CAR_Public/030812.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Tuesday, August 12, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 158

                        Headlines                            

AIMCO: Nation's Largest Apartment Owner Faces Overtime Wage Suit
ARKANSAS: Refund Of Rice Research Money In Dispute After Ruling
BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit
BLUE MARTINI: Inks Settlement of Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
BLUE MARTINI: Plaintiffs Junk Derivative Suit Dismissal Appeal

FIRST UNION: Investors Commence Suit Asserting Securities Fraud
FLEET FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Credit Card Fee Lawsuit Settlement
FREDDI MAC: Ohio, West Virginia Pension Funds Sue Over Losses
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: CO Court Grants Certification To Stock Suit
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces 3 Suits Over Riverwood Holding Merger

HALLIBURTON: Scott + Scott Accuses Firm Of Favoring Executive
HALLIBURTON: Plaintiffs in Stock Suit Determined To Go To Trial
HIGH SPEED: Agrees To Participate in Securities Suit Settlement
IDAHO POWER: WA Court Dismisses Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit
IDAHO POWER: OR Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit

INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moving Towards Settlement of Securities Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Dismissal For Suit To Be Heard September 2003
JUNIPER NETWORKS: CA Court To Hear Derivative Lawsuit Demurrer

MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Arbitration For CA Securities Suit
MEDCO HEALTH: Investors Launch New Securities Suit in NJ Court
MICHIGAN: Witnesses File Lawsuit V. Police Over Improper Arrests
NEBRASKA: Court Orders Resumption of Medicaid To 10,000 Parents

OVERTURE SERVICES: Engages in NY Lawsuit Settlement Discussions
PENNSYLVANIA: Residents, Tenant Groups Sue Over Demolition Plan
PHILADELPHIA: Settles Disabled Access Suit Over Polling Places
REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: MO Borrowers File Suit Over High LTV Loans
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NV

RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Stockholders Lodge Securities Suit in NV Court
SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
TACO BELL: Reaches $1.5 Million Settlement With Former Employees
VIRAGE INC.: Enters Settlement for Consolidated Securities Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
SINGING MACHINE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in FL


                        *********

AIMCO: Nation's Largest Apartment Owner Faces Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AIMCO, the largest owner of residential apartment building
communities in the country, was sued in federal court in
Washington, D.C. by seven current and former building
maintenance staff workers who were the subject of a policy
denying them and thousands of other maintenance workers around
the country, overtime pay for work performed while on call
during nights and weekends to respond to tenant service
requests, the Associated Press Newswires reports.   

The lawsuit also challenges a policy of compensating some
employees with a salary who should be paid on an hourly basis
and entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours
per week.

"AIMCO serves its tenants' needs by exploiting its workers,"
said Joseph M. Sellers, who heads the civil rights and
employment practice at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll P.L.L.C.
in Washington, D.C. and represents the plaintiffs in this case.   
"Denying pay to workers who labor through the night is hardly
conduct befitting this industry leader."

Charles E. Tompkins, also of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
stated, "We know that AIMCO has engaged in a uniform and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against its hourly paid
employees.  This lawsuit seeks to make them change that policy;
and seeks, as well, to recover the compensation that AIMCO's
employees are due."

The class action seeks payment of the wages lost because of
violation of the overtime laws and damages equal to the lost
wages, because AIMCO's "on call" pay policy was not adopted in
good faith.  The plaintiffs also seek to end the policy that has
systematically denied them overtime for years.

The plaintiffs are also represented by Steven M. Pavsner and Jay
P. Holland of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., located in
Greenbelt, Maryland.  "At its Spring Hill Lake Apartment complex
in Greenbelt, Maryland, as elsewhere, AIMCO profits by short-
changing its employees," said Mr. Pavsner.

The named plaintiffs have worked at AIMCO facilities located in
Washington, D.C., Greenbelt, MD, Antioch, CA and Freehold, NJ,
reflecting that the policy they challenge has operated
nationwide.  AIMCO owns or manages nearly 18,000 properties with
more than 300,000 apartment units located in 47 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.


ARKANSAS: Refund Of Rice Research Money In Dispute After Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Arkansas Supreme Court ruling could force the state board
that decides how rice research money is spent to refund up to
half the funds collected in the late 1990s, money it now longer
has, the Associated Press Newswires reports.   

The Arkansas rice industry has paid as much as $6 million a year
since the 1980s into state coffers for the purpose of financing
research into developing a better rice plant as well as
marketing or promotion.

The Supreme Court's decision overturned a lower court ruling
that said a pair of rice buyers, Carwell Elevator Co. and
Poinsett Rice & Grain, were not entitled to a refund of about
$580,000 they had paid to the state's Rice Research and
Promotion Board between August 1996 and July 1999.  The high
court then remanded the case to Pulaski County Circuit Court and
granted the rice buyers' lawsuit class-action status.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said the class could include up to 70 rice
buyers.  The size of the potential refund won't be known until
the class is established, a process that is just beginning,
attorneys in the case said.  Riceland Foods and Producers Rice
Mill, the state's two largest rice buyers and largest
contributors to the Rice Research and Promotion Board funds,
said they will not be part of that class.

No matter how much the class seeks a refund, "the money is
gone," said Keith Glover, a nonvoting member of the Board and
president of Producers.  "It was used for promotion.  I put the
odds of them collecting their money very low."

