CAR_Public/030728.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Monday, July 28, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 147

                        Headlines                            

AOL TIME WARNER: W. Virginia Files Suit For Pension Fund Losses
BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 265,000 Cordless Drill For Fire Hazard
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Preliminary Approval Granted to TX Suit
CANADA: Vancouver Judge Reserves Ruling on Suit V. Wheat Board
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Routers For Design Flaw, Safety Hazard

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Reveals Culture of Protection, Secrecy
CENTRELINK: Unemployed To Launch Suit Seeking Changes in System
CONAGRA FOOD: Recalls Fresh Chicken That May Contain Glass
FAX ADVERTISING: Appeals Court Allows Suits Over Unsolicited Ads
FGH INTERNATIONAL: NC Attorney General Halts Telemarketing Scam

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Settles Motor Home Owners' Lawsuit in TX
GLOBAL COMMODITIES: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites
GOODYEAR TIRE: PA Court Remands Entran II Lawsuit To State Court
GUSTO FOODS: Recalls No. 1 Bamboo Shoots For Undeclared Sulfites
IDAHO: Residents Asked To File Claims in Taxol Antitrust Pact

JV TRADING: Recalls Sweetened Jujube Due To Undeclared Sulfites
KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins For Undeclared Sulfites
LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Cumin Over Possible Salmonella
PHILIPPINES: Human Rights Victims To Promote Compensation Law
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Starts in Chicken Growers' Suit in TX

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss PA Listeria Suit
QUALCOMM INC.: Employees Appeal Dismissal of Claims in CO Suit
QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA Court
QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File New Lawsuit For Labor Violations
QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Mobile Phone Suits

SAN ANTONIO: Recalls 438lbs of Cheese For Undeclared Ingredient
SERVICES GROUP: Agrees To Settle Pension Fund Lawsuit For $1.95M
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Oral Arguments on Appeal of Suit Set Aug. 2003
STAMPEDE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Beef For E. Coli Contamination
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Given In LA Smokers Suit

TRANS WORLD: CA Jury Rules Firm Did Not Defraud Policyholders
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students To Sue Over Tuition Fee Hike

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTRAL PARKING: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in TN
TRIPOS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MO
TRIPOS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO


                          *********


AOL TIME WARNER: W. Virginia Files Suit For Pension Fund Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of West Virginia is commencing a lawsuit against
multimedia company AOL Time Warner, Inc. charging it with
fraudulent accounting practices that caused the state pension
fund to lose $9 million, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, follows two
suits filed against the Company by the states of California and
Ohio.  These suits seek to recover more than $450 million and
$100 million, respectively, in losses.

The West Virginia Investment Management Board filed the suit,
charging corporate insiders, bankers and accountants with filing
false and misleading financial statements after the the 2001
merger between America Online and Time Warner.  The board
oversees state pension investments in stock and bond markets.

West Virginia filed its own lawsuit against AOL Time Warner
rather than participate in a class action case, Craig Slaughter,
the investment board's executive director told AP.  A company
spokeswoman declined to comment.


BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 265,000 Cordless Drill For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Black & Decker (US), Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about
265,000 18-volt cordless drill/drivers.  The drill's switch can
malfunction and overheat, posing the possibility of a fire
hazard to consumers.  Black & Decker has received twenty reports
of melting, smoking, or fires in the drills, including two minor
burn injuries.
        
The recalled 18-volt, cordless drill/drivers are orange or jade
and have the words, "Black & Decker" printed on the body of the
drill.  The drill/drivers have the following model numbers and
date codes:

     (1) MODEL NUMBER:   CD1800
         DATE CODES:     20011952 through 20020652       
         COLOR:          Orange

     (2) MODEL NUMBER:   PS3700
         DATE CODES:     973652 through 983052           
         COLOR:          Jade

     (3) MODEL NUMBER:   PS3725
         DATE CODES:     20003852 through 20013652       
         COLOR:          Jade

     (4) MODEL NUMBER:   PS3750
         DATE CODES:     20002454 through 20005252       
         COLOR:          Jade

The model number is printed on the nameplate on the side of the
drill and the date code is printed on the bottom of the handle
where the battery is inserted (remove the battery to locate date
code).  The recalled units were manufactured in China.
        
Mass merchandisers, home centers and hardware stores nationwide
sold the drill/drivers from September 1997 through February 2002
for between $50 and $80.  The drill/drivers were sold separately
and as part of various tool kits.
        
For more details, contact Black & Decker by Phone:
(866) 821-5444 between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday
to receive a free repair.  For additional information, visit the
Company's Website: http://www.blackanddecker.com.


BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Preliminary Approval Granted to TX Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 172nd District Court in Beaumont, Texas granted preliminary
approval to a nationwide settlement proposed by Bridgestone
Corporation's Firestone Unit for a class action relating to the
Company's August 2000 recall of 6.5 million tires, Reuters
reports.

Under the settlement, consumers who purchased the recalled
Wilderness AT and ATX tires but were not personally injured or
have property damage will be entitled to a replacement of the
tire.  The Company will also spend $15.5 million on a three-year
consumer education program focusing on tire safety and
incorporate technology that would improve the high-speed
capability of some tires.

Judge Donald Floyd also ordered lawyers for both sides to come
up with a plan to notify those eligible for the settlement. The
proposal is subject to a final fairness hearing.

The Company still faces hundreds of personal injury lawsuits
filed after federal authorities linked the tires, mostly
installed on Ford Motor Co. F.N Explorers, with 271 deaths and
hundreds of injuries.  Most of the personal injury lawsuits have
been settled out of court.

Firestone, based in Nashville, Tennessee, told Reuters it will
incorporate the new manufacturing technology involving cap
strips, nylon strips or comparable elements in some tires for
seven years.  It also will pay $19 million in legal fees and
$2,500 each to 45 named plaintiffs in the case, a Firestone
spokesman said.

