CAR_Public/030730.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Wednesday, July 30, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 149

                        Headlines                            

C8 LITIGATION: McDonalds Confirms Use of C8 in Fast Food Chains
CANADA: Federal Pension Watchdog Briefed Aides On Pension Probe
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims Voice Arguments For, Against Settlement
CHRISTIAN BROS.: Court Convicts Man For Selling Fake Supplement
CITIGROUP INC.: Agrees To Settle $120M SEC Securities Complaint

DANA CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Over Delta Cash Tender Offer
DOW CHEMICAL: Colorado Judge Allows Rocky Flats Suit To Proceed
EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physician's Suit
FLORIDA: Port St. Lucie Plans Fee To Recoup Refunds For Taxes
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs Ask CO Court To Certify Stock Suit

GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs File Lawsuit Over Riverwood Merger
GREAT ATLANTIC: Asks NY Court To Decertify NY Overtime Wage Suit
GREAT ATLANTIC: Appeals Certification of Breach of Contract Suit
GREAT ATLANTIC: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
ILLINOIS: Teachers Not Allowed To Sue School District Over Mold

JP MORGAN: To Pay $135M To Settle SEC Securities Fraud Charges
MAZUR MEAT: Issues Potato Salad Listeria Contamination Warning
MCI/WORLDCOM: Group Calls For CEO's Resignation Over Scandal
PROJECT DACONO: SEC Launches Lawsuit For Securities Fraud in CO
ROADHOUSE GRILL: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

RUSNAK AUTOMOTIVE: Consumers Sue Over Fraud on Automobile Parts
SLAVE REPARATIONS: Attorneys Claim Judge is Exhibiting Bias  
SMART & FINAL: Opposes Class Certification For CA Overtime Suit
SMART & FINAL: CA Employees Launch Suit Over Commission Program
STARLINK LOGISTICS: Deadline for Claims in $100M Pact This Week

TECUMSEH HOLDINGS: SEC Files Civil Action For Securities Fraud
TEXAS: Atty. General Warns About Lottery Scams For Senior Texans
TOBACCO LITIGATION: LA Jury Rules Out Medical Monitoring Program
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Says Verdict Shows Suit Flaws

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CT
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CT Stock Suit
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.D. GA
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
SINGING MACHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in FL

TRIPOS INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO

                        *********

C8 LITIGATION: McDonalds Confirms Use of C8 in Fast Food Chains
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corporation officials confirmed research group
Environmental Working Group's assertion that a C8-related
chemical is widely used in fast food packaging throughout the
industry, the Parkersburg News and Sentinel reports.

The Environmental Working Group challenged the fast food giant
to reveal what types of chemically-coated packaging material are
used in their restaurants to help scientists figure out how the
manufacturing chemical called PFOA, the subject of a class
action lawsuit filed in Wood County against DuPont, has found
its way into the bloodstreams of more than 90 percent of
Americans.  Nine other restaurants were asked.

The Teflon-related chemical C8 was first detected in January
2002 in Washington County water supplies.  The likely culprit
was thought to be emissions from the DuPont plant in Washington.  
A class action was then filed in Wood County Circuit Court
against the Company's Washington Works plant.  Plaintiffs
alleged that the Company knowingly discharged the chemical into
water supplies in amounts exceeding the company's internal
guidelines.  This caused residents to have increased risks of
cancer and other diseases.

DuPont officials have reiterated the safety of their products,
saying the chemical was not harmful to humans, despite it being
found to cause reproductive and developmental problems in
laboratory animals.

"Our safety assurances to customers serving the food industry
are based on extensive knowledge of the products we sell and
many years of regulatory review and approval by the federal
government," said DuPont spokesman Cliff Webb in a statement
released last week, the News and Sentinel reports.

The Environmental Working Group has long suspected that many
types of packaging commonly used by fast food restaurants are
coated with chemicals called fluorinated telomers, which perform
similarly to those found in the non-stick substance known as
Teflon.  C8 is used to manufacture fluorinated polymers like
Teflon, the News and Sentinel states.

"As is the case throughout the food service industry, our
suppliers use telomers in limited coating applications for some
of our packaging," Julie Pottebaum, McDonald's spokeswoman, told
the News and Sentinel.

"The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has communicated that
it does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop
using any consumer- or industrial-related products," Ms.
Pottebaum said.  "McDonald's packaging is in complete compliance
with all regulations of the US Food and Drug Administration and
the US Environmental Protection Agency.  We look to these
experts for direction and leadership on these matters."


CANADA: Federal Pension Watchdog Briefed Aides On Pension Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal pension watchdog gave advisers to then-finance
minister Paul Martin private briefings about its probe into the
collapse of the pension plan for employees of Mr. Martin's bus
company, the Ottawa Citizen reports, according to the Winnipeg
Free Press.  The plan is now the subject of a class action
brought by the pensioners who allege mismanagement by fund
trustees.

At least two of Mr. Martin's aides were briefed on an
investigation by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions (OSFI) into the failure of the Voyageur-Colonial
Plan, at a time when Mr. Martin was supposed to remain
uninvolved in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

Communication between OSFI and Mr. Martin's aides Terri O'Leary
and Karl Littler raises serious concerns about political
interference in the Voyageur file, said Canadian Alliance
finance critic Monte Solberg.

"It makes a mockery of any suggestion that there was some kind
of wall between Minister of Finance Martin and his holdings at a
time when he was in a position of influence," Mr. Solberg said.

Mr. Martin owns 50 percent of Voyageur through his holding
company, CSL Equity Investments Inc.  In 1997, OSFI launched an
investigation of the Voyageur employee pension when it learned
the plan was under-funded by $2.4 million.

The shortfall was caused by the company selling off its routes
and transferring employees to Greyhound in 1995 and 1997.  It
left some 156 plan members - mostly bus drivers - shortchanged
by 30 percent of their pensions.  As indicated above, the
pensioners are alleging the under-funding was caused by
mismanagement by the plan's trustees.

Mr. Martin's aides contend, however, that, as finance minister,
he had no involvement in the investigation.  Responsibility for
OSFI was delegated to Mr. Martin's junior finance minister.  
Documents released through the Access to Information Act show
that OSFI deputy superintendent Nicholas LePan discussed the
Voyageur situation with two of Mr. Martin's advisers, Mr.
O'Leary and Mr. Littler.