Todd Williams, the Jonesboro attorney for the plaintiffs, said
his clients sued after the Supreme Court ruled in another case
that money collected from rice buyers was an illegal exaction, a
tax that was not imposed by the Legislature.

The Rice Research and Promotion Board's funds come from fees:  
1.35 cents a bushel that farmers pay on what they grow; and
another 1.35 cents a bushel paid by buyers purchasing from the
growers.  The farmers' money is spent on research; while the
buyers' money is spent on marketing.  It has been suggested that
refunds might come out of future fees, but some farmers and
buyers object to that idea.


BAUSCH & LOMB: NY Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York dismissed several claims in the consolidated securities
class action filed against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and:

     (1) the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Stephen C.
         McCluski,

     (2) former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, William M.
         Carpenter, and

     (3) former President, Carl E. Sassano

The complaints allege that the value of the company's stock was
inflated artificially by alleged false and misleading statements
about expected financial results.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased company common
stock between January 27, 2000 and August 24, 2000.

On March 31, 2003, the court, on the company's motion, dismissed
certain claims asserted against the company in the consolidated
action.  In addition to dismissing certain claims against the
company, all direct claims against Mr. McCluski were dismissed
and those direct claims paralleling the claims dismissed against
the company were also dismissed as to Mr. Carpenter and Mr.
Sassano.

The company denies the allegations.


BLUE MARTINI: Inks Settlement of Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Martini Software, Inc. forged a settlement for the
securities class action filed against it, certain of its current
and former officers and directors and Goldman Sachs and the
other underwriters in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) violated the federal securities laws because the Company's
IPO registration statement and prospectus allegedly contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the underwriters' compensation and stock allocation
practices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock since the mid-1990s.  The complaints were subsequently
amended and consolidated into a single complaint, the Company's
directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice, and
defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the lawsuits, which
the court granted in part and denied in part with respect to the
Company.

In June 2003, the Company joined in a tentative global
settlement that would, among other things, result in the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all issuers and
their officers and directors in the IPO related lawsuits.  

The tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event that the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement or
judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO-related
lawsuits, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the issuers.  The tentative settlement does not
involve any payment or admission of wrongdoing by the Company.  
Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the court.


BLUE MARTINI: Plaintiffs Junk Derivative Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the dismissal of
a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against Blue Martini
Software, Inc. alleging derivative claims against certain
officers and directors of the Company and against the lead
underwriter of the Company's IPO.  The complaint alleged claims
against the individual defendants relating to the Company's IPO
for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) breach of agent's duty to principal,

     (3) negligence and

     (4) unjust enrichment

The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  The complaint was subsequently dismissed and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal.  In June 2003, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the appeal.


FIRST UNION: Investors Commence Suit Asserting Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
A bank that handled accounts for a company that was running a
multimillion-dollar securities fraud was accused recently in
federal court in Fort Lauderdale, of aiding and abetting the
plan, the Orlando Sentinel reports.  

An attorney representing 531 investors, who lost about $34
million in the Cyprus Funds investment scheme, alleged at the
trial in US District Court that First Union National Bank, its
securities arm First Union Securities Inc. and bank employee
Zoraida Diaz, allowed the fraud to occur and did nothing to stop
it.

"They did it step by step by step," said Miami attorney Harley
Tropin.  "They helped assist this fraud."

First Union's attorney, Stephen Gillman of Miami, argued that
his clients had done nothing wrong, had no knowledge of the
fraud and followed all the proper procedures.

Cyprus billed itself as an offshore mutual fund and was sued in
a 1999 civil action by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
along with its Miami-based investment adviser, Latin American
Services Co. Ltd. and four Cyprus directors.  The defendants
were accused of defrauding investors, many of them Ohio retirees
and wealthy Latin Americans.  The SEC said Cyprus was an
elaborate Ponzi scheme in which money was raised from new
investors and used to pay old ones until the company collapsed.

Regulators said most of money raised didn't go into a mutual
fun, but instead was misappropriated and used to buy property,
businesses and luxury items that included jewelry and cars.

Three of the directors agreed to a permanent injunction barring
them from committing fraud in the future, without admitting or
denying the allegations.  The fourth, Eric V. Bartoli, also was
permanently enjoined from committing fraud in a default judgment
against him.

While a court-appointed receiver is attempting to recover any
remaining assets, the class-action lawsuit was filed against
First Union, which merged with Wachovia Corporation in 2001, in
hopes of collecting additional money from the bank.

The case against First Union is rare because it resulted in a
jury trial, according to legal experts.  While "third parties"
such as banks or law firms sometimes are sued in connection with
securities fraud cases, usually such matters are settled out of
court or dropped.


FLEET FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Credit Card Fee Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Frank Polozola gave initial approval to a $3.5
million settlement between Fleet Financial Group and more than
two million Fleet credit-card holders who alleged in their
class-action lawsuit that Fleet improperly charged its late
fees, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The settlement covers three lawsuits involving Fleet credit-card
holders in Louisiana, California and Rhode Island.  Fleet has
been setting due dates for bills on Fridays, weekends and
holidays, when the company did not pick up the mail and could
not credit payment to the card-holder's account before the
deadline.

"You will now have a day's grace period when you get your
statement to pay them," Scott Fruge said.

Judge Polozola set a final hearing to approve the settlement for
November.  A group of six cardholders filed a class action
against Fleet in January 2001, in Baton Rouge, alleging Fleet
intentionally misled Visa cardholders about when late fees would
be charged.  The California and Rhode Island cases were filed
later that year.