Consumers who had the recalled Wilderness AT and ATX tires can
get more information toll free by calling 866-345-0360.


CANADA: Vancouver Judge Reserves Ruling on Suit V. Wheat Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Vancouver federal court judge is holding off issuing his
decision on a government motion to strike the class action filed
against the Canadian Wheat Board, The Western Producer reports.

Prominent Regina lawyer Tony Merchant filed the suit on farmers'
behalf of farmers, accusing the board of taking expenses related
to the issuance of export licenses from the pool accounts. That
contravenes the board's statutory powers, he said.

Mr. Merchant said he is confident the claim will proceed.  "The
judge said often to the government lawyer words like, 'But even
the Canadian Wheat Board may not disobey the statutes," he said.

He added that sections 7 and 33 of the wheat board act set out
that the federal government will pay certain costs related to
that wheat or the wheat in the designated area.  "What the wheat
board has been doing . is taking all sorts of expenses out of
the pooled accounts and they've been doing it since 1935," he
told the Western Producer.

Spokespersons for the wheat board would not comment while the
case is before the courts.


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Routers For Design Flaw, Safety Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Tire is voluntarily recalling the Mastercraft Router
and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kit.  The recall applies
to all Mastercraft Routers sold between October 15, 2001 and
July 18, 2003, and to Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kits
sold between May 1, 2003 and July 18, 2003.

The Mastercraft Router (Canadian Tire product number 54-7036-6)
and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kit (Canadian Tire
product number 54-6903-8) are being voluntarily recalled due to
a design flaw and potential safety issue.  If the dust cover is
used on these units, router bits with a diameter in excess of 1-
1/8" may not be able to be sufficiently tightened resulting in
the potential for bits to be projected from the unit when in
use.

Mastercraft Routers and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kits
can be identified as follows:

     (1) Mastercraft branding on the product;

     (2) Product number (54-7036-6) is stamped on the faceplate
         of the router;

     (3) Product number (54-6903-8) is stamped on the leg of the
         router table.

Canadian Tire has not been notified of any instance of injury,
but is requesting that customers who have purchased either of
these products immediately discontinue their use and return them
to their nearest Canadian Tire store for a full refund.

    
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Reveals Culture of Protection, Secrecy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly's report on the Boston
clerical sex abuse crisis is unnerving because it revealed a
familiar pattern of bishops protecting abusers and not victims,
some Catholic observers stated, the Associated Press reports.  
Findings in the report state a likely total of more than 1,000
sexual abuse victims since 1940, and more than 200 Roman
Catholic priests who abused them.

The report stated that former Boston Archbishop Bernard Law had
the ultimate responsibility for handling the abusers, but his
predecessors and his five senior assistants did nothing to
punish the molesters in Boston parishes.  Analysts believe that
this showed that too many bishops have given the Catholic
faithful too little reason to trust them.

The role of bishops in Catholicism is "extremely important and,
no question, it is seriously damaged," David O'Brien, a
historian at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass told
AP.

Several groups have called for concrete forms of action.  The
Massachusetts-based lay reform group Voice of the Faithful
called on Pope John Paul II to publicly reprimand Cardinal Law,
his advisers and others.  It is "morally unacceptable that the
protectors of predators" continue to lead the church so they
should decide on their own to resign, the group told AP.

Cardinal Law will be replaced next week by Archbishop-elect Sean
Patrick O'Malley - a prelate with a good record on dealing with
abusers.

Mr. O'Brien said that the question regarding whether the Vatican
or fellow American bishops will hold erring leaders accountable
still stands.  "Pressure will grow for truth telling, for full
implementation of promised reforms and especially for what we
haven't gotten yet: accountability of bishops," he told AP.


CENTRELINK: Unemployed To Launch Suit Seeking Changes in System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Government agency Centrelink and the Australian government
ministers face a potential class action to be filed on behalf of
more than 4,000 Australians, seeking to change the commonwealth
services system, ABC News Online reports.

The announcement was made in Hobart, Australia on behalf of the
Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed.  Spokesman
Bill Watson says the culture of Centrelink has to change.  
"Unemployed people, no matter what they are, are automatically
guilty until they . prove their innocence (against) actions by
the Government to continually blame and slander those people for
every single mistake known on the planet," Mr. Watson said.  
"The time has come now for us to fight back."

Mr. Watson expects the case will be lodged in a Hobart court in
six weeks.


CONAGRA FOOD: Recalls Fresh Chicken That May Contain Glass
----------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Poultry Company is voluntarily recalling approximately
129,000 pounds of fresh chicken that may contain glass, the US
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.  The products being recalled are:

     (1) 3.5-4 lb. bags of "Country Pride FRESH CHICKEN" bearing
         a sell-by date of "6-20-03," "6-21-03," or "6-22-03."
         Each bag also has an establishment code of "P-177"
         inside the USDA seal of inspection.  The products were
         produced on June 10 and distributed to retail stores in
         Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South
         Carolina;

     (2) 40 lb. cases of "FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN 8 PC WOFT / 20 HD"
         bearing a product code of "019434" and an establishment
         code "P-1279" inside the USDA seal of inspection.  The
         products were produced on June 10 and distributed to
         institutions in Florida, Georgia, New York, North
         Carolina and South Carolina;

     (3) 40 lb. cases of "COUNTRY PRIDE FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN
         WHOLE WINGS AND LIVERS" bearing a product code of
         "019553" and an establishment code "P-6638" inside the
         USDA seal of inspection.  The products were produced on
         June 9-10 and distributed to institutions in Florida,
         Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina.

ConAgra Poultry Company discovered the problem and contacted
FSIS to initiate a product recall.  "Because of the potential
hazard, I urge consumers who have purchased these products not
to eat them but to return them to the place of purchase," said
Dr. Garry L. McKee, FSIS administrator.

For more details, contact Elaine Born, consumer communication,
by Phone: (770) 232-4200.