A spokesman for OSFI said recently that it was normal practice
to notify the finance minister before conducting a post-mortem
on a file.  In this case, the post-mortem began only after OSFI
closed the Voyageur file.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Victims Voice Arguments For, Against Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims in the sexual abuse lawsuits against the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky presented their arguments
for and against a proposed $25.7 million settlement, and the 40
percent attorneys fees, the Louisville Courier Journal reports.

The fairness hearing before chief Jefferson Circuit Court Judge
James M. Shake lasted more than seven hours.  It was punctuated
by several emotional moments as ten victims took the witness
stand and voiced their concerns on the settlement.

One of the alleged victims, Michael L. Clark objected to the
settlement, saying the archdiocese having to pay half of its
unrestricted assets was too light a punishment.  Mr. Clark
revealed his emotional and physical problems after being abused
by the Rev. Louis E. Miller as a child at Holy Spirit.

"No individual is being held accountable at the Archdiocese of
Louisville," Mr. Clark said, adding that the amount of the
settlement would encourage church officials to cover up future
abuse.   "I hate the slap in the face that we're getting over
this."

Fellow victim Michael Turner testified in favor of the
settlement, saying that the plaintiffs risked getting nothing if
all the cases were thrown out because of the years between the
abuse and the filing of suit.  Mr. Turner was allegedly abused
by Rev. Miller, when the priest was assigned to St. Aloysius in
Peewee Valley.  He said he suffered from the same problems as
Mr. Clark and that he would continue to fight for the changes
that the lawsuits couldn't accomplish.  

"The law was in their (the archdiocese's) favor," he said.

The hearing will resume with the cross-examination of William
McMurry, the attorney who filed most of the cases against the
archdiocese and who represented the plaintiffs in the
settlement.  

Mr. McMurry said he never promised any client the right to vote
on a proposed settlement, and he said his plaintiffs were
advised of their rights throughout their association, the
Courier Journal reports.  Mr. McMurry said the only guarantees
he made were that the amount of any settlement would be enough
so the general public would view the settlement as an admission
of guilt by the archdiocese, although legally it denied all
allegations of liability.

Lawrence Young, an attorney who filed a written objection for
nine plaintiffs, asked Judge Shake to reject the settlement
because his clients have no way of knowing whether the
settlement is fair based on what Mr. McMurry and his associates
did.

Plaintiff Jim Strader said he should have been told that Mr.
McMurry would still get a 40 percent fee.  By agreeing to be in
the class, Mr. Strader said, he did not believe he had given up
all rights to know the proposed settlement before it was reached
and have a say on whether it was sufficient.

"We're being asked to buy a pig in a poke," he said.


CHRISTIAN BROS.: Court Convicts Man For Selling Fake Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York
has convicted Jason Vale, president of the Queens-based company,
Christian Brothers Contracting Corporation, of three counts of
criminal contempt in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 401(3).

On April 20, 2000, in a civil suit brought by the United States
against Mr. Vale and his company Christian Bros., the Honorable
John Gleeson entered a preliminary injunction ordering Vale and
Christian Bros., during the pendency of the civil suit, not to
directly or indirectly sell, distribute, package, label, or
promote Laetrile, also known as amygdalin, "Vitamin B-17," or
apricot pits.

On November 16, 2000, Judge Gleeson ended the civil suit by
permanently ordering Mr. Vale and Christian Bros. not to sell,
distribute, package, label, or promote Laetrile.  For years
before the civil suit was brought, Mr. Vale, through Christian
Bros., had sold Laetrile over the Internet in order to cure and
prevent cancer, having saturated the public with a massive
Internet and "spam" E-mailing marketing campaign which
guaranteed people a cancer-free life if they used his products.  
Laetrile is not approved as a drug for the treatment and
prevention of cancer and evidence introduced during the civil
suit demonstrated that Laetrile has no known effect on cancer
and that it is highly toxic, breaking down in the human body
into cyanide gas.

Moreover, when cancer patients take Laetrile they often forego
conventional medical therapies until it is too late for these
therapies to be effective.  An undercover investigation
conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of New York and by FDA's Office of Criminal
Investigations demonstrated that Mr. Vale set up a shell
corporation in Arizona through which he continued to sell
Laetrile in complete disregard for the court's injunctions.

Although Mr. Vale announced over the Internet that he had
stopped selling Laetrile because the court had ordered him not
to sell it, he continued to tout Laetrile as a cure for cancer
and further announced that there were other companies that still
sold it.  If customers called Christian Bros. and tried to
purchase Laetrile, Mr. Vale and his employees told them that,
although Christian Bros. no longer sold Laetrile, the customers
could purchase Laetrile from a wholly unrelated company at a
toll free number which he and his employees gave to them.

The undercover investigation demonstrated that the toll free
number rang inside Mr. Vale's own house and that Mr. Vale would
send the Laetrile to customers from his house under the name of
his Arizona shell corporation.  Mr. Vale and his employees would
stamp a Phoenix Arizona "return address" on these outgoing
packages which was in fact nothing more than a mailbox which was
rented in Phoenix Arizona with Mr. Vale's own credit card.

A search warrant executed at the defendant's house during the
undercover investigation demonstrated that after the preliminary
injunction the defendant had stored in his basement ready to be
shipped to customers around the world enough Laetrile to supply
a single person for over 242 years.

The jury announced the guilty verdicts on July 21, 2003,
following the conclusion of a week long trial.  During the
trial, supporters of Mr. Vale had handed out leaflets to persons
who entered the courthouse, including a number of the jurors who
were deciding the contempt case against Mr. Vale.  The leaflet
told jurors that they had a constitutional right to ignore the
evidence and the Court's instructions if they so chose.  This
incident was one of the factors taken into consideration by
Judge Gleeson in ordering Mr. Vale held without bail pending his
sentencing.

United States Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said, "This office
will not tolerate any disregard for the lawful orders of this
Court.  Nor will it tolerate fraud, especially when it foists
dangerous products on a vulnerable public."

United States Food and Drugs Administration Commissioner Mark
McClellan said "The FDA takes seriously its responsibility to
protect patients from unproven products being peddled on the
internet by modern day snake oil salesmen such as the defendant
in this case.  There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile
offers anything but false hope to cancer patients."


CITIGROUP INC.: Agrees To Settle $120M SEC Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. agreed to pay $120 million to settle allegations
posed by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) that it helped Enron Corporation and Dynegy Corporation
commit financial fraud that lead to the companies' collapse.