The settlement also calls for Fleet to pay $500,000 in damages,
$350,000 to reimburse customers who can prove they paid late
charges before 1998, and $150,000 to reimburse customers who
paid finance charges for being over their credit limit.  
Attorneys could receive up to 20 percent of the settlement.


FREDDI MAC: Ohio, West Virginia Pension Funds Sue Over Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
State pension funds from Ohio and West Virginia, aided by well-
known private trial lawyers, filed court actions recently
against Freddie Mac, a mortgage lending company and three of
their ousted executives, accusing them of securities fraud
because of "deliberately misleading accounting practices" that
the company recently admitted, The Washington Post reports.

Ohio Attorney General James Petro, a former state auditor who
plans to run for governor in 2006, said that Freddie Mac's
"manipulation" cost the state employees' and teachers' pension
funds more than $25 million in lost stock value.

The Ohio lawsuit, which was signed by noted Cincinnati
plaintiffs' lawyer Stanley Chesley, named as defendants, former
Freddie chief executive Leland C. Brendsel, president David W.
Glenn and chief financial officer Vaughan A. Clarke.  All were
forced out in the midst of a financial restatement in which the
company understated its income over three years by as much as
$4.5 billion.  An internal investigative report last month said
the company had manipulated its finances and used incorrect
accounting in an attempt to create the smooth earnings growth
favored by Wall Street.

Ohio also filed a motion asking that it be named the lead
plaintiff in the various shareholder class-action suits that
have been brought against Freddie Mac.  West Virginia officials
filed a similar request, seeking the status of lead plaintiff.  
The state lost $1.8 million, said Steven G. Schulman, a partner
at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, the law firm
representing the West Virginia Investment Management Board in
its joining the suit against Freddie Mac and the three former
executives, named above.

Lynn A. Stout, law professor at the University of California in
Los Angeles, said the state actions yesterday are part of a
general trend in which state authorities are taking the lead in
prosecuting fraud cases.  This has occurred more frequently
since passage of a 1995 federal law providing that institutional
investors that lost the most, rather than individual
shareholders, would get priority in being named lead plaintiffs
in securities cases.

Lawyers representing other shareholders in lawsuits against
Freddie Mac said Ohio most likely would be chosen to take the
lead in a federal class-action case.  Having Ohio on board
"gives more credibility to the claim," said Steven J. Toll,
managing partner at Washington law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, which is representing another pension fund in
one of the class actions against the mortgage company.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: CO Court Grants Certification To Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Jefferson County, Colorado certified as a
class action the lawsuit filed against Graphic Packaging
International, Inc. and certain of its shareholders and
directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance on August 15,
2000, of the Company's Series B Preferred Stock to the Grover C.
Coors Trust.  Plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $43
million or, alternatively, to require transfer to the class of
some or all of the Trust's GPIC common stock into which the
convertible preferred stock will be converted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim 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.  The Company is continuing to
provide a defense to this action pursuant to its indemnification
obligations.  Currently, discovery is being conducted.

By order dated June 12, 2003, the court certified a class
comprised of all owners of GPIC common stock as of August 2,
2000, excluding the defendants and members of the Coors family
and their affiliates and excluding any additional shares
purchased by class members after August 2, 2000.  The Company
believes that the transaction was in the best interest of the
Company and its shareholders.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces 3 Suits Over Riverwood Holding Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graphic Packaging International, Inc. and its directors face
three lawsuits relating to the merger between Graphic Packaging
International Corporation and Riverwood Holding, Inc.

Robert F. Smith and Harold Lightweis filed two suits on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated.  Each of the
two complaints alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors to the Company's public shareholders in
connection with the merger and that Riverwood aided and abetted
the alleged breach.

The complaint alleges that the Coors family stockholders
negotiated the merger consideration in their own interest and
not in the interest of the public stockholders.  The complaint
seeks 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.

On July 3, 2003, a third lawsuit was filed in District Court of
Jefferson County in Colorado, on behalf of a purported class
of the Company's stockholders against the Company, the Company's
directors and Riverwood, alleging that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of the
Company in connection with the negotiation of the proposed
merger and that the Company and Riverwood aided and abetted the
alleged breach.

The complaint alleges that the defendants negotiated the terms
of the merger in their own interest and in the interest of
certain other insiders (including the Coors family
stockholders), to the detriment of the public stockholders.


HALLIBURTON: Scott + Scott Accuses Firm Of Favoring Executive
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Rothstein, attorney with Scott + Scott, said in documents
obtained by the Financial Times that Richard Schiffrin of
Schiffrin & Barroway, lead counsel in the lawsuit against
Halliburton, "admitted that Cheney may have risk involved in
this lawsuit, but he was not named as a defendant because it
would be inappropriate to do so in a 'time of war.'"

The charge is one of many Scott + Scott is leveling against
Schiffrin & Barroway in an attempt to remove the firm as lead
counsel in the accounting fraud lawsuit against Halliburton.  
Both law firms are well known as class action law firms.

Meanwhile, Terence O'Donnell, private counsel to Richard Cheney,
US vice president, said, "We have never requested anyone to
forego litigation against the vice president because the country
was at war."

In court papers, Mr. Schiffrin admits meeting with Mr. Cheney's
attorneys, but said, "Lead counsel acknowledges only that these
discussions were conducted at a time when this country was
focused on its war efforts against Iraq."