FAX ADVERTISING: Appeals Court Allows Suits Over Unsolicited Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Appellate Court in Los Angeles California reversed a
decision stating that Legislature must enact a law expressly
allowing people to sue fax-advertisers directly, CBC Los Angeles
reports.  The ruling will allow consumers to sue such firms for
$500 per unwanted fax.

Earlier, two class actions were filed against firms who
allegedly faxed hundreds of thousands of unsolicited
advertisements.  Earlier this week, State Attorney General
William Lockyer filed a suit against Fax.com, Inc., charging the
Company with violating state and federal laws.

State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who sponsored a bill to
reduce mass faxes, said Tuesday's decision "makes it crystal
clear that people can go to court and sue junk faxers for $500 a
fax, period, end of story," CBC Los Angeles stated.


FGH INTERNATIONAL: NC Attorney General Halts Telemarketing Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that a
telemarketing scam that targets Spanish-speaking consumers who
want to learn English has been ordered out of business.

"These scammers are preying upon a group of consumers who are
new to our state, eager to learn our language, and unfamiliar
with just how low some telemarketers will stoop to steal," said
Atty. Gen. Cooper.  "To make their phony offer sound legitimate,
the telemarketers even claim that their victims have been chosen
by the government to receive language classes."

Wake County Superior Court Judge Ripley Rand agreed with Atty
Gen. Cooper's request to temporarily stop F.G.H. International
from telemarketing to North Carolina consumers.  In a suit filed
yesterday, Atty. Gen. Cooper alleges that F.G.H. International
broke state laws by deceiving consumers and failing to register
as telephone solicitors with the Secretary of State's office.  
He is asking the courts to stop F.G.H. International permanently
and require them to pay penalties.  Named as defendants are
F.G.H. International, which also operates as Financiera
Gubernmental Hispana and GF&C International, and its presidents,
Franco Morales and Johnny Rojas, all based in California.

As alleged in the complaint, F.G.H. International has marketed a
program to teach English to Spanish-speaking North Carolina
residents since at least the fall of 2001.  Telemarketers
working for F.G.H. International tell prospective customers that
they have been specially selected by the government to receive
subsidized language training but that they must pay a quarter of
the cost out of pocket, a total of $1,200.  The telemarketers
sometimes offer a program to train auto mechanics using a
similar pitch.  In reality, none of the customers called by the
telemarketers have been selected by a government agency to learn
English or other skills through any F.G.H. International
program.  

According to consumers who complained about F.G.H.  
International to the AG's office, the telemarketers then ask for
their credit card or bank account numbers or offer to set up a
payment plan.  Customers who paid for the training were not
enrolled in any classes to learn English or auto repair.  
Instead, they received only a videotape and other poor quality
materials for their payment of $1,200.

"Hispanic and Latino consumers who aren't as familiar with our
state's laws and business practices need to be on the look out
for scammers who may try to take advantage of them," cautioned
AG Cooper.  "If you have questions or think you've been the
victim of fraud, contact my office.  We're here to help."

For more details, contact John Bason, Public Information
Officer, North Carolina Department of Justice by Phone:
(919) 716-6484 or by E-mail: jbason@mail.jus.state.nc.us


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Settles Motor Home Owners' Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval for the settlement of the class action against
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is set for September 30,2003 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division.

The complaint attempts to establish a class comprised of Class A
motor home purchasers for the model years 1994-1999. It also
makes claims with respect to the alleged breach of express and
implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and violation of various state statutes in
connection with the ability of these motor homes to tow an
automobile or other vehicle or cargo.

On September 24, 2001, the Court certified a subclass of Texas
residents who purchased a subject motor home from a Texas dealer
and who still own the motor home.  The Company appealed this
certification to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on October
4, 2001, and on February 14, 2003, the Fifth Circuit ruled that
the trial court had erred in certifying a State sub-class based
upon fraud and/or misrepresentation, but confirmed a class based
upon the implied warranty of merchantability.

On May 1, 2003, the Company reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with representatives of the class, which received
preliminary approval from the court on June 25, 2003.  Pursuant
to the preliminary settlement agreement, the Company would pay
attorneys' fees in the amount of $2.85 million in settlement of
the case plus $250 to each member of the class who still owns
their vehicle and who can demonstrate that they have purchased a
supplemental braking system or intend to purchase a supplemental
braking system.

The Company also faces a class action pending in the Los
Angeles, California, Superior Court, Central District, alleging
fraud and misrepresentation in the marketing of Fleetwood motor
homes from model years 1994 through 2000.  The complaint
contends that Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capacities of
its motor homes without informing consumers of the need for
auxiliary brakes on the towed vehicle, and seeks a variety of
damages and injunctive relief.

This matter is virtually the same as the first suit, and the
preliminary settlement in that suit will settle this suit as
well.


GLOBAL COMMODITIES: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Commodities, Inc. is recalling "Dried Green Raisins"
because it contains undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.  
The recalled Dried Green Raisins which are packaged in 14 oz.
plastic bags were sold in New York City.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in "Dried Green
Raisins" in packages which did not declare sulfites on the
label.  The product contains 57 milligrams of sulfites per
serving.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some
asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.  No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased "Dried Green Raisins" should return
it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 718-460-3215.


GOODYEAR TIRE: PA Court Remands Entran II Lawsuit To State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Federal Court remanded to the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas a consumer class action filed against
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. over alleged defects in a hose used
for home heating systems, law.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of all Pennsylvanian homeowners who
installed Entran II hoses in their homes, under floors, above
ceilings, behind dry wall and paneling, below patios and decks,
in crawl spaces and sometimes directly encased in concrete.  The
orange-colored hose is connected to manifolds and one or more
boilers, and heat is transferred throughout the system by the
water and glycol fluid.  The hose was allegedly warranted for 20
years, but defects sometimes arise with a few years of use.  The
suit asserts that the hose discolors, grows brittle and cracks
causing heating system failures and extensive damage from
leaking water and glycol fluid.

