attorney with the firm Kelley, Drye & Warren
in New York.  "The company has $49 billion of cash.  Even if the
maximum amount is paid out, it's small enough that it's lost in
a rounding error.  It's not enough to change Microsoft's
behavior in any way."


MONTANA: Parents Tour School To See How Athletes Were Videotaped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parents and victims of a videotaping scheme in Powell County
High School visited the school this week, to see how three high
school boys used secret passageways to film as many as 600
female athletes as they undressed and showered after athletic
competitions, the Montana Standard reports.

Parents and victims of the scheme filed two class actions
against the High School District, its superintendent Joe Brott,
school administrators and certified and non-certified staff
after three high school seniors - Eddy John Newman, Benjamin
Frankforter and Matthew Thomas - were convicted on felony
burglary charges in connection to two-and-a-half years of crime
that school officials refer to as "the security breach."

Parents, a videographer, a school facilities security
specialist, and lawyers for both sides toured the school.  The
group saw several suspended ceiling panels that showed holes
where circles and notches were cut or drilled. In the boys'
locker room, the group saw a row of low-profile lockers where
another locker with a two-way mirror concealing camera equipment
was laid horizontally according to court records about 10 feet
from an office occupied by athletic supervisors, the Montana
Standard reports.  Other spaces were less convenient: a cinder
block wall where a two-way mirror concealed a video camera setup
provided little elbow room.

Parents Julie Meyer and Tami Steiger said they were shocked to
learn the extent of the scheme.  Their daughters were members of
teams that visited the school between 2000 and 2002.  

"It gave me goosebumps," Ms. Meyer told the Standard. "They were
everywhere.  There's nooks and corners everywhere.  I didn't
realize they had so much access."

"The places they'd gotten into--that's desperation," Ms.
Steiger said.


OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Scheme in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the United States District Court in Portland,
Oregon, against Daniel D. Dyer, 49, and a resident of University
Place, Washington, and his wholly owned company, Oxbow Capital
Partners, LLC, based in Tacoma, Washington.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants aided and abetted a
massive Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Capital Consultants, LLC,
formerly an investment adviser in Portland, Oregon.  The
Commission previously sued Capital Consultants and its
principals for fraud in September 2000.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Dyer and Oxbow
Partners helped Capital Consultants conceal from its clients the
failure of a loan made by the former investment adviser.  In
November 1998, the borrower of a $160 million loan from Capital
Consultants announced that it was having financial problems and
stopped making loan payments.  

In December 1998, Mr. Dyer and Oxbow Partners purchased from
Capital Consultants the failed loan at its full $160 million
principal balance but were unable to make scheduled monthly
payments.  From July 1999 to August 2000, Mr. Dyer and Oxbow
Partners entered into a series of complex transactions involving
Capital Consultants that resulted in new client funds being used
to repay clients invested in the failed loan.  During the
scheme, the defendants knew that Capital Consultants made
misrepresentations to its clients about Mr. Dyer and Oxbow
Partners' role in purchasing the failed loan.
     
The Commission also charges Mr. Dyer and Oxbow Partners with
fraud in connection with two securities offerings, Oxbow Capital
1999 Fund I, LLC (Oxbow Fund I) and Washington Motorcycle
Partners, LLC, conducted between April 1999 and November 2000.  
The Commission alleges that the defendants failed to disclose to
Oxbow Fund I investors that the fund's first investment would be
in the failed Capital Consultants loan.  The defendants also
defrauded Oxbow Fund I by purporting to replace the fund's
investment in the failed Capital Consultants loan with
securities that the defendants did not own.  

In the unregistered Washington Partners offering, the defendants
used offering proceeds to enrich themselves and make payments on
the failed Capital Consultants loan rather than to purchase
stock in a motorcycle company as represented to investors.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Dyer and Oxbow
Partners violated the securities registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c),
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
violated and aided and abetted violations of the investment
advisory antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the
Investment Advisers Act.  

In its action, the Commission seeks a final judgment against Mr.
Dyer and Oxbow Partners enjoining them from future violations of
the provisions and ordering them to disgorge all ill-gotten
gains and pay a civil penalty.
     
