---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, August 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 163

                        Headlines                            

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in TX
AVISTA CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in WA
AVISTA CORPORATION: To Request Dismissal of Montana AG Lawsuit
AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Dismisses Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
BAY NETWORKS: Appeals Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit

CORILLIAN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit
CORIO INC.: Reaches Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit
COSINE COMMS: Board Okays Proposed NY Stock Suit Settlement
COVENTRY HEALTH: Certification Sought for FL Managed Care Suit
DECODE GENETICS: Board Endorses Partial Settlement in IPO Suit

DEVON ENERGY: Fighting Royalty Suits in E.D. Texas and Wyoming
DIGITALTHINK INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
GENESIS ENERGY: DE Court Dismisses Unit-holder Securities Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Plaintiffs To Renew Motion For Suit Certification
HENRY SCHEIN: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in NJ State Court

I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
IBP INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle SD Securities Fraud Suit
ICT GROUP: WV Court Grants Plaintiff Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Agrees to Settle NY Stock Litigation
INTERSIL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit

LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: TX Court Refuses to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit
MPOWER HOLDINGS: Fairness Hearing For NY Suit Set October 2003
NATIONAL COMMERCE: Settles W.D. TN Class Action for $18 Million
NETSOLVE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

NEW CENTURY: CA Court to Hear Amended Consumers Complaint Aug 29
NEW CENTURY: Files Respondents' Brief in Appealed IL Fraud Suit
NEW CENTURY: Hearing to Dismiss TCPA Suit in IL Set For Sept. 18
NEW CENTURY: Charged with Overtime Pay Violation in Minnesota
NORTEL NETWORKS: One Securities Suit Dismissed, Another Retained

NORTEL NETWORKS: JPMDL Orders Stock Suits Transferred to TN
PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Suit in N.D. GA
SEQUENOM INC: Agrees in Principle to Settle NY Securities Suit
SPRINT CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File KS Stock Suit
TYSON FOODS: Certification Hearing For OK Lawsuit Set Late 2003

TYSON FOODS: OK Court Approves Settlement of Tulsa City Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in DE
TYSON FOODS: AK Court Refuses Motion To Stay Hog Producers Suit
WELLS FARGO: Advises Merchants About Debit & Credit Card Options
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in Packaging Products Suit Set April 2004

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dismissed as Defendant in OK Stock Lawsuits

                        *********


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Administaff, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the Company's
officers and directors.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors made false and misleading statements
or failed to make adequate disclosures concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the Company's pricing and billing systems with respect
         to recalibrating pricing for clients that experienced a
         decline in average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) the matching of price and cost for health insurance on
         new and renewing client contracts; and

     (3) the Company's former method of reporting worksite
         employee payroll costs as revenue.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, among other remedies.  
The Company believes these claims are without merit. The case is
in its preliminary stages.


AVISTA CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in WA
------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corporation intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington to dismiss the
securities class actions filed against it and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material
fact pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In particular, the plaintiffs allege that
the Company failed to disclose certain business practices that
the Company was allegedly engaging in with Enron Power
Marketing, Inc. and Portland General Electric.

The plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions
have occurred in the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other information made publicly
available by the Company, including press releases.  The class
action lawsuits assert claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock during the period between November 23,
1999 and August 13, 2002.

In February 2003, the court ordered the suits consolidated and
appointed the lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel.  The
plaintiffs are to file their amended and consolidated complaint
on or before August 18, 2003.  The Company intends to file a
motion to dismiss these consolidated complaints and denies the
allegations.


AVISTA CORPORATION: To Request Dismissal of Montana AG Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corporation plans to ask the United States District Court
for the District of Montana to dismiss the complaint filed
against them and other similar companies by the state's Attorney
General on behalf of the people of Montana and the Flathead
Electric Cooperative, Inc.  

The complaint alleges that the companies illegally manipulated
western electric and natural gas markets in 2000 and 2001.  The
Montana AG also petitioned the Montana Public Service Commission
to fine public utilities $1,000 a day for each day it finds they
engaged in alleged "deceptive, fraudulent, anticompetitive or
abusive practices" and order refunds when consumers were forced
to pay more than just and reasonable rates.


AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Dismisses Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed without prejudice the class action filed
against Avista Corporation and numerous other purchasers and
sellers of wholesale electricity and natural gas in the western
United States.

The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of all persons and
businesses residing in Washington who were purchasers of
electric and/or natural gas energy from any period beginning in
January 2000 to the present.  The complaint alleges that due to
the deregulation of the California energy market, the defendants
were able to unlawfully manipulate the wholesale energy market
resulting in supply shortages and high energy prices across the
western United States, including Washington.

The complaint further alleges that high energy prices have
resulted in profits for the defendants at the expense of rate-
paying consumers in Washington.  The complaint seeks treble
damages, attorney fees and costs, and an order that defendants
immediately remedy the alleged unlawful practices relating to
the purchase and sale of wholesale energy that affects rate-
paying consumers in Washington.  

The complaint further seeks an order enjoining the defendants
from continuing any alleged unlawful practices relating to the
purchase and sale of wholesale energy that affects rate-paying
consumers in Washington.  

The defendants moved to consolidate this case with similar
actions filed elsewhere and to seek transfer of these cases to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to
dismiss this complaint on May 1, 2003 and the court issued its
order of dismissal without prejudice on June 2, 2003.


BAY NETWORKS: Appeals Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the
consolidated class action filed in California Superior Court,
County of Santa Clara against Bay Networks, Inc. and ten of its
then current and former officers and directors.

Two separate lawsuits were initially filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and the
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara purportedly on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased Bay Networks'
common shares during the period of May 1, 1995 through October
14, 1996.

On August 17, 2000, the federal court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the federal complaint.  On August 1, 2001, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
Plaintiffs' appeal of that decision.  