In an interview, Mr. Schiffrin said he had sought the meeting to
explain, as a courtesy, that the vice president would not be
named in the lawsuit.  "My point was that there was no basis to
name him as a defendant," he said, "particularly, in a time of
war."

Because the case centers on an accounting issue, and Mr. Cheney
was chief executive, there was nothing that tied him into the
decision-making process on the alleged fraud, Mr. Schiffrin
said.  Nonetheless, Mr. Schiffrin's law firm did name David
Lesar, who replaced Mr. Cheney as CEO, as defendant in the
lawsuit.  Mr. Schiffrin told the Financial Times that he
"honestly cannot remember" why Mr. Lesar was named.  The class
action period covers May 1998 to May 2002, a period in which
both men led the company.

Mr. Schiffrin said Scott + Scott had not named Mr. Cheney as a
defendant in its initial lawsuit.  Mr. Rothstein said it could
have added him as the investigation proceeded.

"Numerous clients who are class members, including US military
stationed in Kuwait, find it offensive and presumptuous that any
law firm would unilaterally decide to make a political decision
regarding a shareholder securities fraud action," Mr. Rothstein
said in an interview.


HALLIBURTON: Plaintiffs in Stock Suit Determined To Go To Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton announced on May 30, that it had reached a $6
million agreement to settle 20 lawsuits arising from allegations
that the US energy company, located in Houston, used deceptive
accounting practices starting when Richard Cheney, now United
States Vice President, ran the company as its CEO, the Financial
Times reports.

Connecticut law firm Scott + Scott, which represents one of four
lead plaintiffs in the case, has not signed the settlement and
is determined that the lawsuit against Halliburton will face
trial.  This time, if trial there is, Mr. Cheney would be named
as a defendant.

Court documents obtained by the Financial Times show that Scott
+ Scott is accusing Schiffrin & Barroway, a Pennsylvania law
firm and lead counsel in the case, of violating court orders by
agreeing to a settlement without the participation or consent of
its lead partners.  They allege that Schiffrin & Barroway never
convened a single meeting of the lead plaintiffs; refused to
give the other firms evidence it had investigated the charges;
and then settled the case for $6 million, even though damages
have been estimated as high as $6.8 billion, according to
Scott + Scott documents.

Neil Rothstein, an attorney with Scott + Scott, said Schiffrin &
Barroway admitted it had reached a verbal agreement with
Halliburton lawyers to stall the case until it could be settled.  
"Lead counsel's conduct has brought a cloud over this matter,"
Mr. Rothstein said.

Judge David Godbey, US District Court Judge in Dallas, Texas has
agreed to permit Scott + Scott to show cause at a hearing on
August 25, why Schiffrin & Barroway should be removed as lead
counsel and the class freed from its proposed settlement.

Richard Schiffrin, of Schiffrin & Barroway, has said the damages
incurred were minimal, that he consulted with the other firms as
needed and he does not recall the details of exchanges over
investigator reports.  Besides, he said, Scott + Scott has never
suggested why the settlement is flawed, except they were not
consulted in its drafting.

Scott + Scott insists it has a strong case.  It centers on
allegations that in May 1998, Halliburton secretly changed its
accounting methods and began recognizing as revenue and income
some claims that the company had against customers for project
cost overruns and for change orders related to fixed-cost
projects.

Scott + Scott has hired investigators, forensic accountants and
damage analysts.  Mr. Rothstein maintains they determined that,
by the end of the class period, Halliburton had recognized as
revenue more than $450 million in unsettled claims.  About $200
million remained uncollected but was on Halliburton's balance
sheet as "fictitious receivables."

Schiffrin & Barroway notes three of the four lead plaintiffs and
their counsel already have approved the settlement, adding there
is no evidence that the firm failed in its responsibilities to
represent the class.  Indeed, Schiffrin & Barroway accuses Scott
+ Scott of failing to offer to assist with the case, which it
says it had the right to settle "subject to approval by the
parties."

Mr. Rothstein pointed out his firm is acting on behalf of its
client and class members, "who have been excluded from the
entire litigation, which occurred in secret."

Scott + Scott said its client, the Wisconsin-based AMS Fund is a
self-sustaining organization that supports charities, hospitals
and schools; whereas Private Asset Management (PAM), which
Schiffrin & Barroway represents, is an investment institution
that does not accept members without net worth exceeding
$750,000.

PAM claims to have suffered damages exceeding $800,000 due to
the securities fraud alleged in this case, according to Scott +
Scott.  "Lead counsel claims PAM has approved the purported $6
million settlement.  If true, by our estimates, PAM agreed to
accept at most, something shy of $40 per member," Mr. Rothstein
said.  "The people who (our client) AMS Fund supports use social
services and will benefit by a rightful recovery by the AMS
Fund."


HIGH SPEED: Agrees To Participate in Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation is participating in the settlement
between issuer defendants and plaintiffs in the IPO Litigation
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit was initially filed on November 5, 2001 against the
Company and:

     (1) Mr. George Willett, President and Chief Financial
         Officer,

     (2) Mr. Ron Pitcock, one of the Company's former President,

     (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (4) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (5) CIBC World Markets Corporation, and

     (6) Banc of America Securities, Inc.,

The suit alleges that the Company's Registration Statement,
dated June 3, 1999, and Prospectus, dated June 4, 1999, for the
issuance and initial public offering of 13,000,000 shares of the
Company's common stock to investors contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.  