In September 2000, the Commission charged Capital Consultants
and its principals, Jeffrey L. Grayson and his son, Barclay L.
Grayson, with fraud and obtained emergency relief against them,
including the appointment of a receiver over Capital
Consultants.  On April 30, 2001, the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon entered permanent injunctions
against Capital Consultants and the Graysons.  On February 26
and December 5, 2002, amended judgments of permanent injunction
were entered against Barclay and Jeffrey Grayson, respectively,
that did not assess a civil penalty against them based upon
their demonstrated inability to pay.  On November 20, 2001,
Barclay Grayson was sentenced to two years in prison in a
related criminal action.  On April 23, 2002, Jeffrey Grayson
pleaded guilty to charges in a related criminal action.


SPAM LITIGATION: First Wave of Consumer Lawsuits Hit Utah Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Third District Court in Utah faces a huge backlog of
lawsuits filed by consumers against scores of alleged spammers,
making claims under the state's 14-month-old unsolicited e-mail
act, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.  The act provides for fines
of $10 per unwanted e-mail up to a maximum of $25,000 per day.

Judge Denise Lindberg dismissed a proposed class action accusing
Sprint Communications of spamming in March, ruling that lead
plaintiff Terry Gillman had technically given his permission to
receive third-party promotional messages when he signed on to
the Audio Galaxy Web site, which sold e-mail addresses to other
parties.  The decision is now on appeal.

Judge Lindberg now faces a backlog of about 1,200 new complaints
against scores of alleged spammers.  Defendants include InfoUSA,
Anheuser-Busch and Omaha Steaks.  Mr. Gilliam's suit targeted
companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., Chase Manhattan,
Pepsico, VideoProfessor, The Washington Post, Etraders,
SecretShopper, University of Phoenix, Eddie Bauer, Cingular,
Disney Online and others.

The flood of suits, brought by Mr. Gilliam's attorney Denver
Snuffer and Draper lawyer Jesse Riddle, is the first of many
more expected suits. "We've had more than 30,000 e-mails from
people wanting to sue (spammers) since we first filed [in July
2002]," Mr. Snuffer told the Tribune.  "We've only been able to
screen 8,000 of those so far, finding 944 of them suitable. We
have 22,000 more to go. We intend to continue to file them until
we have some effect on the practice of spammers in Utah."

If the suits get certified as class actions, damages could reach
millions of dollars.  However, these suits must first get to
trial.  Judge Lindberg has asked attorneys to present arguments
for all suits in a consolidated hearing on September 15, for
which she will accept one brief representing each side.

Randy Dryer of Parsons Behle & Latimer is heading a group of
defense attorneys collaborating on their argument against
declaring the suits a unified class action.

"No one likes spam," Mr. Dryer, who represents 60 of those
accused of sending unsolicited e-mails, told the Tribune.  "But
none of my clients are what you would consider traditional
spammers.  They are small businesses, not someone blasting out
millions of e-mails every day from off-shore."

He said that the suits are "1,200 individual $10 claims" that
should be settled out of court. "What is solicited or not is
dependent on the facts of each case," Mr. Dryer continued.


STEWART FINANCE: GA Court To Hear Arguments For Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the Stewart
Finance case on July 22, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. The case was filed
last year by lawyers from the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, AARP
and the firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore LLP on behalf of a
collection of mostly elderly and disabled plaintiffs who
received small, short-term, high-interest cash loans from
Stewart Finance Company.

The suit alleges that Stewart, after taking control of the
borrowers' bank accounts, began debiting the accounts for
miscellaneous surcharges and for worthless insurance and auto
club memberships that the borrowers neither requested nor
wanted.

Former governor Roy Barnes is serving as co-counsel for the
case; Jeffrey Bramlett of Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore LLP is
arguing the appeal.