A second lawsuit was filed in the California Court, purportedly
on behalf of a class of shareholders who acquired Bay Networks'
common shares pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus that became effective on November 15, 1995.  The two
actions in the California Court were consolidated in April 1998;
however, the California Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  In January 2000, the California Court of
Appeal rejected the plaintiffs' appeal of the decision.  A
petition for review was filed with the California Supreme Court
by the plaintiffs and was denied.

In February 2000, new plaintiffs who allege to have been
shareholders of Bay Networks during the relevant periods, filed
a motion for intervention in the California Court seeking to
become the representatives of a class of shareholders.  The
motion was granted on June 8, 2001 and the new plaintiffs filed
their complaint-in-intervention on an individual and purported
class representative basis alleging misrepresentations made in
connection with the purchase and sale of securities of Bay
Networks in violation of California statutory and common law.

On March 11, 2002, the California court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the class allegations.  The plaintiffs were
permitted to proceed on their individual claims.  The
intervenor-plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of their class
allegations.

On July 25, 2003, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court's dismissal of the intervenor-plaintiffs' class
allegations.  The defendants intend to appeal this decision to
the California Supreme Court.


CORILLIAN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corillian Corporation was named as a defendant in the securities
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation (CSFB) and several of its clients in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
various other issuers conspired with Credit Suisse First Boston
to defraud public investors by issuing misleading statements and
supporting misleading analyst reports for the purpose of causing
the share prices of the respective issuers to increase rapidly
upon the release of actual financial results that were much
better than anticipated in the allegedly misleading statements
and reports.


CORIO INC.: Reaches Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corio, Inc. reached a settlement for 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 certain of the underwriters involved in its initial
public offering.

The suit is one of approximately 300 similar lawsuits in a
coordinated proceeding sometimes referred to as "IPO allocation
Lawsuits" or "laddering lawsuits."  The plaintiffs generally
allege that the underwriters engaged in undisclosed improper
practices by giving favorable allocations of IPO shares to
certain investors in exchange for excessive brokerage
commissions and/or agreements for those investors to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined higher
prices.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in these cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs proposed to dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  

Under the guaranty, the insurers or companies will be required
to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the
aggregate amount ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants in all the cases.  If the plaintiffs fail
to recover $1 billion and payment is required under the
guaranty, the Company would be responsible to pay its pro rata
portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of the self-insured
retention under its insurance policy, which is $1 million.

In July 2003, Corio tentatively agreed to accept this settlement
proposal.  The settlement is subject to acceptance by a
substantial majority of the issuer defendants and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement.  The settlement is also subject
to approval by the Court, which cannot be assured.


COSINE COMMS: Board Okays Proposed NY Stock Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2001, CoSine and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a securities class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York.

The complaint generally alleges that various investment bank
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in CoSine's initial public
offering. The complaint brings claims for the violation of
several provisions of the federal securities laws against those
underwriters and also against the Company and each of the
directors and officers who signed the registration statement
relating to the initial public offering.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 250 other
companies. The lawsuit and all other IPO allocation securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District
of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. The issuer
defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss on common
pleading issues, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part in an order dated February 19, 2002. The Court's order
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule10b-5 claims against the
Company but did not dismiss the Section 11 claims against the
Company.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants. Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating issuer defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuer defendants in
all of the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.

Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases, up to the limits of the applicable
insurance policies. The Company will not be required to make any
cash payments under the settlement, unless the Company's insurer
is required to pay on the Company's behalf an amount that
exceeds the Company's insurance coverage. The Company does not
believe that this circumstance will occur.

In July 2003, a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors approved the proposed settlement. The settlement is
subject to acceptance by a substantial majority of the issuer
defendants, and execution of a definitive settlement agreement.
The settlement is also subject to approval of the court, which
cannot be assured. If the settlement is not consummated, the
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, the
litigation is in the early stages, and the company cannot
predict its outcome with certainty.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Certification Sought for FL Managed Care Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a managed care litigation against Coventry Health
Care, Inc. is pursuing class discovery against the company.  The
suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division by a group of
physicians against the Company and twelve other companies in the
managed care field.

The plaintiffs have alleged violations of the federal
racketeering act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a
scheme to violate RICO.  In addition to these RICO claims, the
complaint includes counts for breach of contract, violations of
various state prompt payment laws and equitable claims for
unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss each of these claims
because they fail to state a cause of action or, in the
alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
provisions which exist in the Company's physician contracts.  
The trial court has certified various subclasses of physicians;
however, the Company was not subject to the class certification
order because the motion to certify was filed before the Company
was joined as a defendant.

The plaintiffs are currently pursuing class discovery against
Coventry and will then file their motion for class certification
as to Coventry.  The defendants who were subject to the
certification order filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit
which has been granted.  


DECODE GENETICS: Board Endorses Partial Settlement in IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 20, 2002, an amended class action complaint,
captioned In re deCODE genetics, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation (01 Civ. 11219(SAS)), alleging violations
of federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of certain purchasers of deCODE common stock. Aside from the
company, the complaint names two of the company's current
executive officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and the two
lead underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") for its initial
public offering in July 2000 as defendants.

In the amended pleading, the plaintiff alleges violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) against the defendants.

In addition, the amended complaint alleges violations of
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Individual
Defendants. Generally, the amended complaint alleges that the
Underwriter Defendants:

     (i) solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of our stock
         sold in the IPO;

    (ii) entered into agreements with customers whereby the
         Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate shares of our
         stock sold in the IPO to those customers in exchange
         for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of our stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices; and

   (iii) improperly used their analysts, who purportedly
         suffered from conflicts of interest, to manipulate the
         market.

The amended complaint further alleges that the prospectus
incorporated into the registration statement for the IPO was
materially false and misleading in that it failed to disclose
these arrangements. The amended complaint also alleges that the
company and the Individual Defendants had numerous interactions
and contacts with the Underwriters from which the company and
the Individual Defendants either knew of, or recklessly
disregarded, the Underwriters' purported wrongful acts.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary and recissionary damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
purchased shares of the common stock from July 17, 2000 to
December6, 2000.