The SEC entered an order instituting a public administrative
proceeding pursuant to Section 21C Of the Securities Exchange
Act Of 1934, making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist
order and other relief.  Therein, the Commission found that
Citigroup assisted two Houston-based energy companies, Enron
Corporation and Dynegy Inc., in enhancing artificially their
financial presentations through a series of complex structured
transactions whose purpose and effect, among other things, was
to allow those companies to report proceeds of financings as
cash from operating activities on their statements of cash
flows.  

The Commission finds that Citigroup knew or should have known
that the acts or omissions described in the order would
contribute to Enron's and Dynegy's violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that
consequently, Citigroup was a cause of Enron's and Dynegy's
violations within the meaning of Exchange Act Section 21C.
     
Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings,
Citigroup consented to issuance of the Commission's Order
whereby Citigroup is ordered to cease and desist from committing
or causing any violation of the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, and will pay $120 million as
disgorgement, interest and as a penalty.   

The Commission intends to have the money paid by Citigroup go to
victims of the conduct described in the order ($101 million for
Enron-related conduct and $19 million for Dynegy-related
conduct) pursuant to the Fair Fund provisions of Section 308(a)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


DANA CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Over Delta Cash Tender Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation faces a purported class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia against it and each of its directors.  The suit
purports to be brought on behalf of all persons, other than the
defendants in the action, who own the Company's common stock and
who are similarly situated.

The suit asserts that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection
with the offer of Delta Acquisition Corporation.  The suit seeks
relief declaring that the action can properly be maintained as a
class action, directing the director defendants to exercise
their duty of care by giving due consideration to any proposed
business combination, and directing the director defendants to
ensure that no conflict exists between the directors' own
interests and those of Dana's shareholders or, if any such
conflict exists, to ensure that all such conflicts are resolved
in the best interests of Dana's shareholders.


DOW CHEMICAL: Colorado Judge Allows Rocky Flats Suit To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Property owners near Rocky Flats, Colorado, can proceed with
their 13-year-old class action, Federal Judge John Kane ruled in
his 78-page ruling, thereby clearing the way for a jury trial in
the class action that has been pending since 1990, the Rocky
Mountain News reports.  Judge Kane said a trial date will be set
soon.  

"We have been waiting for this for a long time," said Gary Blum,
attorney for the plaintiffs.  Named in the lawsuit are Dow
Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corporation, the two
firms which managed the nuclear weapons plant under contract
with the federal government.  

Although Judge Kane found the property owners can sue even if
the defunct nuclear weapons plant, which is the focus of their
complaint, did not violate federal regulations or cause health
problems, he did reject the property owners' key contention -
that they are entitled to compensation because the Rocky Flats
weapons plant lowered their property values.  The plaintiffs,
ruled Judge Kane, will have to convince a jury that Rocky Flats
was such a serious nuisance that it interfered with the
plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property.

The class action was filed on behalf of property owners downwind
from the plant.  Plutonium was deposited on the area during
fires in 1957 and 1969.  Studies conducted on behalf of the
Colorado health department found no evidence of health effects
in the area.  Under Judge Kane's ruling, that issue is no longer
part of the case.

However, said Judge Kane, the residents can present evidence
that their property lost value as part of a larger argument that
Rocky Flats was a nuisance.  "Under Colorado law, a facility
does not constitute a nuisance solely because its proximity to
neighboring properties causes their value to decline, but (it)
may be a nuisance if actions at the facility result in a
substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring properties," Judge Kane wrote in his
ruling.


EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physician's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire Healthchoice, Inc. intends to ask the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division to dismiss the class action filed against it, the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association and substantially all of the other
Blue plans in the country.

The named plaintiffs, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Michael Kutell and the
Connecticut State Medical Society, brought the suit on their own
behalf and also purport to bring it on behalf of similarly
situated physicians and seek damages and injunctive relief to
redress their claim of economic losses which they allege is the
result of defendants, on their own and as part of a common
scheme, systemically denying, delaying and diminishing claim
payments.

More specifically, plaintiffs allege that the defendants deny
payment based upon cost or actuarial criteria rather than
medical necessity or coverage, improperly downcode and bundle
claims, refuse to recognize modifiers, intentional delay payment
by pending otherwise payable claims and through calculated
understaffing, use explanation of benefits, or EOBs, that
fraudulently conceal the true nature of what was processed and
paid and, finally, by use of capitation agreements which are
structured to frustrate a provider's ability to maximize
reimbursement under the agreement.

The plaintiffs allege that the co-conspirators include not only
the named defendants but also other insurance companies, trade
associations and related entities such as Milliman and Robertson
(actuarial firm), McKesson (claims processing software company),
National Committee for Quality Assurance, Health Insurance
Association of America, the American Association of Health Plans
and the Coalition for Quality Healthcare.

In additional to asserting a claim for declaratory and
injunctive relief to prevent future damages, plaintiffs assert
several causes of action based upon civil Rackeeter Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and mail fraud.  

The time in which to appear and answer or to otherwise move to
dismiss the complaint has been extended to August 11, 2003.  The
Company expects to move to dismiss the complaint on several
grounds.


FLORIDA: Port St. Lucie Plans Fee To Recoup Refunds For Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
A series of judges ordered the city of Port St. Lucie to refund
the $14.4 million landowners paid as a drainage tax, after the
landowners brought a class action last year claiming they had
been improperly notified of the rising drainage fees.  Now, city
council members are planning imposition of a new fee in order to
recoup roughly two-thirds of that refund, The Palm Beach Post
reports.

City officials are claiming that judges gave full refunds to the
landowners who brought the class action, even though the city
had provided residents with some storm-water service. Therefore,
the city officials say the city is legally entitled to go back
and tax the 45,000 once-vacant lots for services rendered 10
years ago.

"This is virgin territory, but I really feel there is a way to
do this," Mayor Rober Minsky said.  "If you are charged
improperly at the store for an item, it doesn't mean you get all
your money back and you still keep the product.  I feel the
judge made a very bad decision.  We are legally owed this
money."

Fort Pierce attorney Harold Melville, who represented the class
action lot owners, has repeatedly warned the city he will file
another lawsuit if officials impose the new tax, labeled a
"storm-water surcharge."

"What they are trying to do is basically get an offset against
the amount they owed the class members in the class action," Mr.
Melville said.  That is not allowed, he said.  The city should
have made its argument in the original case about the partial
service that the city now says it provided.  It is too late,
said Mr. Melville.

"The courts require that, because otherwise you would have an
endless stream of lawsuits stemming from the same set of facts,"
Mr. Melville said.  "There has to be an end to litigation."

