---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, August 21, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 165

                        Headlines                            

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit Over AWP
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers File 262 Lawsuits Over Oxycontin
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers File Suits Over Sibutramine Drug
APPLE COMPUTERS: Court Hears Arguments For Stock Suit Dismissal
CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Reversal of NY Suit Dismissal

CB BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in HI
EI DUPONT: Finishes Settlement For Benlate Securities Fraud Suit
EI DUPONT: Trial in WV Lawsuit Over PFOA Exposure Rescheduled
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks NH Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Set September 2003

GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Trial in LA Plant Fire Suit Set September 2003
HALLIBURTON CO.: Plaintiff Decries Lawsuit Settlement Process
HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Hears Motions To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
HOME SHOPPING: Consumers Sue Over Defective Proteva Computers
HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Lawsuit After Settlement

ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Faces Lawsuit Over Violations of ADA
INLAND PAPERBOARD: 140 Firms Opt Out of Linerboard Settlement
INTERACTIVECORP: Expedia Shareholders Sue To Oppose Merger in WA
INTERACTIVECORP: TX Court Refuses Motion For Expedited Discovery
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Denial of Certification of NV Suit Appealed

IRWIN MORTGAGE: Asks For RESPA Violations Suit Decertification
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Agrees To Settle AL Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees
IRWIN UNION: MA Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment in Suit
JP MORGAN: Mediation in Enron Securities Suit Set September 2003
JP MORGAN: Named as Defendant in Worldcom Securities Fraud Suits

JP MORGAN: Engages in Discussion For NY Securities Fraud Charges
MAGELLAN HEALTH: RICO, ERISA Suits Stayed Over Bankruptcy Filing
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer To Launch Amended Interpleader
NETSILICON INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Stock Suit To Be Filed in MA

QUICKLOGIC INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuits
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Consumers File Provider Agreements Lawsuit
SEPRACOR INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
ST. JUDE: MN Court Conditionally Certifies MN Silzone Lawsuits
TOBACCO LITIGATION: PM Must Post $12B Bond After Court Ruling

TOMMY HILFIGER: Final Approval Granted To Saipan Suit Settlement
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
WH INTERMEDIATE: Asks For Dismissal of Herbalife Marketing Suit

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CREE INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in OH
CV THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit

IMPATH INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                        *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit Over AWP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Abbott
Laboratories and other pharmaceutical companies in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, alleging that the
defendants reported false pricing information in connection with
certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid.

Several cases, brought as purported class actions or
representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities,
were initially filed against the defendants.  Four cases have
been brought by state Attorneys General (California, Montana,
Nevada and West Virginia).  These cases generally seek damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution and
attorneys' fees.  The suits were later consolidated.

In June 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added:

     (1) the allegation that the defendant pharmaceutical     
         manufacturers conspired with publishers of pricing data
         and pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) to raise
         drug reimbursement prices and

     (2) antitrust and conspiracy claims relating to TogetherRx,
         a company through which Abbott and certain other
         pharmaceutical companies offer a prescription drug
         discount to certain low-income seniors.

One additional case was filed on June 30, 2003, entitled
"International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare
Fund v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al." in state court in Monmouth
County, New Jersey.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers File 262 Lawsuits Over Oxycontin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is a defendant in numerous lawsuits
involving the drug oxycodone (a drug sold under the trademark
OxyContin), which is manufactured by Purdue Pharma.  

The Company promotes OxyContin to certain specialty physicians,
including surgeons and anesthesiologists, under a co-promotion
agreement with Purdue Pharma.  Purdue Pharma is a defendant in
each lawsuit and, pursuant to the co-promotion agreement, Purdue
is required to indemnify Abbott in each lawsuit.  

Most of the lawsuits allege generally that plaintiffs suffered
personal injuries as a result of taking OxyContin.  Some of the
lawsuits allege consumer protection violations and unfair trade
practices.  One suit by a third party payor alleges antitrust
pricing violations and overpricing of the drug.

As of June 30, 2003, there were a total of 262 lawsuits pending
in which the Company is a party.  96 cases were pending in
federal court.  166 cases were pending in state court.  237
cases were brought by individual plaintiffs, and 25 cases were
brought as actual or purported class actions.  One case has been
brought by the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia.

A class of Ohio plaintiffs was certified in the case of "Howland
v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al."  That certification decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Butler County, Ohio.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Consumers File Suits Over Sibutramine Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
involving the drug sibutramine (sold under the trademark
Meridia) that have been brought either as purported class
actions or on behalf of individual plaintiffs.

The lawsuits generally allege design defects and failure to
warn.  Certain lawsuits also allege consumer protection
violations and/or unfair trade practices.  99 lawsuits were
pending in which the Company is a party.  93 cases are being or
have been transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio and are captioned "In Re Meridia
MDL No. 1481."

Six cases are pending in state court:

     (1) "Barley v. Knoll, et al.," filed on October 15, 2002,
         in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama;

     (2) "Bracero, et al. v. Abbott, et al.," filed on June 3,
         2002, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson
         County;

     (3) "Killinger v. Abbott, et al.," filed on November 18,
         2002, in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial
         Circuit, Lake County, Illinois;

     (4) "Olinger v. Abbott," filed on January 8, 2003, in the
         Circuit Court of the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Madison
         County, Illinois;

     (5) "Titus v. Knoll, et al.," filed on October 1, 2002, in
         the District Court of Nueces County, Texas; and

     (6) "Watson v. Abbott, et al.," filed on July 25, 2002, in
         the 19thJudicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
         Rouge, Louisiana

One case is pending in Canada: "Mandel, et al. v. Abbott" filed
on June 24, 2002 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
Toronto, Canada.  One case is pending in Italy, "Casartelli v.
Abbott, et al.," in the Civil Court of Monza, Italy.