The company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
hundreds of other lawsuits filed (many by some of the same
plaintiff law firms) against numerous underwriter defendants and
issuer companies (and certain of their current and former
officers) in connection with various public offerings conducted
in recent years. All of the lawsuits that have been filed in the
Southern District of New York have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Honorable Judge Shira Scheindlin.
Pursuant to the underwriting agreement executed in connection
with our IPO, the company has demanded indemnification from the
Underwriter Defendants. The Underwriter Defendants have asserted
that its request for indemnification is premature.

Pursuant to an agreement the Individual Defendants have been
dismissed from the case without prejudice. Along with numerous
other issuers, the company moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim. On February 19, 2003, Judge Scheindlin
granted its motion with respect to the Section 10(b) claims and
denied the motion with respect to the Section 11 claims.

On July 31, 2003, the company's Board of Directors (other than
Dr. Stefansson) conditionally approved a proposed partial
settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement
would provide, among other things, a release of deCODE and of
the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.

The company states in a SEC filing, "We would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, and not assert or release, certain
potential claims we may have against our underwriters. Any
direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected
to be borne by our insurers. The Board agreed to approve the
settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other issuer defendants
in the proposed settlement, the consent of our insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation. Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the Court overseeing the
litigation."


DEVON ENERGY: Fighting Royalty Suits in E.D. Texas and Wyoming
--------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous gas producers and related parties, including Devon
Energy Corp., have been named in various lawsuits alleging
violation of the federal False Claims Act. The suits allege that
the producers and related parties used below-market prices,
improper deductions, improper measurement techniques and
transactions with affiliates which resulted in underpayment of
royalties in connection with natural gas and natural gas liquids
produced and sold from federal and Indian owned or controlled
lands.

The principal suit in which Devon is a defendant is United
States ex rel. Wright v. Chevron USA, Inc. et al. The suit was
originally filed in August 1996 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, but was consolidated in
October 2000 with the other suits for pre-trial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming.

On July 10, 2003, the District of Wyoming remanded the Wright
case back to the Eastern District of Texas to resume
proceedings.

Devon believes that it has acted reasonably, has legitimate and
strong defenses to all allegations in the suit, and has paid
royalties in good faith. Devon does not currently believe that
it is subject to material exposure in association with this
lawsuit and no liability has been recorded in connection
therewith.

Devon is also a defendant in certain private royalty owner
litigation filed in Wyoming regarding deductibility of certain
post production costs from royalties payable by Devon. The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits propose to expand them into
county or state-wide class actions relating specifically to
transportation and related costs associated with Devon's Wyoming
gas production. A significant portion of such production is, or
will be, transported through facilities owned by Thunder Creek
Gas Services, L.L.C., of which Devon owns a 75% interest.

Devon believes that it has acted reasonably and paid royalties
in good faith and in accordance with its obligations under its
oil and gas leases and applicable law, and Devon does not
believe that it is subject to material exposure in association
with this litigation.


DIGITALTHINK INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digitalthink, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) violated section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the
Company's registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court
against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs
of their common stock in the late 1990s.

In October 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the
Company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits
without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court issued a
decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim
against the Company, but granting the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim without leave to amend.  

In June 2003, issuers and plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO suits.  In addition,
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 Lawsuits,
the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the difference
between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the insurers for
the Issuers.  

Although the Company's Board has approved this settlement
proposal in principle, it remains subject to a number of
procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by the court.  
If the settlement does not occur, and litigation against the
Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses against the allegations.


GENESIS ENERGY: DE Court Dismisses Unit-holder Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed with prejudice the
class action filed against Genesis Energy LP by Bruce E. Zoren,
a holder of units of limited partner interests.  

The suit seeks to enjoin a restructuring that was approved by
the unitholders and completed in December 2000.  Mr. Zoren is
also seeking damages.  Defendants named in the complaint
include:

     (1) Genesis Energy LLC,

     (2) members of the board of directors of Genesis Energy,
         LLC, and

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc.

The plaintiff alleges numerous breaches of fiduciary duty
loyalty owed by the defendants to the purported class in
connection with making a proposal for restructuring.  In
November 2000, the plaintiff amended its complaint.  In
response, the defendants removed the amended complaint to
federal court.

On March 27, 2002, the federal court dismissed the suit;
however, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the
judgment.  On May 15, 2002, the federal court denied the motion
to alter or amend.  The time for an appeal to be taken expired
without an appeal being filed.  

On June 11, 2002, the plaintiff re-filed the original complaint
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  On July 19, 2002, the
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  On July 28, 2003, the
claim was dismissed with prejudice.

While the plaintiff can appeal this dismissal, management of the
Partnership believes that this matter has now been resolved.


HENRY SCHEIN: Plaintiffs To Renew Motion For Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended motion for class
certification of the lawsuit pending against Henry Schein, Inc.
in the District Court in Travis County, Texas.  The suit also
names its subsidiaries Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and Dentisoft,
Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, negligence, breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial
statutes involving the sale of certain practice management
software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental(R)
name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows(R) sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action.  It is estimated that 5,000 Windows(R) customers and
10,000 DOS customers were covered by the class action that was
certified by the trial court.

In November of 1999, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal
of the trial court's determination to the Texas Court of Appeals
on the issue of whether this case was properly certified as a
class action.  On September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's certification order.

On January 5, 2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in
the Texas Supreme Court asking the Court to find that it had
"conflicts jurisdiction" to permit review of the trial court's
certification order.  The Texas Supreme Court heard oral
argument on February 6, 2002.  On October 31, 2002, the Texas
Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case holding that it had
conflicts jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of
Appeals and finding that the trial court's certification of the
case as a class action was improper.  The Supreme Court further
held that the judgment of the court of appeals, which affirmed
the class certification order, must be reversed in its entirety.

Upon reversal of the class certification order, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.  On January 31, 2003,
counsel for the class filed a Motion for Rehearing with the
Texas Supreme Court seeking a reversal for the Supreme Court's
earlier opinion reversing the class certification order.