City officials already have asked for proposals from engineering
and legal firms.  The company and law firm that win the bid
would help the city formulate and defend the "storm water
surcharge."  While most of the legal and engineering teams have
appeared confident they could draft a formula that will be fair
and legally defensible, one engineering company warned the city
it "does not act on client requests without thinking."

"We would be concerned that efforts to incorporate costs related
to the lawsuit and settlement must be done with great care, so
as to prevent another successful challenge," wrote Bart D.
Foster, senior vice president of Orlando-based Black & Veatch
Corporation.

Council members say they know the legal and political risks and
are willing to accept them to get their fair share of past
storm-water fees.  If successful, the council's surcharge could
recoup $9 million.  


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs Ask CO Court To Certify Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Graphic Packaging
International Corporation and certain of its shareholders and
directors have moved for class certification in the District
Court, Jefferson County, Colorado.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
issuance on August 15, 2000, of the Company's Series B Preferred
Stock to the Grover C. Coors Trust.  The court dismissed
plaintiff's claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty while allowing the plaintiff to proceed against the named
directors and shareholders, including certain Coors Family
Trusts.

Currently, discovery is underway.  The plaintiffs have moved to
certify the case as a class action.  Defendants have opposed the
certification of a class.  The court has not yet ruled on
whether it will certify as a class if it does, what group of
shareholders would constitute the class.  The Company believes
that the transaction was in the best interest of the Company and
its shareholders.  


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs File Lawsuit Over Riverwood Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graphic Packaging International Corporation faces two class
actions filed in District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado,
against the Company, its directors and Riverwood Holding, Inc.
relating to the proposed merger transaction between the Company
and Riverwood pursuant to the Merger Agreement dated March 25,
2003 among the Company, Riverwood and Riverwood Acquisition Sub
LLC.

Robert F. Smith and Harold Lightweis filed the suits, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated.  Each of the
two complaints alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the
defendants to the Company's public shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger.  The complaints seek an injunction
against consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if
it is consummated, unspecified damages, costs and other relief
permitted by law and equity.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Asks NY Court To Decertify NY Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. filed a motion to
decertify the class action filed against it in the United States
District Court in New York, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In May 1999, four present and former employees of The Food
Emporium filed suit against the Company for unpaid wages and
overtime.  In April 2000, the judge certified the case as a
class action status for this case covering approximately 82
stores in 9 counties in the New York metropolitan area.  
Approximately 840 current and former full and part-time
employees of The Food Emporium and A&P opted into the class.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Appeals Certification of Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court heard the appeal of the class certification for
a breach of contract action filed in April 2003 against The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada, Limited by three
Canadian Food Basics franchisees.

The suit was filed on behalf of approximately 70 current and
former Canadian Food Basics franchisees, and seeks unspecified
damages in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
distribute to the franchisees the full amount of vendor
allowances and/or rebates to which the franchisees claim they
are entitled under the operative franchise agreements.

The Company disputed the plaintiff-franchisees' claim and has
filed a counterclaim seeking to recover subsidies made by it to
the plaintiffs.  The lawsuit was certified as a class action in
December 2002.

The majority of the potential class members have opted out of
this class proceeding.  The Company has obtained leave to appeal
the class certification order.  The appeal hearing took place on
June 26, 2003 and June 27, 2003, and the decision was set aside.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors asked the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against them.

The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 arising out of the Company's July 5, 2002 filing of
restated financial statements for fiscal 1999, fiscal 2000 and
the first three quarters of fiscal 2001.  The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages, costs and expenses.

Defendants filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.  On
February 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to
defendants' motion.  Defendants' reply brief in support of their
dismissal motion was filed on March 28, 2003.


ILLINOIS: Teachers Not Allowed To Sue School District Over Mold
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers who worked at St. Charles East High School and claim
they became ill from mold at the school, will not be able to be
part of the class action against the school district, according
to a recent ruling by Judge Michael Colwell, the Chicago Daily
Herald reports.

Judge Colwell dismissed the teachers' claims against the
district, noting the proper form for teachers' claims is a
workman's compensation claim.  However, claims by students and
contracted employees, such as cafeteria workers, remain in the
lawsuit.  

A student first filed a lawsuit against the district in March
2001, claiming the mold at the school made her ill.  Other
students joined the suit, as well as school employees and
teachers.  Attorneys for the students and employees have
requested class action status to cover anyone made ill by the
building.  Judge Colwell has not yet heard the arguments on
class action status.

Teachers have questioned Judge Colwell's ruling dismissing them
from the lawsuit.  However, attorneys noted that the
occupational disease act allows claims to be filed under
workman's compensation by employees who say they were made ill
by their work environment.  George Lang, an attorney for the
teachers, said he is uncertain whether Judge Colwell's ruling
will be appealed; or whether, instead, teachers will begin
filing claims.

The school was closed after potentially dangerous mold was found
growing behind classroom walls.  The school re-opened in August
2002, after a $28 million repair and cleanup.


JP MORGAN: To Pay $135M To Settle SEC Securities Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. agreed to pay $135 million to settle the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission's charges that
it aided and abetted Enron Corporation's securities fraud.  

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in
Houston, alleges that the Company aided and abetted Enron's
manipulation of its reported financial results through a series
of complex structured finance transactions, called "prepays,"
over a period of several years preceding Enron's bankruptcy.

These transactions were used by Enron to report loans from J.P.  
Morgan Chase as cash from operating activities.  The structural
complexity of these transactions had no business purpose aside
from masking the fact that, in substance, they were loans from
J.P. Morgan Chase to Enron.

Between December 1997 and September 2001, J.P. Morgan Chase
effectively loaned Enron a total of approximately $2.6 billion
in the form of seven of these types of transactions.
     
Simultaneous with the complaint's filing, J.P. Morgan Chase
agreed to file a consent and final judgment settling the action
against it.  In the consent decree, J.P. Morgan Chase has
agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations of the
complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently
enjoining it from future violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.  
J.P. Morgan Chase also has agreed to pay disgorgement, penalties
and interest in the amount of $135 million.  

The Commission intends to have these funds paid into a court
account pursuant to the Fair Fund provisions of Section 308(a)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for ultimate distribution to
victims of the fraud.
     
Specifically, the complaint alleges that between December 1997
and Enron's demise in 2001, J.P. Morgan Chase and Enron engaged
in seven of these prepay transactions in order to disguise loans
as commodity trades thus achieving Enron's desired accounting
and reporting objectives.   