Two similar suits are pending against the Company.  Early this
year, a Colorado state court issued a $23 million verdict to a
group of six homeowners.  However, an Ohio jury dismissed a
similar suit, saying that the Entran II hose is "merchantable."

Federal Judge Bruce W. Kauffman ruled that the Company couldn't
show that "each and every" potential class member would satisfy
the $75,000 federal damages minimum, since each of the named
plaintiffs had a claim worth more than $75,000.

Lawyers for the Company asked the court to keep the suit in
federal court and simply dismiss the claims of any unnamed class
members whose claims are jurisdictionally deficient.  Judge
Kauffman rejected the argument, saying remanding the suit to
state court was proper "in the interests of fairness and
judicial economy."  

The ruling is a victory for attorneys David H. Weinstein and
Kellie A. Allen of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman who
filed the suit, law.com reports.


GUSTO FOODS: Recalls No. 1 Bamboo Shoots For Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gusto Food, Inc. is recalling Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot
Sliced (Pai Tong) because it contains undeclared sulfites.  
People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.  The recalled Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced
(Pai Tong), which is packaged in 24 oz. glass bottles, was sold
in Upstate New York.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Mr. No. 1 brand
Bamboo Shoot Sliced (Pai Tong) in packages which did not
declared sulfites on the label.  The product contains 15.81
milligrams of sulfites per serving.  The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could
occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.  No illnesses have been reported
to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced
(Pai Tong) should return it to the place of purchase.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-894-2976.


IDAHO: Residents Asked To File Claims in Taxol Antitrust Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Idahoans who purchased Taxol or paclitaxel (including Onxol),
cancer treatment drugs, may now file claims for reimbursement,
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said in a statement.  The
reimbursement is the result of a previously announced antitrust
settlement between Bristol-Myers Squibb and the attorneys
general of all 50 states, the US territories and the District of
Columbia.

The $62 million antitrust settlement resolved allegations that
Bristol-Myers Squibb violated state and federal competition laws
by blocking the entry of less expensive generic drugs into the
marketplace.  The settlement provides $12.5 million to consumers
who were injured as a result of Bristol-Myers Squibb's actions.

"The delay of lower priced generic versions of the drug Taxol
was an unlawful anti-competitive practice.  The unlawful acts
forced many Idahoans to pay more for chemotherapy," Attorney
General Wasden said.  "I strongly encourage Idahoans who
purchased these drugs to apply for the reimbursement to which
they are entitled."

Taxol and Onxol are used to treat breast and ovarian cancers in
their late stages.  The drugs are also sometimes used to treat
lung cancer and certain cancers caused by AIDS, such as Kaposi's
Sarcoma.  

In addition to settling the states' claims, Bristol-Myers Squibb
agreed to reimburse the state of Idaho $108,000 to settle the
state's claims against the company.

Idaho consumers who purchased Taxol or its generic equivalent
between January 1, 1999 and February 28, 2003 may be eligible to
file a claim.  The claim form and filing information is
accessible via the Attorney General's Website:
http://www.state.id.us/agor contact the Taxol Settlement  
Administrator by Phone: (800) 659-7609.  Claim forms must be
postmarked by November 14, 2003.


JV TRADING: Recalls Sweetened Jujube Due To Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
JV Trading Glendale Ltd. is recalling packages of LUKAI brand
SWEETENED JUJUBE because the product contains undeclared
sulfites.  People who have a severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

SWEETENED JUJUBE was distributed nationwide through retail
stores and wholesale distributors.  SWEETENED JUJUBE is packaged
in 235gr. (8.3 oz) sealed plastic bags with red, tan, and yellow
labeling, mostly all Chinese writing with a brief product
introduction in English on the back of the package.  The product
code is Q/ CLB03-2001 and can be found on back of package.  No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by Food
Inspectors of the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets revealed the product containing sulfite was distributed
in packaging that did not declare the presence of sulfites.  The
consumption of 10 mg. of sulfites per serving has been reported
to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic
shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites.  Analysis of the LUKAI
SWEETENED JUJUBE revealed it contained in excess of 82 mg. per
serving.

Consumers who have purchased LUKAI SWEETENED JUJUBE in 235gr
(8.3 oz) plastic packages can return it to J.V. Trading Glendale
Ltd. at the above address for a full refund.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: (516) 942-9308.


KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kadouri International Foods, Inc. is recalling Pakistani Green
Raisins (Kishmish) because it contains undeclared sulfites.  
People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.  The recalled Pakistani Green Raisins (Kishmish),  
packaged in 27.5 pound cartons, were sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Pakistani Green
Raisins (Kishmish) in packages which did not declare sulfites on
the label.  The product contains 57 milligrams of sulfites per
serving.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some
asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.  No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this problem.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-3831-6100.


LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Cumin Over Possible Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisy Corporation is recalling all ORALE brand Ground Cumin, Item
141-A, in the 1.5oz package size, because it is potentially
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The ORALE brand Ground Cumin was distributed to wholesalers and
retail stores in the following states: Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas,
Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
York, West Virginia, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico,
Kentucky, and Arizona.

The ORALE brand Ground Cumin is packed into plastic bags with a
paper label on top with the statement: ITEM # 141-A ORALE GROUND
CUMIN 1.50 OZ.  No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was a result of routing sampling and analysis by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which
revealed that the finished products contained bacteria.  This
recall is being initiated with the knowledge of the Food and
Drug Administration.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 305-836-6001.


PHILIPPINES: Human Rights Victims To Promote Compensation Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of human rights violations under late dictator Ferdinand
Marcos will push for a special law to compensate thousands of
people who were tortured, summarily executed or disappeared
during his rule, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

Attention turned to a two-year-old bill to compensate the
Marcos' victims after the Supreme Court last week awarded the
former president's frozen Swiss bank deposits to the government
after ruling they qualified as "ill-gotten wealth."  President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo welcomed the Supreme Court ruling,
saying she will put about eight billion pesos (about US$150
million) in an escrow account for the Marcos victims to "lend
recognition to the Filipino people's struggle for freedom,
justice and redemption."  The funds, which were valued at
US$658.2 million early last year, have been transferred to an
escrow account at the Philippine National Bank.