APPLE COMPUTERS: Court Hears Arguments For Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard arguments for and against the dismissal of the
securities class actions filed against Apple Computer, Inc. and
its Chief Executive Officer.

These lawsuits are substantially identical, and purport to bring
suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's publicly
traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28,
2000.  The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003,
and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  A hearing on the Company's motion was held
on July 11, 2003, and the court has yet to rule on the matter.

In the opinion of management, the Company does not have a
potential liability that would have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.  
However, the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted
with certainty.  Should the Company fail to prevail in any of
these legal matters or should several of these legal matters be
resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, the
operating results of a particular reporting period could be
materially adversely affected, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Reversal of NY Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Capstead Mortgage Corporation and certain of its
officers asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to vacate its ruling dismissing the suit.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by publicly issuing false and
misleading statements and omitting disclosure of material
adverse information regarding the Company's business.  The
amended complaint further claims that as a result of alleged
improper actions, the market prices of the Company's equity
securities were artificially inflated during the period between
April 17, 1997 and June 26, 1998 and seeks monetary damages in
an undetermined amount.

By order dated March 31, 2003, the court granted the Company and
named officers' motions to dismiss and entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs'
request to further amend their complaint.  On May 14, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to vacate this judgment and
modify this order to permit the filing of an amended complaint.


CB BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in HI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against CB Bancshares,
Inc. and each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, on
behalf of all Company shareholders.

Plaintiff Barbara Clarridge alleges, among other things, that
Central Pacific Financial Corporation's proposed exchange offer
to merge with the Company is futile without approval of the
Company's directors because of the Company's Rights Plan, and
that the defendants have refused to seriously consider the CPF
offer.

The complaint seeks a judgment:

     (1) directing the defendants to give due consideration to
         any proposed business combination;

     (2) directing the defendants to assure that no conflicts of
         interest exist between the directors and their duties
         to the corporation;

     (3) awarding the plaintiff the costs and attorneys' fees;
         and

     (4) granting such other relief as the court deems proper

On May 8, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction asking the court to:

     (i) enjoin indefinitely, until further order of the court,
         the special shareholders' meeting scheduled for May 28,
         2003;

    (ii) enjoin enforcement of the Bylaw amendment adopted May
         4, 2003 regarding adjournment of shareholders meetings;
         and

   (iii) enjoin any further amendment to the Company Bylaws
         prior to the special shareholders' meeting

On May 23, 2003, the Company announced that a Hawaii state court
denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to
halt the company's May 28 special meeting of shareholders.

On July 14, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in
which she updated the complaint's factual allegations to reflect
the results of the May 28, 2003 special shareholder's meeting
and alleged that the Company's Directors had further breached
their fiduciary duties by amending the Company's rights plan on
May 28, 2003.


EI DUPONT: Finishes Settlement For Benlate Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. has finished payments for the
settlement of the securities class action filed in September
1995 by a shareholder against it and the then-Chairman, in the
United States District Court for the District of Florida.  

The plaintiffs in this case alleged that DuPont made false and
misleading statements and omissions about Benlate 50 DF, with
the alleged effect of inflating the price of DuPont's stock
between June 19, 1993, and January 27,1995.  

The court certified the case as a class action.  In March 2003,
the Company entered into an agreement to settle this case for
$77.5 million.  On March 14, 2003, the court gave preliminary
approval to the settlement, which it later finalized.  The
settlement amount has been paid and the case has been closed.


EI DUPONT: Trial in WV Lawsuit Over PFOA Exposure Rescheduled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed in West Virginia state court
against EI Dupont De Nemours & Co. and the Lubeck Public Service
District has been rescheduled.

The action alleges that the class has or may suffer deleterious
health effects from exposure to perflourooctanic acids and its
salts (PFOA) in drinking water and seeks medical monitoring.  
The class has been defined as anyone who has consumed drinking
water contaminated by PFOA from operation of the Washington
Works plant, which could be as large as fifty thousand
individuals.  

The Lubeck Public Service District and plaintiffs recently
reached a settlement agreement that has been approved by the
court.  The Company does not believe that the consumption of
drinking water with low levels of PFOA has caused or will cause
deleterious health effects.  

On May 1, 2003, the court entered an order requiring that the
Company sample and analyze the blood for PFOA of the individual
class members electing to participate.  In addition, the court
made certain findings of fact, including a finding that PFOA is
toxic and hazardous to humans.  

It is the Company's position that the scientific evidence does
not support the court's finding.  The Company appealed the
court's order and finding of fact to the West Virginia Supreme
Court, which has agreed to hear the appeal.  As a result, the
company expects that the trial, originally scheduled for the
third quarter of 2003, will be rescheduled.  


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks NH Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors renewed their motion asking the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against them.

The complaint alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors disseminated materially false and
misleading information about the Company's operations and acted
in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act
during the period between March 3, 1997 and December 2, 1997.

The complaint further alleges that certain officers and
directors profited from the dissemination of such misleading
information by selling shares of the Company's common stock
during this period.  The complaint does not specify the amount
of damages sought on behalf of the class.

In a ruling dated May 23, 2001, the court dismissed this
complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed that ruling
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and, in a ruling issued
on November 12, 2002, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
the case to the court for further proceedings.

On January 17, 2003, the defendants filed an answer denying all
material allegations of the complaint.  By order of the court
dated March 18, 2003, the parties are now engaged in limited
discovery.  


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Set September 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on Enterasys Network, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, former
chairman and chief executive officer Enrique Fiallo and former
chief financial officer Robert Gagalis is set for September
25,2003 in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.  The suit also names as defendants Piyush Patel,
former chief executive officer of Cabletron Systems, Inc. and
David Kirkpatrick, former chief financial officer of Cabletron.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that during periods spanning
from June 28, 2000 and August 3, 2001 and in the period between
August 6, 2001 and February 1, 2002, defendants issued
materially false and misleading financial statements and press
releases that overstated the Company's revenues, income, and
cash, and understated the Company's net losses, because the
Company purportedly recognized revenue in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Company's own
accounting policies in connection with various sales and/or
investment transactions.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all of the defendants, jointly and severally as well as
fees, costs and interest and unspecified equitable relief.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Trial in LA Plant Fire Suit Set September 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Gaylord Container
Corporation and its wholly-owned, independently-operated
subsidiary Gaylord Chemical Corporation is set for September
2003.