Stewart's lawyers filed the appeal in December 2002 after the
Superior Court rejected their motion to compel arbitration of
the claims -- a motion that sought to uphold one of the many
inequitable clauses in the contracts Stewart loan officers had
borrowers sign. Stewart's original loan contracts contained one-
sided mandatory binding arbitration clauses. Under the terms of
the contracts, the consumers would have to pay exorbitant
arbitration fees in order to proceed with any claims, and some
of the arbitration proceedings would have to take place in Union
Point, where Stewart is mayor.

The original lawsuit charges that Stewart Finance embeds the
secret arbitration provisions in its documents "(to) evade law
enforcement and regulatory scrutiny of (its) overreaching,
illegal and improper" business conduct in an attempt to prevent
consumers from bringing any disputes to court. The decisions of
the Superior Court, if upheld, will give the plaintiffs their
day in court. If the plaintiffs win on appeal, the attorneys
will begin to prepare for trial on the legality of Stewart's
practices.

Stewart Finance Company recently filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Arguments End In LA Medical Monitoring Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Closing arguments in a medical monitoring class action filed
against major tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and
Brown & Williamson in Louisiana state court will be presented
before a jury, the Associated Press reports.  The suit, filed in
Louisiana state court on behalf of 1.5 million Louisiana
residents, seeks medical monitoring programs for healthy
smokers.

The suit alleges that Big Tobacco did not reveal the dangers of
smoking to the public and targeted youth with advertising to
cultivate a new market of smokers.  The suit further alleges
that the industry manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers
hooked.  The suit does not seek individual payments for the
smokers.

A similar class action was filed in West Virginia, seeking
medical monitoring for smokers in that state.  The jury agreed
that a person with a five-year, pack-a-day habit has higher
risks of contracting disease, but ruled medical tests for lung
cancer, emphysema and chronic obstructive lung diseases were
unnecessary.  The jury accepted the defense's assertion that
smokers concerned about their health should just quit.

Attorneys for the tobacco industry say there is no need for
additional quit-smoking programs and routine medical monitoring
is of questionable value - if not outright dangerous - to
smokers and former smokers, AP reports.  If the industry in the
Louisiana case is found liable, a second phase of the trial will
be held to determine how much the industry would have to pay to
set up the programs.


UNITED PARCEL: To Settle Deaf Employees' Lawsuit For $10 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Parcel Service agreed to settle for $10 million a
class action alleging the Company discriminated against its deaf
employees, the Associated Press reports.  

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and includes more than 900
current and former hearing-impaired employees.  The suit alleges
that the Company routinely precluded deaf employees from
accessing workplace information, denied opportunities for
promotion and exposed them to unsafe conditions

Under the settlement, deaf employees will get full access to
workplace safety materials and promotion opportunities.  The
Company would create a system to track promotions and provide
text telephones and vibrating pagers to alert deaf employees to
emergency evacuations.  The Company also agreed to make sure
that deaf employees and job applicants have access to certified
interpreters.  Plaintiffs' attorneys would get $4.1 million of
the settlement and UPS would also set aside $100,000 for a
monitoring program.

"I'm hopeful that deaf employees will not be held back anymore,"
Babaranti Oloyede, one of the plaintiffs and employee for 12
years, told AP through an interpreter.  "For all those years UPS
didn't provide interpreters, a telephone for emergency use,
closed captioning on training videotapes or emergency signals
like flashing lights . We had many meetings, like a meeting
about anthrax, and I didn't have an interpreter, so I didn't
know what was going on."

Company officials denied the charges in the suit, saying they
have always tried to accommodate deaf and hard-of-hearing
employees.  "UPS has long been a positive work environment for
those with disabilities and we're proud of our record thus far,"
Peggy Gardner, spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based company told
AP.  "We feel the measures called for in the settlement are only
going to make a positive work environment even better."

However, lawyers for the plaintiffs said that the Company's
arrogant attitude forced the settlement.  "Their defense was
basically that deaf people should be happy to have a job,"
attorney Todd Schneider told AP.  "I was shocked, the court was
shocked, and that's why we settled."

The settlement resolves all issues in the case, except for
standards that UPS drivers must meet - the company adheres to a
Department of Transportation test that requires a minimum level
of hearing to pass.  The settlement still requires court
approval.  Both sides said they hope that final approval will
occur by year's end.