As the complaint alleges, the clearest indication that the J.P.  
Morgan Chase/Enron prepays were disguised loans was their
structure.  In general, in a prepay transaction (also known as a
prepaid forward sale contract), the purchaser pays for a
commodity upfront, in full, at the time the contract is made,
and the seller agrees to deliver the subject commodity on future
dates, often over the course of several years.  In effect, the
seller bets that the market price of the subject commodity would
be lower at the time of delivery than at the time the contract
is made.   

The purchaser bets the opposite way:  that the market price of
the commodity at the time of delivery will exceed the price it
paid at the time of contracting.  In a typical prepay
transaction, therefore, each side assumes commodity price risk.
     
According to the complaint, the critical difference in the J.P.  
Morgan Chase/Enron prepays -- and the reason that these
transactions were, in substance, loans -- was that they employed
a structure that passed the counter-party commodity price risk
back to Enron, thus eliminating all commodity risk from the
transaction.  This was accomplished through a series of
simultaneous trades whereby Enron passed the counter-party
commodity price risk to a J.P. Morgan Chase-sponsored special
purpose vehicle called Mahonia, which passed the risk to J.P.
Morgan Chase, which, in turn, passed the risk back to Enron.
     
As in typical prepays, the complaint alleges, Enron received
cash upfront.  In contrast to typical prepays, according to the
complaint, with all elements of the structure taken together,
Enron's future obligations were reduced to the repayment of cash
it received from J.P. Morgan Chase with negotiated interest.  

The interest was calculated with reference to LIBOR.  Since all
price risk and, in certain transactions, even the obligation to
transport a commodity were eliminated, the only risk in the
transactions was Chase's risk that Enron would not make its
payments when due, i.e., credit risk.  In short, the complaint
alleges, these seven prepays were, in substance, loans.

The Commission alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase knew that Enron
engaged in prepays to match its so-called mark-to-market
earnings (paper earnings based on changes in the market value of
certain assets held by Enron) with cash flow from operating
activities.  By matching mark-to-market earnings with cash flow
from operating activities, Enron is alleged to have sought to
convince analysts and credit rating agencies that its reported
mark-to-market earnings were real, i.e., that the value of the
underlying assets would ultimately be converted into cash.
     
The Commission further alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase also knew
that prepays yielded another substantial benefit to Enron: they
allowed Enron to hide the true extent of its borrowings from
investors and rating agencies because sums borrowed in prepay
transactions appeared as "price risk management liabilities"
rather than "debt" on Enron's balance sheet.  

In addition, Enron's obligation to repay those sums was not
otherwise disclosed.  Significantly, according to the
Commission's allegations, J.P. Morgan Chase considered prepays
to be unsecured loans to Enron, rather than commodity trading
contracts, and based its decisions to participate in these
transactions primarily on its assessment of Enron's credit.
     

MAZUR MEAT: Issues Potato Salad Listeria Contamination Warning
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rodgers today warned
consumers not to eat "Potato Salad" sold at Mazur Meat Market,
922 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11222 due to Listeria
contamination.

The "Potato Salad" was sold from a refrigerated display in one-
pound plastic tubs and is uncoded.  The salad was made at the
store and was offered for sale July 10, 2003.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling by
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food
inspectors.  Production of the salad has been suspended while
the company investigates the problem.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature.  It can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth.  
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems.  Listeria an also cause serious flu-like symptoms in
healthy individuals.  

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Consumers who have
purchased this product should return it to the place of purchase
or discard it.


MCI/WORLDCOM: Group Calls For CEO's Resignation Over Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
MCI/WorldCom Chairman and CEO Michael Capellas should resign in
the wake of the disclosure that the US Justice Department is
likely to charge WorldCom for improperly rerouting long-distance
calls in the US and Canada in order to avoid paying hundreds of
millions of dollars in access fees to other phone companies,
according to Mitch Marcus, a former WorldCom account manager and
the founder of BoycottMCI.com (formerly BoycottWorldCom.com).

Mr. Marcus said the scheme was apparently in place when Mr.
Capellas arrived, that he should have known about it as it
continued under his watch and that, as a result, the CEO should
be held responsible for "perpetuating the culture of corporate
corruption" that led earlier to the WorldCom accounting scandal,
the largest in US history.

According to Mr. Marcus, "If Mr. Capellas is unaware of the
wrongdoing, he is not competent to continue his leadership of
the bankrupt telecom giant."

Mr. Marcus said: "Here they go again! This is exactly the kind
of thing that we have been warning about for more than a year
now.  I asked the bankruptcy court to wait to approve the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)/WorldCom settlement
until all the facts were in and the full scope of all fraud was
uncovered.  We tried to raise these broader issues with Judge
Rakoff and the SEC, but we were ignored.  Now that we finally
know about WorldCom's latest cooking of the books, the big
question has to be asked: What else is MCI/WorldCom hiding, when
will we find out about it, and what exactly does it take for the
federal government to cease rewarding a company that is built on
a foundation of such systemic fraud and deception?"

The BoycottMCI.com head added: "The culture of corporate
corruption runs deep at MCI/WorldCom. The fraud at the company
continues and this criminal leopard will not suddenly change its
spots. MCI should not be unleashed again on an unsuspecting
public. The courts and regulators can expect to see even more
proof that this is still the same old MCI/WorldCom. We can only
hope that they will not keep going along with the shell game
that says the 'new MCI' is not the same 'old WorldCom.'"

BoycottMCI.com has supported a variety of steps to highlight
problems at the former WorldCom, since its founding in May 2002.  
Mr. Marcus has called for the debarment of the troubled
telecommunications company from future federal contracts.  
BoycottMCI.com also has opposed efforts by the SEC to let
WorldCom off the hook with no meaningful penalty.  
Earlier this year, Mr. Marcus highlighted financial issues that
were buried in reports issued by the former WorldCom.

For more details, contact Mitch Marcus by Phone: (443) 604-2785
by E-mail: mitch@boycottworldcom.com or visit the Website:
http://www.BoycottMCI.com


PROJECT DACONO: SEC Launches Lawsuit For Securities Fraud in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against Glen W. Hilker, Larry M. Baker, Project Dacono
LLC and HB Investors LLC.  The suit also names as relief
defendants HSB Development Co. LLC, Westco Investment & Finance,
Inc., TriCord LLC and Brookshire Development Co. LLC, all of
Denver, Colorado.  

The Commission alleged that, from at least September 2000
through March 2003, Mr. Hilker and Mr. Baker, through defendant
HB Investors LLC, collectively raised over $4.7 million on
behalf of Project Dacono LLC for the purchase and development of
real estate located in Dacono, Colorado.  