On May 8, 2003, the Supreme Court denied the Motion for
Rehearing, letting stand its opinion dated October 31, 2002,
which decertified both sub-classes in their entirety.  While no
papers have been filed at this time, counsel for the class has
indicated orally that they intend to file an amended motion for
class certification wherein they will seek to have the trial
court certify another class purportedly consistent with the
opinion of the Texas Supreme Court handed down on October 31,
2002.

At this time, however, it is not possible to determine whether
the trial court will certify a different class upon motion, if
any, or the possible range of damages or other relief sought by
the plaintiffs in the trial court.


HENRY SCHEIN: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in NJ State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. faces a summons and complaint in an action
commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Morris County, entitled "West Morris Pediatrics, P.A. and
Avenel-Iselin Medical Group, P.A. vs. Henry Schein, Inc., doing
business as Caligor."

The plaintiffs' complaint purports to be on behalf of a
nationwide class, but there has been no court determination that
the case may proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs want to
represent a class of all physicians, hospitals and other
healthcare providers throughout New Jersey and across the United
States.  This complaint, as amended in August 2002, alleges,
among other things:

     (1) breach of oral contract,

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

     (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) unjust enrichment,

     (5) conversion, and

     (6) promissory estoppel relating to sales of a vaccine
         product in the year 2001.

The Company filed an answer in October 2002.


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division against I2 Technologies, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors.

Several suits were filed in March 2001 against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, which were later
consolidated.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the Company and certain of its officers violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and
misleading statements concerning the characteristics and
implementation of certain of our software products.  The
consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
during the period from May 4, 2000 and February 26, 2001.

Beginning in April 2003, another set of shareholder class
actions were filed in the same court against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  

The complaints bring claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, relating to the Company's announcement that it
would re-audit certain of its consolidated financial statements
and that there would be material adjustments to its financial
statements.

Specifically, these actions allege that we issued a series of
false or misleading statements to the market during the class
period that failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were
         therefore unable to ascertain our true financial
         condition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements issued during the class period were
         materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's
stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Company common stock during the period from April 18, 2000 to
January 24, 2003.

In July 2003, the court issued an order that consolidated, for
purposes of pre-trial matters only, these complaints with the
class action that commenced in March 2001 against the Company.  
Based on the stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result
from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter.


IBP INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle SD Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
IBP, Inc. forged a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to settle a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of all
persons who purchased Company stock between February 7, 2000 and
January 25, 2001.

The complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, alleges
that the Company and certain members of management violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and claims IBP issued materially
false statements about IBP's financial results in order to
inflate its stock price.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2001,
which was then fully briefed.  While the motion was awaiting
decision, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement of all claims, as reflected by a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that was executed on March 19, 2003.

The MOU sets forth the essential terms of a settlement to be
reflected in final settlement documents to be prepared and
submitted to the court for approval, including, among other
terms and conditions, the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against defendants, releases by class members, and a
payment by IBP of a total amount of $8 million.

In July 2003, a finalized Stipulation of Settlement consistent
with the MOU was executed and submitted to the court for its
preliminary approval.  The tentative settlement is subject to
various conditions, including among other things, execution of
definitive documentation and receiving preliminary and final
court approvals.

In light of this tentative settlement, the Company has been
permitted by the court to withdraw its pending motion to
dismiss, without prejudice.  The Company does not anticipate
that effectuation of the tentative settlement will have any
material impact on its financial condition, especially in view
of IBP's insurance coverage for the matter.


ICT GROUP: WV Court Grants Plaintiff Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Berkley County, West Virginia granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the class action
filed against ICT Group, Inc. charging it with violating the
West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (the Act).

The suit alleges that the Company:

     (1) failed to pay promised signing and incentive bonuses
         and wage increases,

     (2) failed to compensate employees for short breaks or
         "transition" periods and

     (3) and imposed improper deductions for the cost of
         purchasing telephone headsets

The complaint also included a count for fraud, alleging that the
failure to pay for short break and transition time violated
specific representations made by the Company to its employees.
The Company filed a response denying liability.

In 2001, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to expand the
class to include all current and former hourly employees at all
four of the Company's West Virginia facilities and to add twelve
current and former executives of the Company as defendants.  The
plaintiffs then asserted a new allegation that, in addition to
not paying employees for breaks and "transition time," the
Company failed to pay employees for production hours worked.

The court has entered two separate orders granting partial
summary judgment against the Company and, in the case of one of
the orders, against three of the individual defendants, finding
that employees were not paid for all hours attributable to short
breaks and idle time of less than 30 minutes in duration.

In addition to compensatory claims for unpaid wages, the
plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages under the Act and
punitive damages for allegedly fraudulent conduct on the part of
the Company and the individual defendants.  The method of
calculating liquidated damages under the Act is one of the
matters in dispute between the parties, and there is a
significant difference in the amount of potential liquidated
damages using the methods the plaintiffs and the Company contend
apply.  The potential amount of the liquidated damages is
affected by such things as the hours a person worked per day,
the hourly rate of pay and the number of class members included
in the calculation.

On April 16, 2003, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the method of
calculation of liquidated damages under the Act.  The court
ruled that, under the Act, every class member who was not paid
transition time, short breaks or other wages is owed liquidated
damages equal to a day's wages for every day the amounts due
remain unpaid up to 30 days.


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Agrees to Settle NY Stock Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
During July and August 2001, four purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Integrated Information
Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
directors (the "Individual Defendants") and the members of the
underwriting syndicate involved in our initial public offering
(the "Underwriter Defendants").

All four lawsuits have been consolidated for coordination with
more than 300 similar cases. The suits generally allege that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the
         Company's initial public offering to their customers in
         exchange for higher than standard commissions on
         transactions in other securities;

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of our
         initial public offering to their customers in exchange
         for the customers' agreement to purchase additional
         shares of our Common Stock in the after-market at pre-
         determined prices;

     (3) the Company and the Individual Defendants violated
         section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and/or section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933; and

     (4) the Individual Defendants violated section 20 of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 15 of
         the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. The defendants have sought indemnification from the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

In July 2002, the company, as part of the group of issuers of
shares named in the consolidated litigation (the "Issuer
Defendants") and the Individual Defendants, filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. The Underwriter
Defendants filed motions to dismiss as well.