UNITED STATES: Contempt Motion V. Agriculture Secretary Refused
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge D. Lowell Jensen refused to hold Department of
Agriculture secretary Ann Veneman in contempt, for the
department's slow compliance with the settlement of the sexual
harassment class action against the Forest Service, GovExec.com
reports.

Forest Service employees Ginelle O'Connor and Lesa Donnelly
filed the class action in December 1995, charging the department
with sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation.  The
class began with 50 women and was later certified and expanded
to include 5,800 women.

The parties reached a settlement in 2001, under which the
department agreed to create special civil rights enforcement
programs and personnel training programs, and to set up an Equal
Employment Opportunity processing unit to deal with sexual
harassment and hostile workplace environment claims.  The
department was also required to create a monitoring council that
included a class member, an agency employee and a neutral third
party.

In March 2003, the monitoring council reported that the
department had not yet implemented the changes proposed in the
settlement.  In June, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a
contempt of court motion over the unimplemented changes.  

In his ruling, Judge Jensen asked lawyers for both sides to
report to him by December 5 about efforts to eliminate reprisals
against people who have lodged sexual harassment allegations at
the department and to create a database tracking workplace
complaints.  He also extended the settlement agreement until
January 8, 2006, a year beyond the original expiration date.

"He did say we have shortcomings, but he said that our
shortcomings are not substantial enough to warrant a contempt
finding," Matt Mathes, spokesman for the Forest Service's Region
5 in California told GovExec.com.

"He had some problems with our database and he was concerned
about our progress against retaliation," Mr. Mathes continued.  
"We do need to a do a better job of reporting and tracking
things, and we realize that, but everybody from the regional
forester on down feels very strongly that our workforce has to
operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect."

Lead Plaintiff Donnelly said she was happy with the judge's
ruling.  "The judge realized that reprisal had to be dealt with,
had to be corrected, because it's so severe in Region 5. And now
we know that the court is watching and asking for a report," Ms.
Donnelly said.  "So we're happy about that."


* D.C. Tobacco Litigation Expert Takes On Obesity Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The man who brought the threat of an anti-obesity lawsuit to the
Seattle School Board works in a university office about 3,000
miles away, in Washington, D.C., with a sign hanging outside the
door that reads "Torts R Us," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
reports.

John Banzhaf III, a public-interest lawyer and law professor at
George Washington University in Washington, D.C., has a sense of
humor his targets may not find amusing.  At the moment, the 63-
year-old maverick, who successfully took on the tobacco industry
has turned his attention to the nation's obesity epidemic, and
the school districts that have exclusive contracts with soft-
drink manufacturers are squarely within his purview.

The School Board is scheduled to vote tonight on whether to
extend the district's exclusive five-year contract with Coca-
Cola.  Professor Banzhaf recently sent a letter to the board
members, warning that they could be sued for allowing schools to
sell soda to students, citing studies that suggest a link
between soda consumption and obesity.

At a committee meeting yesterday, board members made no mention
of Professor Banzhaf's legal threat as they discussed a proposal
to extend the contract for another five years, with the option
of canceling at any time.  The Coke contract nets about $400,000
annually.

The revised contract would require that middle schools turn off
beverage vending machines before and during school hours; that
machine in high school lunchrooms be shut off during lunch, and
that three slots in each machine be reserved for water and non-
carbonated drinks.

As Professor Banzhaf sees it, schools and school boards could be
subject to lawsuits for neglecting their legal duty to protect
the students.  He said he is looking at other school districts
that have contracts with soft-drink companies, including Boston
and several districts in Texas, as possible targets.

Professor Banzhaf he would not argue a case against the Seattle
School Board himself.  His modus operandi is to plant the seed
and provide the advice necessary for designing and pursuing the
case when another lawyer takes up the issue.

Seattle attorney Dwight Van Winkle has advised the board that he
may take legal action.  Although no plaintiffs have yet emerged,
Mr. Van Winkle said, "the reality is that down the road the
board could be facing legal action.  I do not think the School
Board has any authority to be offering children up for sale to
Coca-Cola."