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
promulgated thereunder.  The essence of the complaints is that
defendants issued and sold the Company's common stock pursuant
to the Registration Statement for the IPO without disclosing to
investors that certain underwriters in the offering had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

The complaints also allege that the Company's registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allocated Company shares in the IPO to customers in exchange for
the customers' promises to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO price,
thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating the market
price for the shares in the aftermarket.  The plaintiff asks to
represent the interest of all holders of the Company's common
stock and seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it, Mr. Willett and Mr. Pitcock. The allegations against
Mr. Willett and Mr. Pitcock were dismissed without prejudice on
October 11, 2002 pursuant to a Reservation of Rights and Tolling
Agreement dated as of July 20, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act.  However, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934
Act and Rule 10b- promulgated thereunder.

On February 28, 2003, Charter notified the Company of its
assertion of a potential claim for indemnity in respect of
Charter being named as a "successor in interest" to the Company
in the IPO Litigation and deferred release of half of the $2.0
million indemnity holdback.  Charter was dismissed as a
defendant in the IPO Litigation on May 28, 2003 and paid the
remaining $1.0 million indemnity holdback to the Company on June
5, 2003.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced
that a proposed settlement between the approximately 300 issuer
defendants and their directors and officers and the plaintiffs
has been structured in the IPO Litigation which would guarantee
at least $1.0 billion to investors who are class members from
the insurers of the issuers.  The cases will continue against
the 55 investment bank underwriter defendants.  The Company had
assented to participate in the settlement, which is subject to
final documentation and review and consent of the court.  If
final settlement occurs, the Company will be removed from the
litigation without payment of any funds.


IDAHO POWER: WA Court Dismisses Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily
dismiss the class action filed against Idaho Power Corporation
and other entities.

The class action was filed on behalf of all persons and
businesses residing in Washington who were purchasers of
electrical and/or natural gas energy from any period beginning
in January 2000 to the present.  The complaint alleges claims
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, as well
as common law claims of fraud by concealment, negligence and
requests an accounting.  The complaint asserts that the
defendants, including the Company, engaged in, among other
things, unfair and deceptive acts, in violation of the FPA, by:

     (1) withholding the supply of energy;

     (2) misrepresenting the amount of its energy supplies;

     (3) exercising improper control over the energy markets;
         and

     (4) manipulating the price of energy markets resulting in
         energy rates being unjust, unreasonable and unlawful.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class action, equitable
and injunctive relief, an accounting, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.  

On February 3, 2003, another defendant, Reliant Energy, moved to
transfer the case to the Judge who is presiding over Multiple
District Litigation (MDL) No. 1405.  The MDL rejected this
request because that Judge, as a Washington resident, is a
member of the class.  

On March 11, 2003, the Company, along with other defendants,
filed a motion with the MDL seeking to transfer the case to be
consolidated with similar actions before the Judge who is
presiding over the California Attorney General Action, and other
similar cases.  On March 21, 2003, the court granted the
Company's motion for an extension of time to respond to the
complaint until 30 days after the MDL panel rules.  
Subsequently, plaintiffs sought permission from the court to
voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice, which the
court granted.


IDAHO POWER: OR Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon
granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the class
action filed against Idaho Power Corporation and various
entities.  

The suit, originally filed on behalf of all persons and
businesses residing in Oregon who were purchasers of electrical
and/or natural gas energy from any period beginning in January
2000 to the present, alleges claims under the Oregon Unfair
Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.605 et seq. in addition to claims
of fraud by concealment, negligence and requests an accounting.  
The complaint asserts that the defendants, including IPC,
engaged in, among other things, unfair and deceptive acts, in
violation of the FPA, by:

     (1) withholding the supply of energy;

     (2) misrepresenting the amount of its energy supplies;

     (3) exercising improper control over the energy markets;
         and

     (4) manipulating the price of energy markets resulting in
         energy rates being charged to Oregon energy consumers
         that were unjust, unreasonable and unlawful.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class action, equitable
and injunctive relief, an accounting, attorneys' fees and costs.  
The action was removed to federal court, and on March 11, 2003,
the Company, along with other defendants, filed a motion with
the MDL seeking to transfer the case to be consolidated with
similar actions before the Judge who is presiding over the
California Attorney General Actions, and other similar cases.  A
stipulation has been submitted to the Court for an extension of
time to respond to the complaint, until 30 days after the MDL
panel rules.  Subsequently, plaintiffs sought permission from
the court to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice,
which the court granted.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  

It names as defendants the Company, one of its current officers,
and one of its former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29,
1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings
did not disclose that:

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

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

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(a) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The court denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(a) and 20(a) claims against
the Company defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  

The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the
settlement.


INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc. for a consolidated
securities class action filed against it.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased shares
of the Company's Common Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement for the Company's February 1999 initial
public offering and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) BIG Venture Capital Corporation, a selling shareholder
         in the IPO,

     (2) the five inside directors of the Company at the time of
         the IPO,

     (3) Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and

     (4) Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., the underwriters for the
         IPO

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, by making certain false and misleading
statements in the roadshow presentations, registration statement
and prospectus relating to the IPO, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.  More specifically, the complaint alleges
that, in connection with the IPO, the defendants made various
material misrepresentations and/or
omissions relating to:

      (i) the Company's ability to integrate Geotrac's flood
          zone determination business with the Company's own
          flood zone determination business and with its
          insurance outsourcing services business;

     (ii) actual and anticipated synergies between the Company's
          flood zone determination and outsourcing services
          business lines; and

    (iii) the Company's use of the IPO proceeds

In March 2001, the Company, BIG and the five inside director
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint
for, among other things, failure to allege material
misstatements and/or omissions in the roadshow presentations,
registration statement and/or prospectus relating to the IPO.  
In July 2001, US District Judge Richard A. Lazzara denied all of
the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.