Also in July 2002, the plaintiffs offered to dismiss the
Individual Defendants, without prejudice, in exchange for
a Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement from each
Individual Defendant. All of the Individual Defendants in the
four lawsuits have entered into such an agreement.

On November 1, 2002, the Court heard oral arguments on the
motions to dismiss, and in February 2003, the Court dismissed
the section 10(b) claims against the Issuer Defendants, but
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the remaining
claims. We believe that the claims against the Company are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend this matter if it
is not settled.

In the second quarter of 2003, counsel for the Issuer
Defendants, counsel for the Issuer Defendants' insurers, and a
plaintiffs' executive committee appointed by the Court entered
into a memorandum of understanding and related agreements to
settle the consolidated class action as against all Issuer
Defendants.

The MOU provides, generally, that the insurers for the Issuer
Defendants will guarantee a recovery (either by settlement or
judgment) to the plaintiffs against the Underwriter Defendants,
against whom the litigation is still proceeding, of at least $1
billion. Accordingly, if the plaintiffs recover less than $1
billion from the Underwriter Defendants, the insurers for the
Issuer Defendants will pay to the plaintiffs the difference
between the actual recovery and $1 billion.

The entire guaranteed amount, as well as the Issuer Defendants'
legal fees incurred since June 1, 2003, will be paid by the
insurers. Any settlement amounts and all legal fees paid by the
Issuer Defendants will be allocated among the settling Issuer
Defendants, and any allocated amounts that exceed the individual
D&O policy limits of the individual Issuer Defendants (taking
into account any other claims made against such policies) will
be the responsibility of the Issuer Defendants.

The Company believes, based on the information available to it
now that it is unlikely that the Company's policy limits will be
exhausted by the settlement amounts paid by its insurers. A
special independent committee of the Company's board of
directors was previously formed to consider any settlement of
the litigation, and the special committee has voted to approve
the terms of the settlement based on the terms of the MOU and
related agreements. The settlement remains subject to final
approval of individual settlement agreements with each
individual Issuer Defendant who has agreed to settle, as well as
final approval of the lead plaintiffs and the insurers, and is
subject to approval by the Court. It is anticipated that these
approvals will take several months to obtain, if obtained
at all.

The Company anticipates that there will be objections to the
settlement, and individual plaintiff class members will be able
to opt out of the class action settlement and could conceivable
pursue individual claims. There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be approved on the terms provided in the MOU, if
at all. The foregoing is a general summary of some of the
salient points of the MOU and related agreements and is not a
complete summary of the specific terms of the proposed
settlement.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it, certain of its present officers
and directors and its lead initial public offering underwriter
and lead underwriter of its September 2000 offering, Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges violations of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, based on, among other things, the dissemination of
statements containing material misstatements and/or omissions
concerning the commissions received by the underwriters of the
initial public offering as well as failure to disclose the
existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some
of the purchasers in these offerings to thereafter buy
additional shares of Intersil in the open market at pre-
determined prices above the offering prices.  The plaintiffs
seek an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.

The suit against Intersil, as well as those alleging similar
claims against other issuers in initial public offerings, have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with a multitude of
other securities related suits.  In April 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint pleads claims under both the
1933 Securities Act and under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.  
In addition to the allegations of wrongdoing described above,
plaintiffs also now allege that analysts employed by
underwriters who were acting as investment bankers for Intersil
improperly touted the value of the shares of Intersil during the
relevant class period as part of the purported scheme to
artificially inflate the value of Intersil shares.

In October 2002, the individual employee defendants were
dismissed from the class action suit.  A settlement between the
plaintiffs and all stock issuers was reached recently, pending
Court approval.  If approved, Intersil will be permanently
dismissed from the suit by the plaintiffs.


LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation agreed to settle a consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, certain of its former
officers and directors, as well as against certain underwriters
who handled the Company's March 15, 2000 initial public offering
of common stock.

The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during the time period
beginning on March 15, 2000 and ending on December 6, 2000.  The
suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on the
allegation that there was undisclosed compensation received by
the Company's underwriters in connection with its initial public
offering and the allegation that the underwriters entered into
undisclosed arrangements with some investors that were designed
to distort and/or inflate the market price for the Company's
common stock in the aftermarket following the initial public
offering.

Presently, all claims against the former officers have been
withdrawn without prejudice.  The Company, along with the many
other issuer defendants, moved to dismiss the claims in the
complaint.  By decision dated February 19, 2003 the court
denied the motion.

The Company has approved a settlement proposal made by the
plaintiffs.  As a result, all of plaintiffs' claims against it
will be dismissed with prejudice.  The settlement proposal has
yet to be approved by the other defendants and an estimate of
the likelihood or range of possible loss for this matter cannot
be made at this time.


MIDLAND CREDIT: TX Court Refuses to Dismiss Debt Collection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2002, a complaint was filed by plaintiff Lana Waldon
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas against Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned
subsidiary Midland Credit Management, Inc. and two unaffiliated
financial institutions.

Plaintiff's first amended complaint purports to assert claims
for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, the Texas Debt Collection Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act on behalf of a class of Texas residents allegedly
similarly situated.

Generally, the first amended complaint alleges that mailings
related to a credit card balance transfer program are deceptive
and misleading.  The first amended complaint seeks actual,
statutory and treble damages in an amount to be determined,
together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctions
enjoining defendants from making offers or distributing
materials substantially similar to the mailings that are the
subject of the first amended complaint, plus certain other
relief.  

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the first amended
complaint, and those motions were denied by the Court on July
30, 2003.  

Plaintiff has not yet filed her motion for class certification.  
At present, plaintiff is seeking leave to file a second amended
complaint to expand the putative class to a nationwide class
with respect to the non-local claims asserted.