Marie Hilao, secretary general of Selda, a group of former
political detainees, said the proposed compensation law is in
danger of being watered down by pro-Marcos legislators,
including his daughter, Rep. Imee Marcos. These legislators are
trying to remove direct references to the Marcos' regime, and
instead wish to compensate victims of all administrations.

"We want it on record that there were gross, systematic and
massive human rights violations (under the Marcos regime), that
President Marcos raided the treasury and that the victims
resisted in a militant and heroic struggle," Ms. Hilao said.   
"The memory of the struggle during martial law must be
preserved."

There were, however, some other views about compensation for
human rights victims.  Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales, a former
political detainee who heads a congressional committee on human
rights, supported a general compensation law.

"Victims of other regimes, whoever they are, should be viewed as
equals," Rep. Rosales told DZBB radio.  "If we could include the
other victims of human rights violations, let us do so."

The human rights lawyers' group, Public Interest Law Center,
criticized Ms. Rosales' move to generalize the recognition of
the human rights victims so as to include violations under other
regimes.

"The only sensible recourse is for sponsors of the (bill) to
stand firm in defense of the basic premise that a special law
for Marcos victims is justified and necessary," said a statement
issued by the Public Interest Law Center.

Rep. Satur Ocampo, a former communist underground leader
severely tortured after his arrest in 1976, said a separate law
should target other victims of state abuse.  "There is a
political message," said Rep. Ocampo.  "What happened during
martial law . was that the government pirated human rights
massively.  The state acknowledges that, and it assumes the
moral and legal responsibility to compensate them."

Mr. Ocampo referred to a 1992 decision by the federal district
court in Hawaii, which found the Marcos estate liable for
torture, summary executions and involuntary disappearances.  In
1995, the court awarded about US$2 billion to 9,539 victims who
filed a class action.

Ms. Hilao said the number of Marcos victims is estimated to
total at least 120,000 and that not all have come out publicly.  
Some do not want to relive their ordeal, she said; while others
are still afraid because the "martial law machinery is still
intact."


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Starts in Chicken Growers' Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a class action filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation on behalf of a putative class of
chicken growers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.

The suit alleges that the Company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers. The plaintiffs
also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards
Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duties and breach of contract.

On July 29, 2002, the Company filed its motion to dismiss.  Upon
the filing of the motion, the plaintiffs entered into an
agreement to stay any certification of the class pending the
outcome of the trial of the three plaintiffs, Cody Wheeler, Don
Davis and Davey Williams.

On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.  
The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the
entering of the order by the court.  The Company also filed a
motion to transfer venue on August 19, 2002, and the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit any
alleged retaliation against the growers.

The court denied the Company's motion to transfer venue on March
14, 2003, and the case will remain in the Eastern District of
Texas, Texarkana Division. The court also denied the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction on March 3, 2003.  

Discovery is in the initial phases in this case.  The Company
will fight the case's certification as a class action should it
not prevail in the trial of the three plaintiffs. It disputes
any question concerning ultimate liability and damages, if any.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss PA Listeria Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after a limited number
of USDA environmental samples from the Company's Franconia,
Pennsylvania plant tested positive for Listeria in October 2002.  

As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all cooked deli
products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002 through October
11, 2002.  No illnesses associated with the Listeria strain in a
Northeastern outbreak have been linked to any of the Company's
products and no products of the Company have tested positive for
the outbreak strain.

The lead plaintiff allegedly contracted Listeriosis. The case,
initially filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
sought recovery on behalf of a putative class of all persons
that purchased and/or consumed meat products manufactured at the
Company's Franconia, Pennsylvania facility between May 1, 2002
and October 11, 2002, who have suffered an injury.  This
putative class sought to include all individuals who have
suffered Listeriosis and symptoms of Listeriosis and other
medical injuries.  The plaintiff also sought to represent a
putative class of all persons that purchased and/or consumed
meat products manufactured at the Company's Franconia,
Pennsylvania facility between May 1, 2002 and October 11, 2002,
who have not suffered any personal injury.

The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages under
theories of negligence, alleged violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law, strict
liability in tort, and unjust enrichment.

On December 6, 2002, the Company filed its Petition for Removal
to Federal court transferring this matter to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court on January 6,
2003.  The Company timely filed its response.  In addition, on
January 13, 2003, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss the
plaintiff's class action.  


QUALCOMM INC.: Employees Appeal Dismissal of Claims in CO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several former Qualcomm, Inc. employees appealed the dismissal
of their claims in the lawsuit filed against the Company in the
District Court for Boulder County, Colorado, alleging claims
for:

     (1) intentional misrepresentation,

     (2) nondisclosure and concealment,

     (3) violation of C.R.S. Section 8-2-104 (obtaining workers
         by misrepresentation),

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (6) promissory estoppel,

     (7) negligent misrepresentation,

     (8) unjust enrichment,

     (9) violation of California Labor Code Section 970,

    (10) violation of California Civil Code Sections 1709-1710,

    (11) rescission,

    (12) violation of California Business & Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (13) violation of California Civil Code Section 1575

The complaint seeks economic, emotional distress and punitive
damages and unspecified amounts of interest.  

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss 17 of the
plaintiffs from the lawsuit.  Subsequently, the court dismissed
three other plaintiffs from the lawsuit.  In November 2002, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss 61 of the
remaining 67 plaintiffs from the lawsuit.

The Company subsequently resolved the matters with the remaining
plaintiffs.  Those plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed have
appealed.  Although there can be no assurance that an
unfavorable outcome of the dispute would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's operating results, liquidity or
financial position, the Company believes the claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend the action.


QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated lawsuit against Qualcomm, Inc.
in the San Diego County Superior Court in California alleging
claims for:

     (1) declaratory relief,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) intentional/negligent fraud,

     (4) concealment,

     (5) rescission,

     (6) specific performance,

     (7) work, labor and services,

     (8) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (9) violation of California Business & Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (10) unjust enrichment

100 former employees filed the suit, claiming that they were
entitled to full vesting of unvested stock options as a result
of the sale of the Company's infrastructure business to Ericsson
in 1999.  The Company has answered the complaints, which have
been consolidated.

Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome
of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results, liquidity or financial position,
the Company believes the claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.


QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File New Lawsuit For Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
76 opt-in plaintiffs filed a new class action against Qualcomm,
Inc. after the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California dismissed their claims in the original
suit for violations of California's wage and labor laws.

The first suit was filed on behalf of former employees of the
Company whose employment was terminated in April 1999.  
Virtually all of the purported class of plaintiffs received
severance packages at the time of the termination of their
employment, in exchange for a release of claims, other than
federal age discrimination claims, against the Company.

The complaint was initially filed in California Superior Court
in and for the County of Los Angeles and purports to state ten
causes of action including breach of contract, age
discrimination, violation of Labor Code Section 200, violation
of Labor Code Section 970, unfair business practices,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
declaratory relief and undue influence.  The complaint seeks an
order accelerating all unvested stock options for the members of
the class, plus economic and liquidated damages of an
unspecified amount.

On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los
Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior
Court.  Discovery commenced.  On May 29, 2001, the court
dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for claims arising under
the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

On July 16, 2001, the court granted conditional class
certification to the remaining claims, to be revisited by the
Court at the end of the discovery period.  On April 15, 2003,
the court granted the Company's summary judgment motions as to
all remaining class members disparate impact claims.

On June 18, 2003, the court ordered de-certification of the
class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in
plaintiffs without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.  
On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed an action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act as a result of their layoffs in 1999.  To date,
the complaint has not been served.

Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome
of these disputes would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's operating results, liquidity or financial
position, the Company believes the claims are without merit.


QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Mobile Phone Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal of five consolidated
class actions filed against Qualcomm, Inc. and other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and
industry-related organizations in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  The suits seek personal
injury, economic and/or punitive damages arising out of its sale
of cellular phones.

On March 5, 2003, the court granted the defendants motions to
dismiss five of the consolidated cases on the grounds that the
claims were preempted by federal law.  On April 2, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this order and the
court's order denying remand.  All remaining cases filed against
the Company allege personal injury as a result of their use of a
wireless telephone.

The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases, and
the judge responsible for the multi-district litigation
proceedings recently made such a ruling in another case to which
the Company is not a party.


SAN ANTONIO: Recalls 438 lbs of Cheese For Undeclared Ingredient
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Antonio Packing Company, a San Antonio, Texas, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 438 pounds of head cheese
that contains an undeclared ingredient (sodium nitrite), the US
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.  

The products being recalled are 4-8 oz. packages of "APCO Brand
Meats HEAD CHEESE," bearing the package date "5/05/03" or
"6/09/03."  Each package also bears the establishment code "EST.
602" inside the USDA seal of inspection.  

The products were produced on May 3, 2003, and June 7, 2003, and
distributed to retail stores in Texas.  The products contain
sodium nitrite, but the product label does not list sodium
nitrite as an ingredient.  The problem was discovered by an FSIS
inspector during a routine label inspection.   

For more details, contact Robert Castaneda, plant manager by
Phone: (210) 224-5441.


SERVICES GROUP: Agrees To Settle Pension Fund Lawsuit For $1.95M
----------------------------------------------------------------
$1.95 million will be paid to settle claims for over 1,600 past
and present Services Group of America employees by president
Thomas Stewart, members of the company's profit sharing plan
committee and Frank Russell Trust Company to settle a class
action that accused them of failing to properly invest the
plan's assets.  A federal court judge in Seattle approved the
settlement earlier this week.

The lawsuit contended that Mr. Stewart, Frank Russell Trust and
others precipitously liquidated over $30 million in the
company's profit-sharing plan.  Employees were not informed of
the radical investment change until several months later.

Attorney Chuck Thulin said Mr. Stewart and the other parties --
in violation of federal pension law -- failed to make prudent
investment decisions and to diversify the plan's investments.  
The class, represented by the Seattle law firms of Sirianni,
Youtz, Meier and Spoonemore and Ekman, Bohrer & Thulin, sought
to recover the plan's opportunity losses from October 1998
through April 1999.

"This case sends a message to people who control worker's
investment funds," said attorney Rick Spoonemore.  "If you want
to control your employees' investment funds, you will be
appropriately held to a high standard."

"Stewart and other committee members were pension investment
fiduciaries and had a legal duty to invest and diversify
investments in a prudent manner," said Mr. Thulin.  "Simply put,
they didn't live up to the responsibility."

Class members do not need to make a claim to obtain settlement
proceeds.  Checks will either be sent directly to class members,
or their profit-sharing accounts will receive settlement funds.  
It is expected that the funds will be distributed over the next
two months.

For more details, contact Charles Thulin of Ekman, Bohrer &
Thulin by Phone: 206-282-8221 or 206-683-9031 (After hours) or
contact: Rick Spoonemore of Sirianni, Youtz, Meier & Spoonemore
by Phone: 206-223-0303 or 206-937-1319 (After hours) or Barry
Bartlett by Phone: 206-285-0673


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Oral Arguments on Appeal of Suit Set Aug. 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is set to
hear oral arguments for the appeal in the class action filed
against Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Joseph W. Luter III, alleging
violations of various laws, including the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, based on the Company's failure to
comply with certain environmental laws.  The suit was initially
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division and seeks treble damages
that are unspecified.