On August 6, 2002, the plaintiff offered to accept, in full
settlement of the IPO Litigation as to all defendants, payment
of $2.1 million to the putative plaintiff class.  On August 14,
2002, the Company's Board of Directors voted to accept this
offer, and the issuer of the Company's applicable Directors and
Officers and Company Reimbursement insurance policy has agreed
to pay $2.1 million to the plaintiff class.  The settlement was
also approved by BIG and by the other defendants represented by
Company counsel.  The parties to the IPO Litigation have
negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of the
principal material settlement terms, and the parties presently
are preparing a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and
related documents, for submission to Judge Lazzara.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Moving Towards Settlement of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors and:

     (1) the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),

     (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., and

    (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner  Smith, Incorporated

This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June
1999 and its secondary offering in September 1999.  
Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that
the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were
sold in the Company's initial public offering and its subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of
common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions
from customers related to such allocations.

Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers.  These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to
dismiss.  In October 2002, the Company's officers were dismissed
from the case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims
against the Company.  A proposal has been made for the
settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants,
including the Company.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including approval of the proposed settling parties
and the court.  If the settlement does not occur, and litigation
against the Company continues, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Dismissal For Suit To Be Heard September 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear the motion to dismiss the securities class
action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. in September 2003.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2002, a number of essentially
identical shareholder class actions were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and former officers
purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001
and June 7, 2001.

In April 2002, the judge granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate all of these actions into one; in May 2002, the
court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection
of lead counsel and an amended complaint was filed in July 2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In March 2003, the judge granted defendants motion
to dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: CA Court To Hear Derivative Lawsuit Demurrer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara will hear in August 2003 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s demurrer
to the consolidated amended shareholder derivative complaint
filed against it and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by
engaging in alleged wrongful conduct.  The complaint also
asserts claims against a Juniper Networks investor.  The Company
is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom the
plaintiff seeks no recovery.

In October 2002, the Company as a nominal defendant and the
individual defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated
amended shareholder derivative complaint.  In March 2003, the
judge sustained defendants' demurrers with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs lodged their amended complaint in May 2003 and the
defendants demurred to the amended complaint.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss the
securities class action filed against it and two officers of the
Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws
related to declines in the Company's stock price in connection
with various statements and alleged omissions to the public and
to the securities markets, and seeking damages therefore.

No discovery has been conducted.  The Company successfully
brought motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint and a
second amended complaint.  The plaintiff then filed a third
amended complaint, and the Company's motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint is currently under consideration by the court.  
The complaint has been tendered to the Company's insurance
carrier.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Arbitration For CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration has almost finished for the class action filed
against Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and two of its officers by
certain former shareholders of Cytovia, Inc. filed complaints in
California Superior Court in San Diego, alleging fraud and
negligent misrepresentation in connection with the Company's
acquisition of Cytovia.

The court subsequently issued an order compelling the first
lawsuit to a binding arbitration forum, and the second lawsuit
has been stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration
proceeding.  A binding arbitration proceeding with the American
Arbitration Association was held in May 2003.

The three-member arbitration panel rejected all of the claims
asserted by certain former shareholders of Cytovia, Inc. and
determined that the Company has no liability for such claims.  
In its interim decision the panel also determined that Maxim
should be awarded reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses
in an amount yet to be determined.  The arbitration panel has
not yet issued its final award.


MEDCO HEALTH: Investors Launch New Securities Suit in NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. and its Medco Health Solutions unit, a prescription-
benefits firm set to be spun off by its parent company, have
been named as defendants in a shareholder lawsuit, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.  The lawsuit filed in
federal court in New Jersey, is based on allegations regarding
the way Medco recognizes revenue for retail co-payments.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from Merck and Medco.  
Other defendants include Medco officers and directors and Arthur
Andersen LLP, Medco's independent auditor for 1999 and 2000.

Medco said the claims for breach of fiduciary duty stem from
pending whistleblower lawsuits, pending antitrust claims in the
Northern District of Illinois, and alleged failure to prevent
conduct that led to a series of lawsuits related to the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Drugmaker Merck & Co., located in Whitehouse Station, New
Jersey, said a federal court judge has granted preliminary
approval to an agreement to pay $42.5 million to settle five of
the six ERISA-related class actions.

Medco, based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, did not admit
wrongdoing, but the firm did agree to change some of its
business practices.  Medco is one of the nation's largest
pharmacy-benefits managers.  Part of the company's purpose is to
negotiate discounts from drug makers for the client companies
and HMOs it serves.

Merck said it will spin off all of Medco's outstanding common
shares to shareholders as a special dividend.  Merck
shareholders are to receive about 0.12 of one Medco share for
every Merck share held.


MICHIGAN: Witnesses File Lawsuit V. Police Over Improper Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for dozens of witnesses who claim Detroit police
improperly arrested them, have asked a federal judge to grant
class action status to plaintiff witnesses' lawsuit, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.  If such status is approved,
the lawyers would be able to collect money for hundreds of
people who have not filed a lawsuit but had similar experiences
as the plaintiff witnesses now suing the city.