MPOWER HOLDINGS: Fairness Hearing For NY Suit Set October 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action filed
against Mpower Holdings Corporation's officers and directors is
set for October 2003 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York.  The suit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 thereunder
and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  

In February 2002, the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York entered its Decision and Order
dismissing the class action lawsuit.  That Decision and Order
has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

In April 2002, the Company filed a petition for a relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and as of the effective date
of the Company's First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
(July 30, 2002), the Company was discharged and released from
any "Claim, Debt and Interest," except as otherwise stated in
the Plan, as set forth in the final Confirmation Order entered
by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware on July 17, 2002.

Although the Company is no longer a defendant in the class
action lawsuit and can have no direct liability to the
plaintiffs, the Company nevertheless remains obligated to
indemnify the remaining individual defendants in the event of an
adverse decision against them in the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs
and the remaining individual defendants have entered into a
tentative settlement of the class action lawsuit, and have
submitted a Preliminary Approval Order to the Court, seeking
approval of the settlement in accordance with a Stipulation
of Settlement dated February 6, 2003.

If approved, the settlement would dismiss the action with
prejudice.  All settlement payments and remaining attorneys fees
and other legal expenses incurred by the defendants are expected
to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.  A hearing is
scheduled for October 1, 2003 to determine whether the proposed
settlement of the action on the terms and conditions provided
for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate and
whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the court.


NATIONAL COMMERCE: Settles W.D. TN Class Action for $18 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Commerce Financial Corp. has reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs' counsel to settle a purported class
action filed in December 2002 against NCF, its subsidiaries
First Mercantile Trust Company and National Bank of Commerce, a
subsidiary of First Mercantile, and two officers of First
Mercantile.

The purported class action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
alleges, among other things, that fees collected by First
Mercantile on investments held in common trust funds were
improperly charged.

The settlement agreement is subject to confirmatory discovery by
the plaintiffs and approval by the federal court in Tennessee,
among other conditions, includes no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by NCF or other defendants and, assuming all
conditions are met, will fully resolve the lawsuit.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiff class will receive
a total benefit with an estimated value of $18 million, payable
$10.7 million in cash and $7.3 million in go-forward fee
reductions.

NCF is pursuing recovery of a portion of the settlement and its
legal fees with its corporate insurance carriers; however, the
amount of recovery, if any, cannot be determined at this time.
NCF has not factored any recovery into its $20.7 million pre-tax
charge for the first six months of 2003.


NETSOLVE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of its
initial public offering (IPO) and hundreds of other companies,
directors and officers and IPO underwriters, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and the IPO underwriters violated section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the
Company's registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and almost
all of the other Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim against the Company.  The court dismissed
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without leave to
amend.

In June 2003, the Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits.  A
special committee of disinterested directors appointed by the
board of directors received and analyzed the settlement proposal
and determined that, subject to final documentation, the
settlement proposal should be accepted.

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, including formal approval by the Court.  It is not
feasible to predict or determine the final outcome of this
proceeding, and if the outcome were to be unfavorable, the
Company's business, financial condition, cash flow and results
of operations could be materially adversely affected.


NEW CENTURY: CA Court to Hear Amended Consumers Complaint Aug 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously disclosed, in September 2002, Robert E. Overman
and Martin Lemp filed a class action complaint in the Superior
Court for Alameda County, California, against New Century
Financial Corporation, New Century Mortgage Corporation, U.S.
Bancorp, Loan Management Services, Inc., and certain individuals
affiliated with Loan Management Services.

The complaint alleges violations of California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Business and
Advertising Practices in violation of Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200 and 17500, Fraud-Misrepresentation and
Concealment and Constructive Trust/Breach of Fiduciary Duty and
damages including restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendant Loan Management Services, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer
Venue was denied. The defendants challenged the plaintiffs'
complaint and filed a demurrer that was granted on all causes of
action in May 2003; the judge granted leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the defendants again
filed a demurrer challenging their claims; the motion is
scheduled for hearing on August 29, 2003.


NEW CENTURY: Files Respondents' Brief in Appealed IL Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation has filed the consolidated
respondents' brief for a class action filed against it on June
3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The
company awaits the filing of plaintiffs' reply brief.

As previously disclosed, in December 2001, Sandra Barney filed a
class action complaint against New Century Mortgage Corporation
in the Circuit Court in Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.

The complaint alleges the unauthorized practice of law and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act for performing
document preparation services for a fee by non-lawyers, and
seeks to recover the fees charged for the document preparation,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002; the case
was then consolidated with other similar cases filed against
other lenders. The motion to dismiss was heard in July 2002.

In August 2002 the court granted each motion to dismiss in the
consolidated cases and this case was ordered dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in September 2002. The appeal
was consolidated.


NEW CENTURY: Hearing to Dismiss TCPA Suit in IL Set For Sept. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously disclosed, Paul Bernstein filed a class action
complaint against New Century Mortgage Corporation in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.

The complaint seeks damages for receiving unsolicited
advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The company timely removed the case
to federal court on May 9, 2002. Plaintiff's motion to remand
the case to state court was granted.

The company then filed a motion to consolidate the case with
other similar pending cases. The case was administratively
transferred, along with approximately 30 others, to one judge
who requested the defendants to file joint motions to dismiss.
Three of the motions were denied and one was granted.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the company filed a
motion to dismiss on June 20, 2003. The company awaits
plaintiff's reply. The motion is scheduled for hearing on
September 18, 2003. Discovery has commenced.


NEW CENTURY: Charged with Overtime Pay Violation in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 2003, New Century Mortgage Corporation was served
with a case seeking class action status and alleging failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act filed in the U.S. District Court, District
of Minnesota by Michael Klas, a former employee.

Mr. Klas was a loan officer in New Century Mortgage
Corporation's retail branch office in Minnesota.

The company's answer was filed on July 2, 2003. It states, "We
believe this action lacks merit because we believe New Century
properly classifies its loan officers and pays them overtime
wages. New Century also intends to defend this action
vigorously."