Professor Banzhaf, a professor of law at George Washington
University, teaches a course on legal activism, known on campus
as "Sue the Bastards 101."  The course requires that the
students bring their own legal actions.  

He and his students have helped establish smoke-free airplanes;
prevented dry-cleaners and hairdressers from charging women more
than men; and brought about clearer warnings on birth control
pills, among other initiatives.  His students were involved in a
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of vegetarians and Hindus
against McDonald's that resulted in the restaurant chain
agreeing to a  $10 million settlement for failing to disclose
that it served french fries flavored with beef extract.

Professor Banzhaf rose to prominence in 1967, when he first took
on the tobacco industry and started designing cases that would
reach into the activities of the tobacco companies and find
there the ingredients of a class action.  Professor Banzhaf has
since moved on to obesity, providing advice in a class action
lawsuit filed last summer by Caesar Barber, a 270-pound Bronx
man, who alleged that McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC
did id not properly disclose the risks of eating too much of
their fatty, salty fare.  Samuel Hirsch shelved the Barber case
and lunched another in which Professor Banzhaf is involved:  
suing McDonald's on behalf of two New York families whose
teenage daughters have eaten at McDonald's for years and suffer
from obesity-related conditions such as diabetes and high blood
pressure.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, a Washington, D.C., coalition
that promotes personal responsibility and is backed by the food
industry, is highly critical of Professor Banzhaf.  Mike Burita,
the center's communications director, accuses the attorney of
championing frivolous lawsuits and said he has "sunk to a new
low" with his threat to the Seattle School Board.

However, Northeastern University law professor Richard Daynard
believes Professor Banzhaf is justified.  "If a school board
today votes to continue a contract like this, I think they
should have serious legal concerns," said Professor Daynard.  
"They are doing something that to me sees quite reckless."

Professor Banzhaf said about his activities, "I would rather
spend my time suing people who deserve to be sued rather than
suing somebody simply because the other side brought me a check
and said, ' I don't like Mr. Smith because Mr. Smith did
something to me.' "  Professor Banzhaf added, "Often you can
accomplish more by suing than by public education or
organizing."


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------



July 31-August 1, 2003  
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 26-27, 2003
THE ANNUAL MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
FROM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH TRIAL
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-505-1490

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 8-10, 2003
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 11-12, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15-16, 2003  
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 18-19, 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26, 2003
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

September 29-30, 2003
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 29-30, 2003
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-12, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com




* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

                    
                  New Securities Fraud Lawsuits    


CENTRAL PARKING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of Central Parking Corporation (NYSE:CPC) between November 4,
2002 and February 13, 2003, inclusive, against Central Parking
and certain officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements to
the investing public.  The defendants failed to disclose several
adverse facts, including that the Company was unable to
sufficiently record and document its financial results due to
its inadequate internal controls.

The complaint further alleges that Central Parking was
materially understating its bad debt reserve and its accounts
payable.  Consequently, the Company's financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and were thereby materially false and misleading.

On February 14, 2003, Central Parking announced that it would be
taking a charge to increase its bad debt reserve and that it
would be taking a charge to increase its accounts payables.  
Following this announcement, the price of Central Parking common
stock decreased from $15.82 on February 13, 2003 to a close of
$12.31 on February 14, 2003, or a one-day decline of over 22%,
on over seven times normal trading volume.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com


DIVINE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of divine, inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: DVINQ) formerly publicly
traded securities during the period between November 12, 2001 to
February 18, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Andrew J. Filipowski
(Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
and Michael P. Cullinane (Chief Financial Officer and Executive
Vice President) 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 November 12, 2001, and February 18, 2003,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Divine securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) Divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its
         revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing
         employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to
         offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in
         advance -- months before payments were due to
         publishers -- even though Divine had no plan to pay its
         obligations to publishers;

     (2) Divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million
         from RoweCom's operations;

     (3) Divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls
         with respect to its RoweCom operations, and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, Divine lacked a
         reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end
         or an ability to maintain its operations without
         bankruptcy protections.