US District Judge Patrick Duggan did not immediately rule on the
recently made request, but said he would issue a written
opinion.  John Quinn, a lawyer for the city, said the class-
action designation was unnecessary and improper due to the wide
variety of circumstances surrounding the detention of witnesses.  
He said the class-action decision would serve only to "drum up
more clients" for the lawyers suing Detroit.

N.C. Deday LaRene, a lawyer for the detained witnesses, said the
Class action status is needed to guarantee all people who were
harmed are compensated.  "One man's liberty is worth the same as
the next," the lawyer told The Detroit News.

Last month, the city paid $3.4 million to settle lawsuits by
more then 30 people detained under a police practice of jailing
uncooperative homicide witnesses.  That policy has since been
abandoned under an agreement with the federal government.  
Dozens of cases are still pending.


NEBRASKA: Court Orders Resumption of Medicaid To 10,000 Parents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Nebraska to
begin making Medicaid payments to an estimated 10,000 single
working parents who were cut from the program last year.  The
court rejected a state request to review its earlier decision,
made by a three-judge panel, that the parents were entitled to
the payments, which total $18 million a year, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial, with the state
making the payments until the case is decided.  The Medicaid
program cuts were made during a special budget-cutting
legislative session last year.  The class action was filed by
two low-income mothers who lost Medicaid coverage as a result.  
The two mothers' lawsuit contended that federal law entitled
them to continuing coverage through the Transitional Medical
Assistance Program whose program provides up to a year of
additional health-care coverage for those terminated from
Medicaid.

The appeals court did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but
simply upheld an earlier ruling by one of its three-judge panels
that the parents must continue getting benefits while the case
works its way through the courts.  That panel also said the
women were likely to succeed on their claims.

Mike Rumbaugh, the lawyer who handles appeals for the state,
said he was unsure whether the state would proceed to trial or
just accept the Eighth Circuit's ruling.


OVERTURE SERVICES: Engages in NY Lawsuit Settlement Discussions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overture Services, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against it, certain
underwriters involved in its initial public offering, and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and
improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified
damages.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted initial public offerings of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits
were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira
Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the court entered an order of dismissal as to
all of the individual defendants in the Overture IPO litigation,
without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the court largely
denied the motion to dismiss, including the Rule 10b-5 claims
against the Company, and the Company remains a defendant in the
case.

The Company continues to deny the allegations against it,
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the amended
complaint, and intends to contest the allegations vigorously.  
The parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions,
and the plaintiffs, insurers, and defendant issuers (including
individual officers and directors) are considering a final draft
of a settlement memo of understanding.


PENNSYLVANIA: Residents, Tenant Groups Sue Over Demolition Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents, as well as tenant groups, at three federally
subsidized high-rises in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania filed a
federal civil rights lawsuit seeking to prevent housing agencies
from moving ahead with a plan to demolish and replace the aging
structures, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, contends
about 300 families - most of them black and many with disabled
family members - are facing unfair hardship due to involuntary
displacement unless the court intervenes.

The lawsuit alleges the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority and
the Housing Authority of Pittsburgh failed to minimize the
impact of their development plans by putting together a fair
relocation program as required by federal law.  It claims the
agencies failed to provide residents with adequate relocation
assistance.

These are but a couple examples of the kinds of hardships faced:  
A disabled mother of two will lose convenient access to medical
centers.  A disabled man won't have easy access to public
transportation from his apartment.  Generally, the sense of
community will be lost for many of the residents.

"They did not want to help us find new housing," said Marvin
Harpool of the Coalition of Organized Residents of East Liberty.   
"They really didn't do anything but rush people out."

According to the lawsuit, relocating the families from the East
Liberty neighborhood would force residents to move to areas with
inadequate medical services, public transportation and other
needs.  The city's plans would cause residents "unnecessary
hardship and effectively segregates them into racially
concentrated, high-poverty and marginalized areas in order to
redevelop the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh."

Since the mid-1990s, the city has been planning to demolish the
three aging high-rises in the East Liberty neighborhood and
replace them with a mix of subsidized housing and market price
rental housing as part of a redevelopment plan.  The shift is
part of a national movement to repair and replace unsafe and
aging public housing, and provide important features in
subsidized housing for the aging and the disabled, such as
wider doorways and larger bathrooms.  The three buildings slated
for demolition were built around 1969.

The lawsuit was filed by Donald Driscoll and Kevin Quisenberry
of the Community Justice Project, in the US District Court in
Pittsburgh.


PHILADELPHIA: Settles Disabled Access Suit Over Polling Places
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Philadelphia and a national disabilities group have
agreed to settle a civil-rights lawsuit with a three-year plan
to make the city's voting machines and polling places more
accessible to voters who are blind or use wheelchairs, The
Philadelphia Inquirer reports.  The proposed settlement of the
two-year-old lawsuit by the National Organization on Disability
and nine local disabled citizens was filed in federal court in
Philadelphia.

The agreement was preliminarily approved by US District Judge
John R. Padova, who ordered the proposal published in three
newspapers this month and set a hearing for November 19.

Under the proposed settlement, by January 1, 2006, each of the
city's 1,682 polling places will have at least one electronic
voting machine equipped with earphones and audio instructions
for use by voters who are blind or visually impaired.  The city
also will create a Polling Place Access Committee to evaluate
approximately 800 of the 1,682 polling places in 66 wards that
are not accessible to people who use wheelchairs.  The
committee's recommendations and their implementation must be
completed by May 1, 2006.