NORTEL NETWORKS: One Securities Suit Dismissed, Another Retained
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed one of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Nortel Networks, Inc., and allowed another
one to proceed.

Several suits were filed subsequent to the February 15, 2001
announcement in which the Company provided revised guidance for
financial performance for the 2001 fiscal year and the first
quarter of 2001, against the Company and certain of its then
current officers and directors.  

These lawsuits were filed in the United States District Courts
for the Eastern District of New York, for the Southern District
of New York and for the District of New Jersey and the provinces
of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada, on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Company securities as early as October
24, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001.  

The suits allege, among other things, violations of United
States federal and Canadian provincial securities laws.  These
matters also have been the subject of review by Canadian and US
securities regulatory authorities.

On May 11, 2001, Nortel Networks filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained
court approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on
January 17, 2002.  The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third
proceeding was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred
any determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.

On December 6, 2001, the Company filed a motion seeking leave to
appeal that decision.  The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002.  On October 16, 2001, an order in
the Southern District of New York was filed consolidating
twenty-five of the related United States class actions into a
single case, appointing class plaintiffs and counsel for such
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint on January 18, 2002.

On December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia
action served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the grounds that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum.  The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.

A class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks was also filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired the securities
of JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDS) between January 18, 2001 and
February 15, 2001, alleging violations of the same United States
federal securities laws as the above-noted lawsuits.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss both the
above consolidated United States shareholder class action and
the above JDS shareholder class action complaints on the grounds
that they failed to state a cause of action under United States
federal securities laws.  With respect to the JDS shareholder
class action complaint, the Company also moved to dismiss on the
separate basis that JDS shareholders lacked standing to sue
Nortel Networks.

On January 3, 2003, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
JDS shareholder class action complaint and denied the motion to
dismiss the consolidated United States class action complaint.  
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the JDS shareholder
class action complaint.

With respect to the consolidated United States shareholder class
action, the plaintiffs served a motion for class certification
on March 21, 2003.  On May 30, 2003, the defendants served an
opposition to the motion for class certification.  Plaintiffs'
reply was served on August 1, 2003 and the court has scheduled
oral arguments on class certification for September 3, 2003.


NORTEL NETWORKS: JPMDL Orders Stock Suits Transferred to TN
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of securities class actions against Nortel Networks,
Inc. from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the Middle District of Tennessee.

A purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 21, 2001,
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel
Networks Long-Term Investment Plan (Plan) at any time during the
period of March 7, 2000 through the filing date and who made or
maintained Plan investments in Nortel Networks common shares,
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for Plan-wide
relief and alleging, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan participants to
continue to invest in and maintain investments in Nortel
Networks common shares in the Plan.

A second purported class action, on behalf of the Plan and Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
Nortel Networks common shares during the period from October 27,
2000 to February 15, 2001 and making similar allegations was
filed in the same court on March 12, 2002.

A third purported class action, on behalf of persons who are or
were Plan participants or beneficiaries at any time since March
1, 1999 to the filing date and making similar allegations, was
filed in the same court on March 21, 2002.  The first and second
purported class actions were consolidated by a new purported
class action, filed on May 15, 2002 in the same court and making
similar allegations, on behalf of Plan participants and
beneficiaries who directed the Plan to purchase or hold shares
of certain funds, which held primarily Nortel Networks common
shares, during the period of March 7, 2000 through December 21,
2000.

On September 24, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a motion to consolidate all the actions and to transfer
them to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to
withdraw the pending motion to consolidate and transfer.  The
withdrawal was granted by the court on December 30, 2002.

A fourth purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
held Nortel Networks common shares during the period from March
7, 2000 through March 31, 2001 and making similar allegations,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on March 12, 2003.

On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class
action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all the actions to the Southern District
of New York for coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.  On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order transferring
the Southern District of New York action to the Middle District
of Tennessee.


PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeding in Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently ongoing in a consolidated securities
class action filed against PRG Schultz International, Inc. and
certain of its present and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division.  

The suit alleges that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L.
Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief Operating Officer,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
disseminating false and misleading information about a change in
the Company's method of recognizing revenue and in connection
with revenue reported for a division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999
and July 26, 2000.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses,
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. & 78u-4 et seq.  The
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on June 5, 2001.  The
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
December 3, 2002.  Discovery is currently ongoing.

The Company believes the alleged claims in this lawsuit are
without merit. If the outcome of this litigation is adverse to
the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, and results of
operations.


SEQUENOM INC: Agrees in Principle to Settle NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2001, Sequenom, Inc. and certain of its current or
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
class action shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Case No. 01-CV-10831).

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company, its
underwriters, and certain of its officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws because its registration statement
and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received
by and the stock allocation practices of the underwriters.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. In October 2002, the company officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal
and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

In February 2003, the Court dismissed the claim brought under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, without
giving the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect
to that claim. The Court declined to dismiss the claim brought
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In June 2003, the company approved in principle a settlement
offer by the plaintiffs, and it awaits the preparation by the
plaintiffs of a settlement agreement. Management does not
anticipate that the ultimate outcome of this event will have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial
position.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File KS Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation faces three securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas by
individual participants in the Sprint Retirement Savings Plan
and the Centel Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit
Employees.

The suit also names as defendants the committees that administer
the two plans, and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.  The lawsuits allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plans and violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) statutes by including
Sprint FON Group and Sprint PCS Group stock among the thirty
investment options offered to plan participants.  


TYSON FOODS: Certification Hearing For OK Lawsuit Set Late 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing for the putative class action filed
against Tyson Foods, Inc. by R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S.
Thompson on behalf of all owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's
littoral (lake front) property is set for late 2003 in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma.

The suit alleges that the Company "or entities over which it has
operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to
interfere with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
property, allegedly caused by diminished water quality in the
lake.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney fees and costs.