Mr. Hilker and Mr. Baker raised these funds by offering and
selling PDL and HBI securities to investors located throughout
several states.  In raising these funds, the defendants made
numerous false statements to investors, primarily concerning the
use of investor proceeds.  In fact, only approximately $1.7
million of the funds raised were actually used for the purchase
and development of the Dacono property.  The remaining $3
million of investor proceeds was used by Mr. Hilker and Mr.
Baker for their own personal use, was diverted to alter ego
entities they controlled, was invested in risky business
ventures unrelated to the Dacono property and was used for
payment of Ponzi-type interest payments to other investors.
     
The Commission alleged that the defendants violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
The Commission's action seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting
future violations of these provisions, disgorgement of the
defendants' ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and
civil penalties against each defendant.  

Additionally, the Commission's action seeks emergency injunctive
and equitable relief consisting principally of a temporary
restraining order and an order freezing the assets of defendants
Hilker, Baker, and HB Investors, and of relief defendants HSB,
Westco, TriCord and Brookshire.  


ROADHOUSE GRILL: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roadhouse Grill, Inc., the then Chairman of the Company's board
of directors and the Company's president and chief executive
officer asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to dismiss the second amended class action
filed against them, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

The suit, was initially filed to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the stock of the Company between August 31, 1998
and August 1, 2001, with certain exclusions.  The suit appears
to be based principally, if not solely, on the fact that certain
financial statements have been restated.

The Company believes there is no merit to the suit.  The Company
further believes that, under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy
Code, even if claims of the type asserted in the Action are
allowed, they will be subordinated, in the Chapter 11 Case, to
the claims of all creditors of the Company.  Accordingly, such
claims are treated under the Confirmed Plan of Reorganization as
subordinate to the claims of all creditors.

As the Company filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code on April 16, 2002, any claims in this
action should have been filed by the plaintiffs with the court.  
If the plaintiffs had filed a claim with the court, their claim
against the Company would have been subordinated to the claims
of all creditors of the Company.  However, no claim against the
Company was filed during the bankruptcy proceedings.

Based on discussions with the Company's legal counsel, the
Company believes that the class action is not likely to result
in an unfavorable outcome to the Company.  The Company further
believes that even if the action brought by the plaintiffs is
successful, the plaintiffs will share only in the distribution
of stock in the reorganized company with the holders of the
existing common stock.

On July 26, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action.  
The individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 4, 2002, and the plaintiffs filed an
opposition thereto on October 3, 2002.  On April 4, 2003, the
court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss and
dismissed the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a second
amended class action complaint on May 5, 2003.  


RUSNAK AUTOMOTIVE: Consumers Sue Over Fraud on Automobile Parts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rusnak Automotive Group in South California faces a class
action alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the Unfair Competition Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, the F&I Management and Technology reports.

The suit alleges that the Company lead consumers to believe that
care parts were genuine products approved by the manufacturer
when in fact the parts were stock aftermarket replicas.  The
Company also charged consumers with the manufacturer's list
price for the generic parts, which include the wheel/tire
packages the dealership installed on BMW cares.  They failed to
advise customers of the switch.

Jenelle Welling of San Francisco's Green & Jigarjian and co-
counsel Patricio T. D. Barrera of Century City's Marcin &
Barrera filed the suit.  

"The car manufacturers' warranties don't even cover these
impostor parts, a fact that Rusnack kept consumers in the dark
about," Ms. Welling told the Management and Technology.  "Nor
did the dealer provide the applicable warranty information that
did cover the stock parts . All counsel on this case are looking
forward to securing fairness for consumers."


SLAVE REPARATIONS: Attorneys Claim Judge is Exhibiting Bias  
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing plaintiffs who are descendants of African
slaves have accused US District Judge Charles Norgle of siding
with the companies being sued for obtaining financial gain from
slavery, the Chicago Sun Times reports.  

Judge Norgle rejected the descendants' request for a mediator to
help reach a settlement and denied another motion asking the
judge to explicitly order the defendant companies not to destroy
documents.  Judge Norgle said such an order was not necessary
because all parties knew the consequences for such actions.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing the defendants have moved to
dismiss the class action.  The defendants' lawyers have
contended that the racially charged national debate over
reparations belongs in Congress, not in the federal courts.

The lawsuit, filed by descendants of slaves from across the
country, names 18 companies, including financial brokers,
insurers, railroads and others that knowingly profited from
slave labor.  The case, which has gained worldwide attention, is
being heard in Chicago because of its central location.

Lionel Jean-Baptiste, an attorney for the plaintiffs, has
criticized Judge Norgle for not responding fast enough to
requests to have older plaintiffs in the case give their
depositions ahead of schedule because of declining health.  
Judge Norgle finally agreed to let Emma Marie Clark, 97, give
her deposition, but she died July 4, before the interview could
take place.

"He (Judge Norgle) has dragged his feet and is causing us to
lose various precious evidence," Mr. Jean-Baptiste said.

Judge Norgle would not comment on statements from Mr. Jean-
Baptiste or plaintiffs who also openly criticized the judge's
rulings on their motions.


SMART & FINAL: Opposes Class Certification For CA Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final, Inc. opposed plaintiffs motion for class
certification for a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
all the Company's store managers and assistant managers in
California.

The suit alleges that the Company misclassified the status of
store managers and assistant managers in California as exempt
employees for employment purposes.  The action seeks unspecified
monetary damages.  On February 24, 2003, following an extensive
period of investigation and discovery, the plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification.  


SMART & FINAL: CA Employees Launch Suit Over Commission Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smart & Final faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.  This
suit, Perea vs. Smart & Final Inc., was filed by the plaintiff,
on his behalf and on behalf of all other store employees who
participate in the commission program in California.

The suit alleges that the company improperly calculated
commission payments.  The action seeks to be classified as a
"class action" and seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The
merits of this action are being actively investigated and the
Company believes that the merits of this action do not warrant
class action status.


STARLINK LOGISTICS: Deadline for Claims in $100M Pact This Week
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline to file claims in the $110 million settlement proposed
by Starlink Logistics, Inc. and other makers and distributors of
genetically altered corn is set for Thursday this week, the
Associated Press reports.

Several farmers launched a lawsuit against StarLink maker
StarLink Logistics Inc. and Avanta USA, which owns StarLink
distributor Garst Seed Co., claiming they lost money even though
they didn't grow StarLink.  StarLink corn was approved for use
as animal feed but not for human consumption.  However, in 2000,
some of the genetically engineered corn was mistakenly mixed
with corn intended for food or export, forcing several food
companies to recall products and causing a worldwide drop in
corn prices.