On October 23, 1995, a rail tank car of nitrogen tetroxide
exploded at the Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical.  
Following the explosion, more than 160 lawsuits were filed
against Gaylord, Gaylord Chemical, and third parties alleging
personal injury, property damage, economic loss, related
injuries and fear of injuries.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory
and punitive damages.

On May 4, 2001, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical agreed in principle
to settle all claims arising out of the October 23, 1995
explosion.  In exchange for payments by its primary insurance
carrier and the first five excess layers of coverage and
assignment of Gaylord's insurance coverage action against the
remaining carriers, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical will receive
full releases and/or dismissals of all claims for damages,
including punitive damages.  The settlement agreement was fully
executed on September 14, 2001, and all settlement funds were
deposited in escrow.

On December 24, 2002, counsel for the Louisiana class action
plaintiffs advised Gaylord Chemical that they would not be able
to deliver all the releases of the Gaylord entities that were
promised as part of the September 2001 settlement agreement.  As
a result of this failure to tender the committed releases, the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement did not
proceed as scheduled, and the parties engaged in negotiations
over revised terms of settlement.  

On February 18, 2003, the Court granted the settling defendants'
motion to retrieve the settlement proceeds from the escrow
account and to lift the stay of proceedings in the Louisiana
action. Gaylord, Gaylord Chemical, and their insurance carriers
were reinstated as defendants in the Louisiana class-wide trial
set to begin September 3, 2003.


HALLIBURTON CO.: Plaintiff Decries Lawsuit Settlement Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Halliburton Co. has objected to the way the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the suit is being handled.

Several class actions were filed in June 2003 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen, LLP, its
independent accountant for the period covered by the suits, and
several of the Company's present or former officers and
directors.  

Those lawsuits allege that the Company violated federal
securities laws in failing to disclose a change in the manner in
which the Company accounted for revenues associated with
unapproved claims on long-term engineering and construction
contracts, and that the Company overstated revenue by accruing
the unapproved claims.  

One such action was subsequently dismissed voluntarily, without
prejudice, upon motion by the filing plaintiff.  The federal
securities class actions have all been transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and
consolidated before the Honorable Judge David Godbey.

In early May 2003, the Company announced that it had entered
into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms upon which the consolidated suit would be settled.  The
memorandum of understanding calls for the Company to pay $6
million, which is to be funded by insurance proceeds.  

After that announcement, one of the lead plaintiffs stated that
he was dissatisfied with the lead plaintiffs' counsel's handling
of settlement negotiations and what the dissident plaintiff
regarded as inadequate communications by the lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  The dissident plaintiff has since filed a motion for
an order to show cause why the lead plaintiffs' counsel should
not be held to have breached his fiduciary duties to the class
and be replaced as lead plaintiffs' counsel.  

It is unclear whether this dispute within the ranks of the lead
plaintiffs will have any impact upon the process of approval of
the settlement and whether the dissident plaintiff will object
to the settlement at the time of the fairness hearing or opt out
of the class action for settlement purposes.  The process by
which the parties will seek approval of the settlement is
ongoing.


HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Hears Motions To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas has fully briefed motions to dismiss a class action filed
against Halliburton Co., on behalf of three individuals,
alleging that the Company failed to disclose a change in the
manner in which it accounted for revenues associated with
unapproved claims on long-term engineering and construction
contracts, and that the Company overstated revenue by accruing
the unapproved claims.  The suit, however, alleges only common
law and statutory fraud in violation of Texas state law.  

The Company moved to dismiss the suit on October 24, 2002, as
required by the court's scheduling order, on the bases of lack
of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to plead with
the degree of particularity required by the rules of procedure.  
That motion has now been fully briefed and oral argument on it
was held on July 29, 2003.  No ruling has yet been announced.


HOME SHOPPING: Consumers Sue Over Defective Proteva Computers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Home Shopping Network, Inc. faces class actions arising out of
the sale of allegedly defective personal computers.  Two are
pending in Illinois and Florida state courts, while another is
pending in the Superior Court of the state of California (Los
Angeles County).

The complaints allege that HSN, in marketing Proteva personal
computers during the 1996-99 period, engaged in unlawful,
unfair, and deceptive trade practices and false advertising.  
The California suit alleges violations of the California
Business and Professions Code.  The complaints seek class
certification, restitution of amounts paid, disgorgement of
profits, and imposition of a constructive trust on amounts
received from HSN's sale of Proteva computers.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit.


HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Lawsuit After Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
dismissed the class action filed against Huffy Corporation,
seeking damages for alleged violations of labor practices.

After protracted negotiations and on advice of counsel, a
settlement was negotiated and preliminarily approved on January
28, 2003 by the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.  The settlement was given final court approval, pending
compliance with the terms of the class settlement agreement.  

The Claims Administrator will issue its report as to claims made
and on the amount of payments to be made in the third quarter,
2003, not to exceed $5,200 for the Company.  The Company
contributed $5,121 into a court appointed escrow account for the
future payment of claims.


ILLINOIS: Cook County Jail Faces Lawsuit Over Violations of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Disability rights advocates today filed a class action lawsuit
in US District Court in Illinois on behalf of individuals with
mental illness who are incarcerated by the Cook County
Department of Corrections awaiting trial on pending criminal
charges.