Simmons Foods, Inc. (Simmons) and Peterson Farms, Inc. have been
joined as defendants.  The Company and Simmons are seeking leave
to file a third party complaint against entities that contribute
wastes and wastewater into Grand Lake.  


TYSON FOODS: OK Court Approves Settlement of Tulsa City Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma approved the settlement for the lawsuit filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc. by the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma and the Tulsa
Metropolitan Utility Authority.  The suit also names Cobb-
Vantress, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, four
other fully integrated poultry companies and the City of
Decatur, Arkansas as defendants.

With respect to the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc., the suit
alleges that degradation of the Tulsa water supply is
attributable, in whole or in part, to the non-point source run-
off from the land application of poultry litter in the watershed
feeding the lakes that act as the City of Tulsa's water supply,
and that the Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc. are, together with
the other defendants named in the lawsuit, jointly and severally
responsible for the alleged over application of poultry litter
in the watershed.

The court approved the settlement of this matter on July 16,
2003.  A total of $1.625 million was paid on behalf of the
Company and Cobb-Vantress, Inc. as part of a $7.5 settlement by
all defendants.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated lawsuit filed
against Tyson Foods, Inc. Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les Baledge
in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported
class of those who sold IBP stock or traded in certain IBP
options from March 29, 2001.

Several suits were filed when the Company announced its
intention to terminate the Merger Agreement with IBP, Inc. and
when the Delaware Court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion in the
Consolidated Action.

The suits alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making, or causing to be made, certain false
and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
attempted termination of the Merger Agreement.  Plaintiffs are
seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest,
attorney fees and costs.

On December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a consolidated class action.  The plaintiffs allege that,
as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct, the purported
class members were harmed.  On January 22, 2002, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

By memorandum order dated October 23, 2002, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
matter of class certification is now pending before the court,
with plaintiffs having moved to have their purported class
certified and defendants having filed papers opposing the
motion.


TYSON FOODS: AK Court Refuses Motion To Stay Hog Producers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Pope County, Arkansas refused to grant
Tyson Foods, Inc.'s motion to stay the lawsuit filed by 82
individual plaintiffs against it and The Pork Group, Inc.

On August 18, 2002, the Company announced a restructuring of its
live swine operations which, among other things, will result in
the discontinuance of relationships with 132 contract hog
producers, including the plaintiffs.  

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company
committed fraud and should be promissorily stopped from
terminating the parties' relationship.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney fees and costs.

The Company has filed a motion to stay all proceedings and
compel arbitration which was denied, and briefing has begun in
the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  


WELLS FARGO: Advises Merchants About Debit & Credit Card Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
"New procedures will soon go into effect as (a) result of the
settlement reached in the merchant lawsuit In re Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation (United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 96-CV-5238 (JG)),"
Wells Fargo Bank tells its credit card merchants customers in a
notice printed on their July 2003 Merchant Card Service
Statements.

"Effective January 1, 2004," Wells Fargo says, merchants
accepting Visa and MasterCard credit and debt cards "will have
the choice of discontinuing acceptance of either Visa or
MasterCard credit, or Visa or MasterCard debit, including Visa
Check and Visa Prepaid cards (i.e., non-PIN debit)."

Wells Fargo instructs its merchant customers that if they
"decide to stop accepting one of these product categories under
an existing contract you must notify Wells Fargo Merchant
Services in writing at least thirty days before the date you
will terminate your acceptance of these cards.   If you do not
want to change your current acceptances of both Visa or
MasterCard credit and Visa or MasterCard debt, you do not need
to do anything."


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in Packaging Products Suit Set April 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the civil antitrust class actions filed against
Weyerhauser Co. is set for April 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
suits name as defendants several other major containerboard and
packaging producers.

The complaint in the first case alleges the defendants conspired
to fix the price of linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy
had the effect of increasing the price of corrugated containers.  
The suit requested class certification for purchasers of
corrugated containers during the period from October 1993
through November 1995.

The complaint in the second case alleges that the company
conspired to manipulate the price of linerboard and thereby the
price of corrugated sheets.  The suit requested class
certification for purchasers of corrugated sheets during the
period October 1993 through November 1995.

Both suits seek damages, including treble damages, under the
antitrust laws.  No specific damage amounts have been claimed.  
In September 2001, the district court certified both classes.  
On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's certification of the two classes.

In April 2003, the US Supreme Court declined to review the class
certification issue and as a result class members were given
until June 9, 2003, to opt out of the class.  Approximately 155
members of the classes have opted out and filed lawsuits
against the company.

Pretrial discovery is underway.  The Company has not recorded a
reserve for this matter and is unable to estimate at this time
the amount of charges, if any, that may be required for this
matter in the future.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Dismissed as Defendant in OK Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma dismissed Williams Companies, Inc. and the members of
its board of directors as defendants in several securities class
actions.  Remaining defendants include certain Company officers
and the WilTel Communications Group, Inc.

Several suits were filed, alleging alleges that Williams and co-
defendants, WilTel and certain corporate officers, have acted
jointly and separately to inflate the stock price of both
companies.  Some other suits were filed, alleging similar causes
of action related to a public offering in early January 2002,
known as the FELINE PACS offering.  These cases were filed
against Williams, certain corporate officers, all members of
Williams' board of directors and all of the offerings'
underwriters.

These cases have all been consolidated and an order has been
issued requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by
Williams and WilTel equity holders.  The amended complaint of
the WilTel securities holders was filed on September 27, 2002,
and the amended complaint of the WMB securities holders was
filed on October 7, 2002. This amendment added numerous claims
related to Energy Marketing & Trading.

In addition, four class action complaints have been filed
against Williams, the members of its board of directors and
members of Williams' Benefits and Investment Committees under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
participants in Williams' 401(k) plan.  A motion to consolidate
these suits has been approved.

Williams and other defendants have filed motions to dismiss each
of these suits.  Oral arguments on the motions were held in
April 2003. On July 14, 2003, the Court dismissed Williams and
its Board, but not the members of the Benefits and Investment
Committees.  A decision in the shareholder suits is pending.


                        *********

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  * * *