Lawyers say that under the settlement, every farmer who did not
grow StarLink in 2000 is eligible for a share, which could mean
up to $2 per acre.  However, many farmers are still not aware
that they were eligible for the settlement, even after the
initial deadline was extended for two months.   

"A lot more claims have come in," David A.P. Brower, a New York
lawyer helping oversee the settlement told AP.  "People wait
until the last minute."

The Illinois Corn Growers Association spokesman Mark Lambert
said the claimants are still pouring in.  The group posted
another notice of the approaching deadline on its Website last
week.

"We are still getting calls.  I think we could extend this four
or five times and people would still be filing paperwork," Mr.
Lambert told AP.


TECUMSEH HOLDINGS: SEC Files Civil Action For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed
a civil injunctive action in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and obtained emergency relief to
halt an ongoing fraud centered around Tecumseh Holdings
Corporation, a purported financial services company with offices
in New Jersey and California.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the fraud has taken
place since June 2000 and involves the unregistered offer and
sale of securities of Tecumseh and Tecumseh's subsidiary,
Tecumseh Tradevest LLC.

Tecumseh and Tradevest have conducted the fraud largely through
the efforts of John L. Milling, a securities lawyer and
Tecumseh's senior official.  Tecumseh, Tradevest and Mr. Milling
have acted with the assistance of:

     (1) S.B. Cantor & Co., Inc. (Cantor), a registered broker-
         dealer,

     (2) Gerard A. McCallion, Cantor's President,

     (3) Anthony M. Palovchik, Tecumseh's Vice President,  

     (4) Dale Carone, manager of Tecumseh's California office;
         and

     (5) others working with them.   

Through the unregistered fraudulent offerings, the defendants
together have raised approximately $10 million from about 500
investors nationwide.  The complaint also names as relief
Defendants three Tecumseh affiliates, Tecumseh Alpha Fund LP
(Alpha Fund), Tecumseh Alpha LLC (Alpha LLC), and Stracq, Inc.
(Stracq).
     
The complaint alleges that Tecumseh, Tradevest and Mr. Milling
have induced investors to acquire securities of Tecumseh and
Tradevest by means of a host of material misrepresentations.  
Through offering memoranda and other materials, these defendants
have:

     (i) touted false and misleading profit projections;

    (ii) promised some investors "returns on investment" (ROI)
         or "dividends" without disclosing that Tecumseh and
         Cantor have no earnings to distribute and that any such
         payments necessarily come from capital, including funds
         raised from other investors; and

   (iii) made materially misleading statements concerning NASD
         approval for Tecumseh's acquisition of Cantor.   

The defendants knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact
that their representations to investors concerning these matters
were materially false and misleading.
     
The complaint alleges violations by Tecumseh, Tradevest and Mr.
Milling of the antifraud provisions of the securities laws,
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act),
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  
(Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and charges Mr.
McCallion and Mr. Palovchik with aiding and abetting Tecumseh's
and Mr. Milling's violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the
Exchange Act.   

It also alleges violations of the registration provisions,
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, by Tecumseh,
Tradevest, Mr. Milling, Cantor and Mr. Carone; violations by
Cantor of the broker-dealer books and records provisions,
Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4
thereunder; and violations by Carone of the broker registration
provisions, Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.   

The complaint also alleges, pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act that Mr. Milling is liable as a control person of
Tecumseh and Tradevest and that Mr. McCallion is liable as a
control person of Cantor for their respective violations of the
Exchange Act.  It also charges Mr. Milling with aiding and
abetting Cantor's violations of broker-dealer books and records
provisions, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act.
          
The court granted the Commission's application for a temporary
restraining order against Tecumseh, Tradevest, Cantor and Mr.
Milling, temporarily enjoining them from further violations of
the securities laws and temporarily prohibiting them from
participating in any penny stock offering.  

The court's order also freezes the assets of the Relief
Defendants and Tecumseh, Tradevest and Mr. Milling, requires an
accounting by the Relief defendants and Tecumseh, Tradevest,
Cantor and Milling; appoints Loretta Lynch, Esq., as temporary
receiver for Tecumseh, Tradevest and Cantor; grants expedited
discovery, and prohibits the defendants and relief defendants
from destroying or altering documents.  The court's order also
directs the relief defendants and Tecumseh, Tradevest, Cantor
and Mr. Milling to show cause at a hearing set for August 15,
2003 in Room 12C of the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY, why a preliminary injunction granting the
relief requested by the Commission should not be entered by the
court.
     

TEXAS: Atty. General Warns About Lottery Scams For Senior Texans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott warned against a
rapidly-growing crime targeting senior Texans.  Atty. Gen.
Abbott warned that these international lottery scams are robbing
millions of dollars from unsuspecting consumers.

"We must work together to protect Texas seniors and other
consumers from phony foreign lottery scams," he said during an
appearance in Dallas.  "Victims have mortgaged their homes, lost
life savings and wired money from bank accounts to crooks
running these scams."

The scams most commonly originate from Australia, Canada,
England, Germany and Spain.  They usually start with calls from
enthusiastic telemarketers informing unsuspecting consumers that
they have won.  In some cases, the caller requires the victim to
wire money to pay taxes on the winnings in order to obtain the
prize.  Victims often receive numerous calls and are asked, each
time, for more money due to complications in paying the
necessary taxes or other fees associated with getting the prize.

In other versions of the scam, the caller requests victims' bank
account numbers under the pretense that winnings will be
deposited directly into their account; other times, the caller
asks for the victims' credit card numbers for "verification
purposes."  Either way, the solicitor attempts to steal
identifying information in order to loot the victim's account, a
scenario Attorney General Abbott urges consumers to avoid.

According to the Phonebusters program of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, 244 Texas victims wired almost $1 million to
Canada in a seven-week period late last year.  The problem has
grown worse since many of these criminals have abandoned the
traditional "boiler room" settings and now use stolen cellular
phones to call victims.  The perpetrators' mobility has made it
much more difficult to track them down and arrest them.