"People with psychiatric disabilities are entitled to equal
access to government programs and services, including those
provided by Cook County Jail," said Barry C. Taylor, legal
advocacy director for Equip for Equality, one of the groups
representing inmates in the suit.  "The ADA prohibits people
with disabilities from being excluded simply because of mental
illness. Our suit seeks to rectify this unfair exclusion so
people with psychiatric labels can receive the same
opportunities as other detainees."

The lawsuit-which alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the 14th Amendment-names as lead defendants
John Stroger (President, Cook County Board) and Michael Sheahan
(Sheriff of Cook County).

The suit alleges that Cook County inmates with mental illnesses
are denied access to substance abuse programs and are barred
from participating in various supervised community release
programs, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).  It also contends that 14th Amendment due process has
been denied because individuals with mental illnesses are
released into the community without arrangements to access
necessary medication or mental health services.

"We believe that the case will show that these policies aren't
just discriminatory, they're downright foolish," said Ira
Burnim, legal director for the Washington-based Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law.  "If the county's goal is to reduce
recidivism and promote safer communities, it doesn't make too
much sense to deny inmates with mental illnesses tools to live
stable lives in the community."

An estimated 1500 people with chronic mental illnesses are
incarcerated in the Cook County jail at any given time.  Many
have committed low-level offenses, and it is believed that at
least 60 inmates and possibly many more could be served in the
jail's supervised community and treatment programs if they were
not excluded because of their disability.  In addition, more
than 100 people with mental illnesses are discharged each month
without arrangements for case management or for accessing needed
medication.


INLAND PAPERBOARD: 140 Firms Opt Out of Linerboard Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
140 companies and their subsidiaries opted out of the settlement
of a class action filed against Inland Paperboard and Packaging,
Inc. and Gaylord Chemical Corporation, alleging a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suit also names
as defendants eight other linerboard manufacturers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, during the period
from October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995, conspired to
limit the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect
of the alleged conspiracy was artificially to increase prices of
corrugated containers.  The plaintiffs moved to certify a class
of all persons in the United States who purchased corrugated
containers directly from any defendant during the above period,
and seek treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
purported class.

The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion on September 4, 2001,
but modified the proposed class to exclude those purchasers
whose prices were "not tied to the price of linerboard."   The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit accepted
review of the decision to certify the class and upheld the trial
court's ruling.  Defendants appealed this decision to the United
States Supreme Court, which denied their petition for a writ of
certiorari.  The case is currently set for trial in April 2004.

Inland and Gaylord executed a settlement agreement on April
11, 2003, with the representatives of the class.  On April 14,
2003, the trial court entered an order preliminarily approving
the terms of the settlement.  Gaylord and Inland paid a total of
$8 million into escrow on April 17, 2003, to fulfill the terms
of the settlement, which amount was within the amount previously
accrued by the Company in connection with this matter.  No
objections to the settlement were filed with the court by the
June 9, 2003, deadline.  A final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement to the classes is scheduled for August 11, 2003.  The
settlement will not become final until appeals, if any, to a
final order approving the settlement terms have been exhausted.

June 9, 2003, was also the deadline for potential class members
to "opt-out" of the class action lawsuit.  By this deadline, 140
companies and their named subsidiaries had advised the court of
their opt-out election.  Eleven individual complaints brought by
over 100 of these opt-out plaintiffs have since been filed
against the defendants in this action.  

As a result of the opt-outs, the Company received a refund of
$800,000 from the original settlement amount.  The Company is
presently evaluating these complaints and continues to
participate in a joint defense and cost sharing arrangement with
other major industry participants, which also covers the opt-out
litigation.


INTERACTIVECORP: Expedia Shareholders Sue To Oppose Merger in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
InteractiveCorp faces several securities class actions filed on
behalf of Expedia, Inc.'s shareholders in the King County
Superior Court in the state of Washington.  The suits also name
as defendants Expedia, and members of the board of directors of
Expedia.

The complaints in these actions allege, in essence, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Expedia's public
shareholders by entering into and/or approving the merger
agreement, which allegedly does not reflect the true value of
Expedia.  The complaints seek to enjoin consummation of the
transaction or, in the alternative, to rescind the transaction,
as well as damages in an unspecified amount.


INTERACTIVECORP: TX Court Refuses Motion For Expedited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas denied plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery for the
class action filed against InteractiveCorp, Hotels.com and the
members of the board of directors of Hotels.com, over the
IAC/Hotels.com merger agreement.

The plaintiff in a purported shareholder derivative action on
behalf of Hotels.com against certain officers and directors of
Hotels.com, which was pending in the District Court of Dallas,
Texas, 160th Judicial District, prior to the announcement of the
merger transaction and had originally asserted derivative claims
relating to Hotels.com's pre-merger earnings guidance, filed an
amended complaint to include class allegations regarding the
merger transaction.

In addition, on April 17, 2003, the plaintiffs in a consolidated
action pending in the Court of Chancery, New Castle County,
State of Delaware, which had consolidated a number of purported
class actions filed against Hotels.com, IAC, and members of the
board of directors of Hotels.com as a result of IAC's
announcement in June 2002 of its intention to enter into an
Hotels.com acquisition transaction, filed a consolidated and
amended class action.

Pursuant to an agreement among counsel for the parties, the
defendants' time to respond to the complaints has been adjourned
indefinitely.  

The complaints in the two Delaware actions and the class
allegations in the complaint in the Texas action allege, in
essence, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Hotels.com's public shareholders by entering into and/or
approving the merger agreement, which allegedly does not reflect
the true value of Hotels.com.  The complaints seek to enjoin
consummation of the transaction or, in the alternative, to
rescind the transaction, as well as damages in an unspecified
amount.

On April 18, 2003, the Texas action was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  On
May 2, 2003, the plaintiff in this action filed a motion to
remand the case to state court.  On June 3, 2003, the plaintiff
in the Texas action withdrew his motion to remand the case to
state court and filed a motion in federal court for expedited
discovery in anticipation of filing a motion for a preliminary
injunction against consummation of the IAC/Hotels.com merger.  
On June 16, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery.