On February 13, 2002, the court granted the Company's and Mr.
Luter's motion to dismiss, giving the plaintiffs 20 days within
which to file an amended complaint.  On March 15, 2002, the
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.  On June 24,
2002, the court granted the Company's and Mr. Luter's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice
and issued an order imposing monetary sanctions against the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

The plaintiffs noted their appeal to the US Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit on July 24, 2002.  On February 25, 2003,
the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of some, but not all
of the plaintiffs.  The remaining plaintiffs' appeal has been
fully briefed and oral argument is scheduled before the Court of
Appeals during the week of August 4, 2003.


STAMPEDE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Beef For E. Coli Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stampede Meat, Inc. 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 U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.

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.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
physician immediately.

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.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Given In LA Smokers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six months after testimony began, lawyers for Louisiana
residents who are either smokers or ex-smoker, as well as
lawyers for the tobacco industry, presented their closing
arguments to a state district court jury, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.  

The smokers want the tobacco companies to pay for medical
monitoring of currently healthy smokers to determine whether any
future health problems develop.  They also are asking for
tobacco-funded quit-smoking programs.

In his closing argument, attorney Stephen Murray, representing
the plaintiff smokers, said the tobacco industry devised a
conspiracy in 1953, when widespread reports about possible links
between lung cancer and smoking first surfaced, to convince the
public that cigarettes were safe.

However, Mr. Murray said, "The cigarette is the most hazardous
product in the history of commerce."

Mr. Murray said cigarette-makers entered into a "gentleman's
agreement" not to research their own products, but would,
instead, use "front organizations," such as the Tobacco
Institute, to tell the public that there was no link between
smoking and cancer.

At the same time, said Mr. Murray, marketing programs were
devised to replace smokers who died or quit with a new
generation of smokers.  "The conspiracy and lies went on for
another 50 years," Mr. Murray said.  "They never let up."

As in other lawsuits against the tobacco industry, plaintiffs
contend that cigarette-makers hid the dangers of smoking from
the public; manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked
and targeted youths with advertising.  However, tobacco
attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to prove any case under
Louisiana law, including a cause-and-effect connection between
the alleged conspiracy and the class of Louisiana smokers and
former Louisiana smokers.

Philip Wittmann, an attorney for R.J. Reynolds, in his closing
argument, said the plaintiffs tried their case around an
"imaginary plaintiff" -- a non-existent person who was hooked on
smoking by a conspiracy and cannot quit.  Mr. Wittmann said
there was no evidence that any of the industry's advertising
campaigns had lured anyone to start smoking.

Ron Sholes, an attorney for Philip Morris, said the main goal of
the lawsuit was to make the tobacco industry pay for medical
tests from which anti-smoking doctors and plaintiff attorneys
would collect fees.  "They want to turn people in the state of
Louisiana into human guinea pigs," Mr. Sholes said.

Mr. Sholes said, further, that the dangers of smoking have been
known for decades.  Since 1902, Louisiana schools have been
required to teach about the hazards, and public health
organizations and the media have been issuing warnings since the
1950s about the connection with cancer, said Mr. Sholes.  As a
result, those who smoke, in the midst of well-circulated
information, do so as a matter of choice, Mr. Sholes said.

"When people know the dangers of a product and decide to use it,
it becomes their responsibility," said Mr. Sholes.

Gary Long, a lawyer for Lorillard, said evidence showed that no
major medical group recommended routine medical monitoring for
smokers and former smokers.  Such tests are unreliable, often
produce false results and can prompt unnecessary and life-
threatening follow-up procedures, Mr. Long said.

Mr. Long also said 50 million Americans had quit smoking, and an
estimated half of the Louisiana class also had quit, many by
simply stopping.  For others, free and low-cost cessation
programs already are widely available.

The lawsuit does not ask for individual payments for smokers.  
There has been no estimate of what a loss might cost the tobacco
industry.  However, a smaller class action in West Virginia that
sought only medical monitoring carried a potential price tag of
hundreds of millions of dollars.  In that case, although
attorneys for smokers prevailed in their argument that a person
with a five-year, pack-a-day habit has a higher risk of
contracting disease, still, the jury found routine screening to
be unnecessary.  Instead, the jurors accepted the defense's
contention that smokers concerned about their health should just
quit.

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 requested programs.  
The class action could cover up to 1.5 million Louisiana
residents.  Defendants include R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris,
Brown & Williamson and Lorrilard.  State District Judge Richard
Ganucheau plans to give the case to the jury for consideration
after reading to them a lengthy set of instructions.


TRANS WORLD: CA Jury Rules Firm Did Not Defraud Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Recent jury verdicts found that Trans World Assurance Co. did
not defraud its policyholders in the highly publicized
California class action.  In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims,
the Jury's Special Verdict specifically found that no
misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs and that there
was no breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In the decision, the court found that Trans World did not act
unlawfully, fraudulently or unfairly in selling and servicing
Flexible Dollar Builder (FDB) life insurance policies.  The
court also reversed earlier rulings certifying the case as a
class action.

The Special Verdicts and Court Decision are consistent with the
results of other cases that have gone to trial and prove once
and for all that TWA's agents fairly disclose the material terms
of the FDB.  Unfortunately, while the Heathcock lawsuit was
pending, its unproved allegations received much notoriety and
often were cited as evidence of misconduct by TWA's agents.

The Jury Verdicts and Court Decision confirm that Trans Word and
its agents involved with the plaintiffs are innocent of any
wrongdoing.  "We are pleased that Trans World and its agent
sales force have been vindicated by the Jury Verdicts and the
Court Decision," as stated by Trans World Assurance Co.'s
management.

In summarizing the Jury's decision the Court stated, "On March
21, 2003, the jury returned its special verdicts in favor of
both TWA and AFLI.  These special verdicts included these  
findings:

     (1) Neither TWA nor AFLI made any false representation,
         whether intentionally or negligently, to Heathcock,
         Cavanaugh or Bremer;

     (2) Neither TWA nor AFLI concealed or suppressed any
         material fact to Heathcock, Cavanaugh or Bremer;

     (3) Neither TWA nor AFLI breached the implied covenant of
         good faith and fair dealing, which breach caused damage
         to Heathcock, Cavanaugh or Bremer."