The Class Period ends on February 18, 2003.  On that date,
Divine announced that "despite efforts over the past several
months to minimize operating expenses and various liabilities,
its board of directors has determined that it must seek
alternatives to protect the value and viability of its
operations.  

As a result, Divine has engaged Broadview International LLC as
advisors to assist in exploring strategic options, which may
include asset divestitures, comparable transactions, and/or the
filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code."  In response to this announcement, the
price of Divine stock declined precipitously.  During the Class
Period, Divine completed two acquisitions, among numerous others
acquiring Viant Corporation and Delano Technology Corporation and
using its common stock as currency.

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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against Lehman Brothers Inc. and its
senior technology analyst, Michael E. Stanek on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of RealNetworks, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: RNWK) during the period from July 1, 1999 through
June 30, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
and misleading analyst reports on RealNetworks, a global
provider of software products and services for internet media
delivery, in a bid to win or maintain lucrative banking and
advisory work from the Company.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements, the market price of
RealNetworks common stock was artificially inflated, maintained
or stabilized during the Class Period.

On April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) issued a complaint charging Lehman with
violating numerous rules of conduct of the National Association
of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) and the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (NYSE), by issuing false and misleading analyst
reports on numerous companies, including RealNetworks.

The complaint describes the influence and control exerted by
Lehman's investment bankers on its supposedly independent
research analysts, and details how positive ratings and research
reports on RealNetworks issued by defendants to the public were
contrary to defendants' more negative assessments of the
Company's true value and prospects.  Lehman eventually settled
these charges for the payment of $50 million.

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


MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, 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, against the Company and:

     (1) Parker H. Petit,

     (2) Jeffrey D. Koepsell, and

     (3) George W. Dunaway

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 Gregory Mark Nespole or Derek Behnke
by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Matria.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, on behalf of all purchasers
of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) common stock during
the period from February 7, 2002 through June 23, 2003,
inclusive.

The action charges Pediatrix and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the class period -- of artificially
inflating the price of Pediatrix's shares.

Pediatrix issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial condition during the
class period.  Specifically, Pediatrix failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP launched a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of PolyMedica
Corporation (NasdaqNM:PLMD) common stock during the period from
July 23, 2001 through June 30, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges certain of PolyMedica's senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem from the
dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the
effect -- during the class period -- of artificially inflating
the price of PolyMedica's shares.

PolyMedica issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial condition during the
class period.  Specifically, during the relevant time period, it
has been alleged that PolyMedica overstated earnings by
capitalizing direct response advertising costs related to the
acquisition of new customers rather than expensing them as
incurred.

Consequently, PolyMedica recorded such advertising costs as
assets rather than as expenses.  By accounting for these
expenses as assets, PolyMedica could spread the cost over a two
to four year period rather than accounting for the expense in
the quarter in which they were incurred.  This allowed
PolyMedica to understate operating expenses, overstate assets,
and create a false impression of operating efficiencies with the
overall effect being that the Company misled investors
concerning the Company's growth and earnings.  This contrivance
violates Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the SEC
has closely scrutinized this practice.

On June 30, 2003, after the stock market closed, PolyMedica
issued a press release announcing that as a result of
discussions with the SEC regarding the expensing of the
Company's direct response advertising costs, PolyMedica may be
forced to restate results for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003.  

The Company said the restatement would reduce its fiscal 2002
earnings to $1.76 from $2.38 per share, a reduction of 26%, its
fiscal 2003 to $2.61 from $3.21, a reduction of 19%, and fiscal
2004 first quarter earnings expectations to $.66-.72 from $.84-
.90.  On this news, shares of PolyMedica, which had closed at
$45.86 on June 30, 2003, opened for trading on July 1, 2003, at
$38.56, down $7.30, or 15.9%.  PolyMedica shares closed later
that day at $37.39 per share for a loss of $8.47 per share, or
18.5%.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Provident Financial Group (Nasdaq: PFGI) between
January 17, 1997 and March 5, 2003, inclusive, and who were
injured thereby.