On June 23, 2003, the IAC/Hotels.com merger transaction closed.  
The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Denial of Certification of NV Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit against International
Game Technology, Inc. and a number of other public gaming
corporations appealed the US District Court of Nevada's denial
of class certification for the suit.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent
and misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker
machines and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs
concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which
there is an opportunity to win on a given play.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts
constitute violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), and also give rise to claims for
common law fraud and unjust enrichment.  The suit seeks
compensatory, special, incidental and punitive damages of
several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the consolidated suit or that would have stayed the
action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  In March 2002,
the court directed that certain merits discovery could proceed.  
In June 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

An appeal of that denial was filed timely with the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On April 30, 2003, the
appellants (class plaintiffs) timely filed their opening brief.  
The respondent's opposition brief was filed timely on July 31,
2003.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Asks For RESPA Violations Suit Decertification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama to decertify the
class in the lawsuit filed against it, alleging violations of
the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
relating to its payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  

The court later certified the suit as a class action, which the
defendants appealed.  In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit upheld the court's certification of a plaintiff
class and the case was remanded for further proceedings in the
federal district court.  

In September 2001, a second suit sought class status and
consolidation with this suit.  In November 2001, by order of the
district court, the parties filed supplemental briefs analyzing
the impact of a new policy statement from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that explicitly disagrees
with the judicial interpretation of RESPA by the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class
certification in this case.  

In response to a motion from the Company, the court granted the
Company's motion to stay proceedings in this case until the 11th
Circuit decided the three other RESPA cases originally argued
before it with this case.  The second suit seeking consolidation
with this one was similarly stayed.

The appeals court has now decided all of the RESPA cases pending
in that court.  In one of those cases, the appeals court
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the court expressly recognized it was, in effect,
overruling its previous decision upholding class certification
in this case.  In March 2003, the Company filed a motion to
decertify the class and the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for summary judgment.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that the Company violated RESPA, the Company could be liable for
damages equal to three times the amount of that portion of
payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled unlawful.  
Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to potential
class members and additional notices that might be sent in this
case, the Company believes the class is not likely to exceed
32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Agrees To Settle AL Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation agreed to settle several lawsuits
filed against it in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County,
Alabama, and the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  

Three suits were filed in 2002, seeking class action status and
allege claims based on payments on brokerage fees to mortgage
brokers.  In April 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached
an agreement to settle the three cases in Calhoun County,
Alabama, for a nonmaterial amount.

Another case filed in 2002 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama was permitted to intervene
in the case seeking consolidation with this case.  The
intervening case alleged Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA) violations both similar to and different from those in
this case in connection with payments made to mortgage brokers.  
In July 2003, the parties agreed in principle to settle the suit
seeking consolidation with this one, along with the intervening
case, for a nonmaterial amount.


IRWIN UNION: MA Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Massachusetts denied Irwin
Union Bank and Trust Company's motion for summary judgment in
the class action filed over loans purchased by Irwin Union Bank
and Trust from an unaffiliated third-party originator.  

The plaintiffs allege that the loan documents did not comply
with certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act relating to
high rate loans.  The complaint seeks rescission of the loans
and other damages.  

On September 30, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class, subject to certain limitations.  The
Company filed a motion for reconsideration with the district
court and a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision with the Court of Appeals for the 1st
Circuit.  Discovery has not yet commenced.  

In May 2003, the court denied the motion for summary judgment
and denied in part the motion for reconsideration of class de-
certification.  However, the court further restricted membership
in the class.  If the class is ultimately upheld, the actual
number of plaintiff borrowers will be determined only after a
review of loan files.  

The Company believes that out of approximately 200 loans
acquired directly from the third-party originator and
approximately 7,800 loans acquired from others through bulk
acquisitions, only a portion of these loans will qualify for
inclusion in the class.  


JP MORGAN: Mediation in Enron Securities Suit Set September 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation has been scheduled for the lawsuits filed JP Morgan
Chase & Co., and its directors and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders of Enron Corporation and Enron employees
who participated in various employee stock ownership plans in
the United States District Court in Houston, Texas.

The consolidated complaint filed on behalf of Enron shareholders
named as defendants, among others, the Company, several other
investment banking firms, two law firms, Enron's former
accountants and affiliated entities and individuals and other
individual defendants, including present and former officers and
directors of Enron.  The suit purport to allege claims against
the Company and the other defendants under federal and state
securities laws.

The suit filed on behalf of the Company's employees named as
defendants, among others, the Company, several other investment
banking firms, a law firm, Enron's former accountants and
affiliated entities and individuals and other individual
defendants, including present and former officers and directors
of Enron.  The suit purports to allege claims against the
Company and certain other defendants under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state common
law.   

On December 20, 2002, the court denied the motions of the
Company and other defendants to dismiss the shareholder action.  

Additional actions against the Company or its affiliates
relating to Enron have been filed.  These actions include:

     (1) a purported consolidated class action lawsuit by JP
         Morgan stockholders alleging that the Company issued
         false and misleading press releases and other public
         documents relating to Enron in violation of Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 thereunder;

     (2) shareholder derivative actions alleging breaches of
         fiduciary duties and alleged failures to exercise due
         care and diligence by the Firm's directors and named
         officers in the management of JP Morgan Chase; and

     (2) various actions in disparate courts by Enron investors
         and creditors alleging state law and common law claims
         against JP Morgan Chase and many other defendants

By joint order of the district court handling the two suits and
a number of other Enron-related cases and the bankruptcy court
handling Enron's bankruptcy case, a mediation among various
investor and creditor plaintiffs, the Enron bankruptcy estate
and a number of financial institution defendants, including the
Company, has been initiated before the Honorable William C.
Conner, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York.  Mediation sessions have been scheduled
for dates in September and October 2003.