There is virtually no hope of recovering any funds lost to this
scheme.  Accordingly, Attorney General Abbott has partnered with
senior advocacy groups to get the word out.  "If someone calls
and says you have won the Canadian or any other foreign lottery,
simply hang up and report the incident to the authorities
immediately," he said.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: LA Jury Rules Out Medical Monitoring Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana district court jury ruled that tobacco companies
cannot be compelled to pay for medical monitoring for 1.5
million currently-healthy smokers, the Associated Press reports.  
However, the jury ruled that the Companies should pay for stop-
smoking programs instead.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Russ Herman welcomed the ruling
saying the plaintiffs felt fabulous over the decision which will
force the Big Tobacco firms - including Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard - to face the
prospect of financing major "quit smoking programs" in hospitals
across Louisiana.  Mr. Herman also added that when medical
monitoring gains wide acceptance, the issue can be revisited in
court.

The decision was the second time the courts rejected medical
monitoring programs for healthy smokers.  Last year, a West
Virginia jury ruled that routine medical screening was not
necessary and that concerned smokers should just quit.  The
suit, however, did not ask for "quit-smoking" programs.

Mr. Herman told AP that he believed the decision "will save
lives."  He said the jury found that cigarette-makers engaged in
conspiracy to mislead the public and targeted youths with
advertisements designed to cultivate additional generations of
smokers.

Attorney for RJ Reynolds Phil Wittmann tagged the ruling as
"almost a total victory" for cigarette-makers since the jury
also found that the companies had not manufactured a defective
product.  The four firms had argued that medical monitoring for
smokers is not recommended by any major health group and that
such tests are unreliable and could lead to unnecessary and
life-threatening follow-ups, like biopsies.

A second phase will be held in the trial, with the same jury, to
determine what kind of smoking-cessation programs will be
implemented.  A third phase, which will be tried before the
judge, will determine the amount of money the tobacco industry
will have to pay for the programs.  No date for the next phase
has been scheduled.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Says Verdict Shows Suit Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA said the rejection by a Louisiana jury of
medical monitoring claims brought by a class of mostly healthy
smokers illustrates the claims' flaws, and more importantly, in
tobacco class actions.

Although the state court jury found that plaintiffs in the class
action could benefit from smoking cessation assistance, it also
found that cigarettes, as designed, are not defective but that
the four tobacco company defendants failed to disclose all they
knew about smoking and diseases--and marketed their products to
minors.

"As to the issue of medical monitoring, the evidence in this
case was clear: medical associations and public health officials
do not recommend medical monitoring programs for healthy
smokers.  Because of the high number of false positives and
false negatives in such tests, they have the potential to do far
more harm than good," the court ruled.

"The evidence in this case also showed that Louisiana smokers
already have a variety of smoking cessation programs available
to them should they desire assistance to quit smoking," said
William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and
associate general counsel.

"This case should never have gone to trial.  The vast majority
of class action cases involving cigarettes have ended far short
of trial because most courts have recognized that smoking
decisions and smoking behavior are almost uniquely personal and
cannot be fairly considered in a class-action trial," Mr.
Ohlmeyer continued.

He noted that nearly 40 state and federal courts have rejected
class certification in more than 40 smoking cases.  "Because
this portion of the trial did not determine liability to any
class member or representative, the company expects to discuss
the form, substance and timing of future proceedings with the
trial court but will also examine its appellate options while
awaiting further instructions from the court," Mr. Ohlemeyer
said.

The Scott case was the second so-called medical monitoring
class-action case to go to trial.  The first such case - known
as the Blankenship case in Wheeling, W.Va. in 2001 - ended with
a verdict for Philip Morris USA and other tobacco companies.  
Unlike Blankenship, the Scott case included claims for smoking
cessation assistance.  In addition to Philip Morris USA, other
defendants in the Scott class action were R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.

For more details, contact David Tovar by Phone: 917-663-2144


                  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 Cases

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, on behalf of purchasers of Crompton Corporation
(NYSE: CK) publicly traded securities, including former Crompton
& Knowles Corporation and Witco, Corporation shareholders who
exchanged their shares from stock of CK Witco pursuant to the
merger from October 26, 1998 through October 8, 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 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between January 9, 2002 and July 1, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Crompton's publicly traded
securities.

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 Crompton was engaged in an illegal anti-
         competitive scheme with its competitors to drive a more
         stable price environment within the rubber chemical
         industry by agreeing on prices that each competitor
         charged the other;

     (2) that its financial results were a product of its anti-
         competitive behavior and were materially inflated as a
         result;

     (3) that the Company knew that its anti- competitive
         behavior could possibly subject the Company to
         regulatory scrutiny in the future if such anti-
         competitive behavior was discovered;

     (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive
         behavior; and

     (5) as a result of its anti- competitive behavior, the
         Company's financial statements were in violation of
         GAAP.

On October 8, 2002, the Company shocked the market by disclosing
that it and several of its employees had been issued grand jury
subpoenas in connection with an investigation by U.S. and
European Union authorities concerning allegations of collusive
dealings in the rubber chemicals industry.

News of this announcement stunned the market.  On October 9,
2002, shares of Crompton fell $3.25 or 35.5% to close at $5.90
per share, down from $9.15 per share.

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 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CT Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Crompton Corporation (NYSE:CK) including former Crompton &
Knowles Corp. and Witco, Corporation shareholders who exchanged
their shares from stock of CK Witco pursuant to the merger from
October 26, 1998 through October 8, 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 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between January 9, 2002 and July 1, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Crompton's publicly traded
securities.

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 Crompton was engaged in an illegal anti-
         competitive scheme with its competitors to drive a more
         stable price environment within the rubber chemical
         industry by agreeing on prices that each competitor
         charged the other;

     (2) that its financial results were a product of its anti-
         competitive behavior and were materially inflated as a
         result;

     (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive
         behavior could possibly subject the Company to
         regulatory scrutiny in the future if such anti-
         competitive behavior was discovered;

     (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive
         behavior; and

     (5) as a result of its anti-competitive behavior, the
         Company's financial statements were in violation of
         GAAP.

On October 8, 2002, the Company shocked the market by disclosing
that it and several of its employees had been issued grand jury
subpoenas in connection with an investigation by U.S. and
European Union authorities concerning allegations of collusive
dealings in the rubber chemicals industry.

News of this announcement stunned the market.  On October 9,
2002, shares of Crompton fell $3.25 or 35.5% to close at $5.90
per share, down from $9.15 per share.

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




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

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

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


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

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between October 24, 2001
and June 25, 2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 14, 2001 and
July 14, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Singing Machine common stock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



TRIPOS INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class action on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Tripos, Inc. (NasdaqNM:TRPS)
between January 9, 2002 and July 1, 2002, inclusive.  The case
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri against the Company and certain of its
officers.

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

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


                         *********

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  * * *