Provident Financial Group Inc.'s earnings restatement is one for
the record books - its six years worth of revisions is the
longest continuous string of amendments in memory for a US
company.  However, if history is any indication, Provident's
problems are only just beginning.  The company's stock lost 20%
on Wednesday, the day of the announcement by the Cincinnati
banking company, but a study from New York University's Stern
School of Business finds that the stocks of companies that
announce restatements drop for three straight sessions on
average.

"Earnings restatements rewrite a company's history," generally
in an unflattering way, said Min Wu of NYU's Department of
Accounting, Taxation and Business Law, who conducted the study
in conjunction with Softrax, whose software helps companies
tally revenue.  When companies restate earnings, and
particularly when that's accompanied by a warning about future
earnings - as was the case with Provident - there are usually
reverberations, Ms. Wu said. "Analysts' downgrades, class-action
lawsuits and management shuffles are not uncommon and they cast
a shadow over the firms, quite often for a long time."

However, Provident launched a quick offensive in an effort to
restore its credibility, said Christopher Carey, the company's
executive vice president and chief financial officer.

"We acted as soon as we found out and have been talking to
people all day emphasizing this was totally inadvertent on our
part and would never had been done if we had known differently,"
Mr. Carey told Dow Jones Newswires.  "At some point we expect to
go out and tell people face-to-face exactly why it happened and
exactly why it won't happen again."

However, he acknowledged Provident "has certainly experienced a
big setback."  Provident has plenty of company in revising its
financial reports.  Restatements appear as commonly today as
increases in profit expectations did in the late 1990s.
Restatements have spiked further since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
was passed in July.  The law calls for stringent reporting by
companies and requires executives to certify results.

Consider how times have already changed.  From 1994 through
1997, just 220 public companies restated earnings.  Over the
next four years - 1998 to 2001 - that number quadrupled to
roughly 900, according to Ms. Wu's research.  This year there
have already been dozens of restatements, with one of the most
high- profile being Royal Ahold NV (AHO), which said last month
it would restate $500 million of earnings going back two years.
But six years "is very, very unusual," said Joe Cooper of
Thomson Financial/ First Call, who said he could not recall a
longer string than the 24 quarters that Provident's move will
encompass. Provident "voluntarily" made its disclosure like
three-fourths of companies do, according to Ms. Wu's research,
and that can be a plus for retaining investor credibility.

The bank holding company has since notified the Federal Reserve
and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the errors and
said it expects to file its 10-K report, with the correct data,
on time - another positive, Ms. Wu said.  Provident is also in
the majority of companies that give the amount of the
restatement on the day they announce the development.  The other
one- third do not, with the data coming as soon as two days
after and as late as one and a half years.  The average is one
to two months, she added.

Provident's restatement totaled $70.3 million over the six
years, and the company said it was able to pin down the numbers
immediately after recognizing the deals involved nine leases
that were posted as off-balance-sheet transactions and shouldn't
have been.  By keeping these transactions off the balance sheet,
the company "gave the appearance it had more capital and higher
income," said Wilson Smith, banking analyst at Cohen Brothers in
Philadelphia.  "That's something that could hang over their head
for a while, but be mitigated by the proactive steps they're
discussing."

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


READ-RITE CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Read-Rite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Other OTC:RDRTQ.PK) common stock during
the period from October 30, 2001 to June 6, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges certain of Read-Rite's senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem from the
dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the
effect -- during the class period -- of artificially inflating
the price of Read-Rite's shares.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


SINGING MACHINE: Kirby McInerney Launches Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of Singing
Machine Medical Group, Inc. (AMEX:SMD) common stock during the
period from February 14, 2001 through July 14, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges Singing Machine and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the class period -- of artificially
inflating the price of Singing Machine's shares.

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 August 9, 2001 and June
27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of The
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 as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times;

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

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

On June 27, 2003, the Company 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.

News of The Singing Machine's restatement shocked the market.  
Shares of The Singing Machine 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, and shares of the Singing Machine fell 19% percent to
close at $3.03 per share on July 15, 2003.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.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  * * *