JP MORGAN: Named as Defendant in Worldcom Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Securities, Inc. (JPMSI) and JP Morgan Chase & Co.
have been named as defendants in more than 50 actions that were
filed in either United States District Courts or state courts in
20 states and in one arbitral panel beginning in July 2002
arising out of alleged accounting irregularities in the books
and records of WorldCom Inc.

Plaintiffs in these actions are individual and institutional
investors, including state pension funds, who purchased debt
securities issued by WorldCom pursuant to public offerings in
1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001.  JPMSI acted as an underwriter of the
1998, 2000 and 2001 offerings and was an initial purchaser in
the December 2000 private bond offering.

In addition to JPMSI, JP Morgan Chase and, in one action, JP
Morgan Securities Ltd. (JPMSL) in its capacity as one of the
underwriters of the international tranche of the 2001 offering,
the defendants in various of the actions include other
underwriters, certain executives of WorldCom and WorldCom's
auditors.

In the actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants either knew or
were reckless or negligent in not knowing that the securities
were sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts concerning the financial condition
of WorldCom.  The complaints against JP Morgan Chase, JPMSI and
JPMSL assert claims under federal and state securities laws,
other state statutes and under common law theories of fraud
and negligent misrepresentation.


JP MORGAN: Engages in Discussion For NY Securities Fraud Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. is working to settle several class actions
filed against it and certain of its securities subsidiaries,
along with numerous other firms in the securities industry, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

These suits purport to challenge alleged improprieties in the
allocation of stock in various public offerings, including some
offerings for which a JP Morgan Chase entity served as an
underwriter.  The suits allege violations of securities and
antitrust laws arising from alleged material misstatements and
omissions in registration statements and prospectuses for the
initial public offerings and alleged market manipulation with
respect to aftermarket transactions in the offered securities.

The securities claims allege, among other things,
misrepresentations and proposed market manipulation of the
aftermarket trading for these offerings by tying allocations of
shares in initial public offerings (IPOs) to undisclosed
excessive commissions paid to the Company and to required
aftermarket purchase transactions by customers who received
allocations of shares in the respective initial public
offerings, as well as allegations of misleading analyst reports.

The antitrust claims allege an illegal conspiracy to require
customers, in exchange for initial public offering allocations,
to pay undisclosed and excessive commissions and to make
aftermarket purchases of the initial public offering securities
at a price higher than the offering price as a precondition to
receiving allocations.

On February 13, 2003, the court denied the motions of the
Company and others to dismiss the securities complaints.

The Company also has received various subpoenas and informal
requests from governmental and other agencies seeking
information relating to initial public offering allocation
practices.  

On February 20, 2003, the National Association of Securities
Dealers (NASD) censured JP Morgan Securities, Inc. (JPMSI) and
fined it $6 million for activities it found to constitute
unlawful profit sharing by Hambrecht & Quist Group in the period
immediately prior to and following its acquisition in 2000.  In
agreeing to the resolution of the charges, JPMSI neither
admitted nor denied the NASD's contentions.

JPMSI has been advised by the SEC that it is also considering
bringing a disciplinary action against JPMSI.  JPMSI has
submitted to the staff of the SEC a letter outlining the basis
for JPMSI's position that no such action is warranted and is
currently in discussions with the SEC.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: RICO, ERISA Suits Stayed Over Bankruptcy Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The two class actions filed against Magellan Health Services,
Inc. and Magellan Behavioral Health, Inc. have been stayed after
the Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The suits were initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The class
representatives purport to bring the actions on behalf of a
nationwide class of individuals whose behavioral health benefits
have been provided, underwritten and/or arranged by the
Defendants since 1996 (RICO class) and 1994 (ERISA class).

The complaints allege violations of RICO and ERISA arising out
of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations with respect to
and failure to disclose its claims practices, the extent of the
benefits coverage and other matters that cause the value of
benefits to be less than the value represented to the members.  
The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages under RICO and an injunction barring the alleged
improper practices, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2001, the court transferred
the suits to the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.  These actions are similar to suits filed against a
number of other health care organizations, elements of which
have already been dismissed by various courts around the
country, including the Maryland court where the suits are now
pending.

While the suits are in the initial stages and an outcome cannot
be determined, the Company believes that the claims are without
merit.  The Company believes that the claims in the suits
constitute pre-petition general unsecured claims and, to the
extent allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, would be resolved as
Other General Unsecured Claims under the Plan in the Chapter 11
Cases.  The plaintiffs did not file a timely proof of claim with
the Bankruptcy Court and therefore the Company believes that
there will be no allowed claim with respect thereto in the
Chapter 11 Cases.


METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer To Launch Amended Interpleader
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gulf Insurance Company, Metretek Technologies, Inc.'s
insurer seeks to file an amended interpleader complaint with
regard to the settlement proposed by Metretek for the class
action filed in the District Court for the City and County of
Denver, Colorado against it and:
     
     (1) Marcum Midstream 1997-1 Business Trust (the 1997
         Trust), an energy program managed by the Company's
         subsidiary Marcum Gas Transmission, Inc. (MGT),

     (2) certain affiliates,

     (3) officers and employees of the Company and MGT (the
         foregoing, collectively, the "Metretek Defendants"),
         and

     (4) Farstad Gas & Oil, LLC, Farstad Oil, Inc., and Jeff
         Farstad (collectively, the "Farstad Defendants")

The 1997 Trust raised approximately $9.25 million from investors
in a private placement in 1997 in order to finance the purchase,
operation and improvement of a natural gas liquids processing
plant located in Midland, Texas.  The suit alleges that the
Metretek Defendants and the Farstad Defendants, either directly
or as "controlling persons", violated certain provisions of the
Colorado Securities Act in connection with the sale of interests
in the 1997 Trust.  The damages sought in the suit include
compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On March 27, 2003, the Company, along with the class action
plaintiff, filed a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Heins
Stipulation"), which contains the terms and conditions of a
proposed settlement (the "Heins Settlement") intended to fully
resolve all claims by the plaintiff against the Company and the
other Metretek Defendants in the Heins suit.