Stephen F. Gold, a veteran Center City disabilities lawyer
involved in the lawsuit, called the agreement the best possible
in an old city such as Philadelphia.  Jeffrey M. Scott, a
divisional deputy city solicitor in the Civil Right unit,
referred to the "Help America Vote Act of 2002," which overhauls
the nation's voting system and was signed into law last October.   
Under the $3.9 billion measure, the federal government for the
first time will give states money to create computerized voter-
registration lists, replace antiquated machines, educate poll
workers and ensure access for the disabled.


REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: MO Borrowers File Suit Over High LTV Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is commencing in a class action filed against Republic
Bancshares, Inc. and 34 other investor defendants on behalf of
several Missouri residential real estate owners or borrowers.

The plaintiffs obtained second mortgage High LTV Loans from
Century Financial, Inc. during the 1997-1998 timeframe.  During
this period, the Company purchased from Century and, of those
purchases, has identified 12 loans secured by properties in
Missouri totaling approximately $690,000.  The plaintiffs allege
that Century charged illegal loan origination fees and closing
costs in violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loans Act.  
Under the purchase agreement with Century, it retained all fees
and costs it collected.  The plaintiffs are seeking both actual
and punitive damages.  The Company has not at this point reached
any conclusion regarding the merits of the lawsuit.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action in the Clark County,
Nevada District Court against Riviera Holdings Corporation and
Company directors:

     (1) William L. Westerman,

     (2) Robert R. Barengo,

     (3) Jeffrey A. Silver and

     (4) Paul A. Harvey

The plaintiffs in the suit assert, among other things, that the
defendants violated their fiduciary duties because they did not
take affirmative steps in furtherance of an offer by a third
party to purchase all of the outstanding Common Stock at a
premium price.  That offer was contingent upon, among other
things, a waiver by the holders of the 11% Notes of the right to
an accelerated repayment of the 11% Notes at a premium, which
would be triggered by that third party's purchase of the Common
Stock.

In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks an order which would
require the individual defendants to take the following actions,
among others:

     (i) cooperate with any individual who makes a bona fide
         offer to acquire the Company;

    (ii) take steps that are calculated to result in a buy-out
         or takeover of the Company at the highest price;

   (iii) comply with their fiduciary duties, and reimburse the
         plaintiff's class for damages, costs and disbursements
         related to the lawsuit

The complaint states that the named plaintiff also seeks to have
all of the Company's public shareholders, excluding the
defendants, certified as a class for purposes of the class
action suit and seeks to be the representative of the class.

On July 10, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
suit against all defendants on the grounds that the suit was
filed without the authorization of the plaintiff.  This motion
to dismiss has not yet been heard or ruled upon.  An amended
complaint was filed on July 11, 2003, alleging, among other
things, that the Director defendants are attempting to entrench
themselves in their position of control.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Stockholders Lodge Securities Suit in NV Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Holdings Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Clark County, Nevada District Court.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) William L. Westerman,

     (2) Robert R. Barengo,

     (3) Jeffrey A. Silver,

     (4) Paul A. Harvey and

     (5) Vincent L. DiVito

The named plaintiff in this action is a shareholder of the
Company and also seeks to have all of the Company's public
shareholders, excluding defendants and related shareholders,
certified as a class for purposes of the class action.

On July 21, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  This motion to dismiss has
not yet been heard or ruled upon.

The suit asserts, among other things, that the defendants
violated their fiduciary duties because they did not take
affirmative steps in furtherance of an offer by a third party to
purchase all of the outstanding Common Stock at a premium price.  
That offer was contingent upon, among other things, a waiver by
the holders of the 11% Notes of the right to an accelerated
repayment of the 11% Notes at a premium, which would be
triggered by that third party's purchase of the Common Stock.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc. to California customers only.

The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresents the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent
misrepresentation.

No class has yet been certified.  The Company vigorously denies
the allegations.


TACO BELL: Reaches $1.5 Million Settlement With Former Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell reached a $1.5 million settlement with about 1,000
former employees who had sued the company claiming overtime and
meal break violations at restaurants in Oregon, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

The employees will be paid an amount of the settlement based on
their length of employment at the fast-food chain, said India
Simmons, a spokeswoman for PR Ink, a public relations firm
representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, filed in 1997, was certified as a class action in
1999, with 13,000 former employees from about 45 Oregon Taco
Bell stores participating, Ms. Simmons said.  Just under 1,000
employees submitted a claim in Multnomah County Circuit Court,
making them eligible for the settlement, said Paul Breed, the
plaintiffs' attorney.

Taco Bell is a division of Yum! Brands Inc., which also owns KFC
and Pizza Hut.


VIRAGE INC.: Enters Settlement for Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virage, Inc. has entered a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of the Company from June
28, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  The defendants are the
Company, one of its current officers and one of its former
officers, and investment banking firms that served as
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.  

The operative amended complaint alleges liability under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the registration statement for the IPO did not disclose
that:

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

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

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.  Similar allegations were made in
other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public
offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  
The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.  The court granted the motions
to dismiss the claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control over certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.

The defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in
the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers
in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage,
a circumstance which the Company does not believe will occur.  
The settlement will require approval of the court, which cannot
be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to
object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


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


                        *********

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  * * *