In its own opinion, the court stated, "The only inferences that
can reasonably be drawn from the jury's special verdicts are
that either Heathcock, Cavanaugh and Bremer knew that the FDB
was life insurance, or defendants' agents fully disclosed the
true nature of the FDB to each of the three named plaintiffs and
yet, for some reason through no fault of defendants (e.g., the
three named plaintiffs did not listen to what they were being
told by Defendants' agents), Heathcock, Bremmer and Cavanaugh
still did not understand what they were buying."

Still pending are proceedings in which the companies are seeking
the recovery of over $200,000 in court costs from the
plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Trans World Assurance Company by Mail:
885 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, California 94402.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students To Sue Over Tuition Fee Hike
---------------------------------------------------------------
10 University of California intend to file a possible class
action against the University's Board of Regents, after it voted
to hike tuition fees starting in the Fall 2003 semester, KRON 4
reports.  

The suit asks to halt an impending tuition fee hike for some
students, which will require them to pay $960 more per year.  
Graduate students will also be paying more than $1,000 more per
year.  The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, requests
a temporary injunction stopping the fee hike for certain groups
of professional students, including law, medical, optometry and
business students from UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis.  The
claim also asks for damages for all UC students relating to the
fee increases made last week and a previous fee increase made
last December.

UC Berkeley law student Mo Kashmiri told law.com that the UC
system allegedly promised on its Web site and in brochures that
their professional degree fees would never be raised during the
duration of their enrollment.  Plaintiffs' attorney, Jonathan
Weissglass, said this promise is binding, and that the
university system will be violating its promise if it raises
currently enrolled professional degree students' fees.  Instead,
he says, the system should just raise the fees for new
professional degree students entering school this year.

The plaintiffs will ask San Francisco Superior Court Judge James
Warner to set a date sometime before August 15, the date by
which professional degree students at UC Berkeley will have to
cough up the extra money.  Mr. Weissglass said he intends to ask
for a temporary injunction barring the UC system from charging
any professional degree student already enrolled in the UC
system the extra fees.

Mr. Kashmiri said the university system removed the promise from
its website after students brought the fee hike issue to the
regents' attention.  The University allegedly said that the
promise not to raise fees was among the university's own
policies, so the university is well within its rights to change
its own policies whenever it wants.

At press time, calls to the UC Board of Regents office seeking
comment were not returned, law.com reports.

Mr. Kashmiri says the argument supporting the refund is simple--
the regents gave students little notice before they raised fees.

"They should have given students and their family's more notice
before they increased their fees," Mr. Kashmiri told law.com.  
"They should have given them more of a chance to plan how they
are going to pay for it.  I really blame the legislators for
putting the college in this position, but the students and their
families cannot be punished because of the mistakes of the
legislators or the college.  And in this economy they cannot
afford to be punished."


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CENTRAL PARKING: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action against Central Parking Corporation (NYSE:CPC) on
behalf of all those who purchased Central Parking's common stock
between November 4, 2002 and February 14, 2003, inclusive, in
the United States District Court in the Middle District of
Tennessee.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  Defendants in the lawsuit are the Company and:

     (1) Hiram A. Cox,

     (2) Monroe J. Carell and

     (3) William J. Vareschi, the Company's Vice Chairman of the
         Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

The lawsuit concerns accounting irregularities at the company.
On February 4, 2003, Central Parking announced net earnings of
$0.19 per diluted share for the first quarter.  The company
announced that it was increasing accounts payable by $1.5
million for vendor invoices and increasing bad debt expense by
$1.1 million.

Additionally, the company announced that it had implemented a
reconciliation software system to monitor credit card
transactions throughout the corporation, and that during the
fiscal quarter, this system identified problems resulting in
exposures related to aged transactions for which a reserve of
$500,000 was established.  The company also announced that its
Chief Financial Officer, Hiram A. Cox, had resigned from his
position.

Following news of the resignation and the poor earnings, the
price of Central Parking common shares fell from $15.82 to a
closing price of $12.31 or a decline of more than 22%, on more
than seven times normal trading volume.  However, before the
February 4, 2003 announcement, Central Parking's Chairman of the
Board, Monroe J. Carell, sold thousands of his personally
controlled Central Parking shares.

For more details, contact Henry Young by Phone: 800-321-0476


TRIPOS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Tripos, Inc. (NasdaqNM:TRPS) from January 9, 2002 through July
1, 2002, 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 January 9, 2002 and
July 1, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Tripos
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 was experiencing weakening demand for
         its products and services as its customers were
         delaying, deferring or canceling purchases;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing severe and material
         problems with a certain contract and therefore would
         not be able to recognize revenue on that contract as
         anticipated; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their earnings projections and
         positive statements about Tripos.

On July 1, 2002, Tripos shocked the market when it announced
that, contrary to its repeated representations throughout the
class period, it would not meet its earnings guidance for the
second quarter of 2002, and it was reducing its earnings
guidance for fiscal year 2002.

Furthermore, the Company stated that it now expected to have a
loss from operations of $1.8 million to $2.1 million for the
quarter.  In response to this announcement, the price of Tripos
common stock dropped precipitously, falling from $21.80 per
share to $8.53 per share - a drop of 60% - on extremely heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


TRIPOS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Tripos, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TRPS) common stock during the period between January 9,
2002 and July 1, 2002, 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 numerous positive statements
throughout the class period regarding the strong performance of
the Company's business, specifically stating that the Company
would continue to grow its revenues and earnings and that its
book of contracted business was solid.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing
weakening demand for its products and services and encountering
severe and material difficulties with a certain contract which
would delay payments under that agreement.  When this
information was belatedly disclosed to the market on July 1,
2002, the price of Tripos common stock dropped precipitously,
falling from $21.80 per share to $8.53 per share -- a drop of
60% -- on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.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  * * *