The Heins Settlement is contingent, among other things, upon the
payment of not less than $2,375,000 from the proceeds of the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy, which was
issued by Gulf Insurance Company.  The Heins Stipulation creates
a settlement fund (the "Heins Settlement Fund") for the benefit
of the Class.

If the Denver Court approves the Heins Settlement and all other
conditions to the Heins Settlement are met, then the Company
will pay $2.75 million into the Heins Settlement Fund, of which
no less than $2,375,000 must come from the proceeds of the
Policy, and the Company will issue a note payable to the Heins
Settlement Fund in the amount of $3.0 million (the "Heins
Settlement Note").

The Heins Settlement Note would bear interest at the rate of
prime plus three percent (prime + 3%), payable in 16 quarterly
installments, each of $187,500 principal plus accrued interest,
commencing six months after the effective date of the Heins
Settlement.  The Heins Settlement Note would be guaranteed by
the 1997 Trust and all of the Company's subsidiaries.

Under the Heins Stipulation, the Company is required to obtain
the consent of the Class's lead counsel before it can sell any
shares of stock of Southern Flow, Metretek Florida or
PowerSecure, although such consent is not required if the
Company makes a prepayment of at least $1 million on the Heins
Settlement Note with the proceeds of any such sale of subsidiary
stock.  

The Heins Stipulation may require the Company to commence its
payment obligations thereunder pursuant to an escrow arrangement
after the Denver Court issues its final judgment and order
approving the Heins Stipulation, but before all appeals, if any,
on that judgment and order have been concluded.  If the Heins
Stipulation does not receive final and non-appealable approval
by December 31, 2006, or such later date as is agreed to by the
parties, then the escrowed funds will be returned to the Company
and the suit will continue against the Metretek Defendants.

In addition, under the Heins Stipulation, the Company would be
required to prosecute all third party and cross-claims and
equally share the net recovery of any amounts collected from the
resolution of these third party claims with the Heins Settlement
Fund, with the portion accruing to the Company being in the form
prepayments on the Heins Settlement Note.

The effective date of the Heins Stipulation is conditioned,
among other things, upon the following events:

     (1) payment by Gulf, the Company's insurance carrier, of at
         least $2,375,000 in insurance proceeds from the Policy
         for the benefit of the Heins Settlement Fund;

     (2) the entry by the Denver Court of a preliminary approval
         order containing certain procedural orders,
         preliminarily approving the settlement terms and
         scheduling a settlement hearing;

     (3) the entry by the Denver Court of a Final Judgment and
         Order directing consummation of the Heins Settlement
         and containing certain other procedural findings and
         orders; and

     (4) the final and successful resolution of any appeals
         related to the Final Settlement and Order and the Heins
         Stipulation and the Interpleader Complaint

On March 28, 2003, Gulf filed an interpleader complaint against
the Metretek Defendants, the Farstad Defendants and the Class
Action Plaintiff in the District Court, City and Country of
Denver, Colorado, seeking a determination by the court as to the
proper beneficiaries of the Policy, and concurrently filed a
motion to deposit the remaining amount payable under the Policy
into the registry of the court.  The Interpleader Complaint is
in front of the same judge in the Denver Court as the Class
Action.

On April 18, 2003, the Denver Court granted Gulf's motion to
deposit the remaining insurance proceeds into the registry of
the court.  The Metretek Defendants have filed their answer to
the Interpleader Complaint asking the Denver Court to utilize
the remainder of the insurance proceeds to fund, in part, the
Heins Settlement.  The Farstad Defendants have filed their
answer to the Interpleader Complaint and asserted counterclaims
against Gulf, objecting to Gulf's use of the remaining limits of
the Policy to fund the proposed Heins Settlement.  The Class
Action Plaintiff has also filed its answer to the Interpleader
Complaint, indicating no objection to Gulf utilizing the
proceeds of the Policy to fund, in part, the Heins Settlement.

On August 4, 2003, Gulf filed an unopposed motion to file an
amended Interpleader Complaint.  The amended Interpleader
Complaint is similar to the original Interpleader Complaint, but
also includes allegations on the same issues raised by the
Farstad Defendants in their counterclaims.

It is anticipated that the Farstad Defendants will not re-assert
their counterclaims in response to the amended Interpleader
Complaint.  As of August 4, 2003, no date has been set for the
preliminary approval hearing on the Heins Settlement.


NETSILICON INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netsilicon, Inc. agreed 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, certain underwriters involved in its initial public
offering (IPO), and Digi International, Inc.

The suit asserts, among other things, that the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement violated federal
securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in the IPO to
the underwriters' customers.  The suit further alleges that the
Company and the two named officers engaged in fraudulent
practices with respect to this underwriters' conduct.  The
action seeks damages, fees and costs associated with the
litigation, and interest.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
October 9, 2002.  On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with 300-
plus other publicly traded companies that have been named in
substantially similar lawsuits, filed a collective motion to
dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or
most of the issuer defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

In June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made
by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors,
elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by
the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  The
proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries
totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.  

In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Stock Suit To Be Filed in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parametric Technology Corporation expects that the nine
securities class actions filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors to be consolidated in
the United States District Court in Massachusetts.

The suits claim violations of the federal securities laws based
on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's reported
financial results for the fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001.  
These actions seek unspecified damages.

On April 15, 2003, several motions to consolidate and motions
for designation of lead plaintiff status were filed.  On May 20,
2003, the court issued an order consolidating the cases,
appointing lead plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

The Company denies the allegations.  In a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said it cannot
predict the ultimate resolution of these actions at this time,
and there can be no assurance that these actions will not have a
material adverse impact on its financial condition or results of
operations.


QUICKLOGIC INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quicklogic, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, some investment banks
that underwrote QuickLogic's initial public offering, and some
of QuickLogic's officers and directors.

The complaint alleges excessive and undisclosed commissions in
connection with the allocation of shares of common stock in the
Company's initial and secondary public offerings and
artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which
required the underwriters' customers to buy shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of the federal
securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock
pursuant to the registration statements between October 14, 1999
and December 6, 2000.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff in this litigation.  On
April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Various
plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against over 300 other public companies,
their underwriters, and their officers and directors arising out
of each company's public offering.  These actions, including the
action against QuickLogic, have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes and captioned "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92."

Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  In October 2002, the Company's officers
and directors were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the court denied in part and granted in part
the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, including
the Company.  The court's order did not dismiss any claims
against the Company.  As a result, discovery may now proceed.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including QuickLogic, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.  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
QuickLogic continues, QuickLogic believes it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Consumers File Provider Agreements Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Company of America and its wholly owned
subsidiaries faces a class action alleging that they breached
participating provider agreements and were unjustly enriched.  
The suit also names as defendants Consumer Health Network Plus,
LLC, Alta Services, LLC and ten other unrelated defendants.

The Company believes it has significant defenses to defeat the
action.  Further, since the suit has only been recently filed
and an answer is not required until September 12, 2003,
management cannot at this time provide a meaningful estimate or
range of estimates of a potential loss, if any.


SEPRACOR INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sepracor, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss the two consolidated
securities class action filed against it and several of its
current and former officers and directors.

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securities
during different time periods, beginning on various dates, the
earliest of which is May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6,
2002.  The complaints are similar and allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Primarily the complaints allege that the defendants disseminated
to the investing public false and misleading statements relating
to the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of SOLTARA,
the Company's non-sedating antihistamine drug candidate.

Two consolidated amended complaints were filed, one on behalf of
the purchasers of Sepracor's common stock, the other on behalf
of the purchasers of Sepracor's debt securities.  The two suits
define the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999 through March
6, 2002.


ST. JUDE: MN Court Conditionally Certifies MN Silzone Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court in Minnesota Judge John Tunheim
conditionally certified the class for the lawsuits filed against
St. Jude Medical, Inc. involving products with Silzone coating.

Certain plaintiffs requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases
to proceed as class actions.  Judge Tunheim issued a ruling on
plaintiffs' motions for class certification on March 27, 2003.  
In his ruling, Judge Tunheim conditionally certified one class
of plaintiffs (US persons who have a Silzone heart valve which
is still implanted) and conditionally certified a second class
of plaintiffs (US persons who received a Silzone heart valve and
who have sustained physical injuries due to the valve).

The Company believes that the ruling is inconsistent with the
applicable laws and precedents, and is pursuing its appellate
remedies.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: PM Must Post $12B Bond After Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA must post a $12 billion bond before it can
appeal a March 2003 judgment against it, won by smokers of
"light" cigarettes, said Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas
Byron, whom the Illinois Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Fifth
District) ordered to reconsider his decision to lower the bond
to $6.8 billion.  Judge Byron gave Philip Morris 60 days to
appeal his ruling, according to a report by the Chicago Tribune.

The Fifth District received the appeal of the "light" cigarettes
case, when Stephen Tillery, of the law firm Korein Tillery
L.L.C. in St. Louis, and lead attorney for the plaintiff
Illinois light cigarette smokers, decided to appeal modification
of the original 12 billion dollar bond, on the grounds that such
modification impaired the security of the plaintiffs' judgment
of $10.1 billion in that the  $6.8 billion bond was not
sufficient in amount, and, that its composition was of such a
nature as to provide even lesser security than the traditional
appeal bond.

The Fifth District Court determined that Judge Byron did not
have the authority to modify the supersedeas appeal bond, under
the strictures of Illinois' Supreme Court's Rule 305.  The Fifth
District remanded the case to the circuit court of Madison
County, Illinois, for the limited purpose of "reconsidering the
amount, terms, conditions, and security of the appeal bond in
support of a stay of the judgment in conformity with Supreme
Court Rule 305 and the opinion the Fifth District Court had
rendered."

Before examining the appeal court's opinion, a brief survey of
events preceding the appeal to the Fifth District Court would
set the stage.  The original $12 billion bond had been set when
Judge Byron imposed the $10.1 billion judgment rendered after a
bench trial of the class action, filed by 1.1 million "light"
cigarette smokers in Illinois, charging that Philip Morris had
violated the state's Consumer Fraud Act by deceptively
misleading Illinois consumers into thinking that "light"
cigarettes, as described by the company as having "lowered tar
and nicotine," were safer that their regular brands of
cigarettes.

The $12 billion supersedeas bond, which included the amount of
the verdict plus interest and costs, impliedly in accordance
with rules enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court, was initially
set by Judge Byron, and subsequently was modified by him after
Philip Morris told Judge Byron that the bond was onerous to such
an extent that the company might have to seek protection from
creditors by filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Philip Morris
explained to Judge Byron that meeting the cost of such an appeal
bond would cause the company to breach its obligation to meet
certain installment payments under the Master Settlement
Agreement with the states - the MSA being the accord signed
between 46 states and the Big Tobacco companies in 1998, in
settlement of charges made by the states' attorneys general,  
relating to medical costs the states had had to assume for the
health care of people injured, allegedly, by use of tobacco.

Many of the states' Attorneys General also appealed to Judge
Byron, pointing out the hardship that would be suffered by the
states if they did not continue to receive the installment
payments from Philip Morris, whose share of such payments --
also made by the other Big Tobacco companies -- was the biggest
one of all.  Philip Morris was due to make a $2.5 billion
installment payment on April 15, 2003.   The coming together of
all these events placed decision-making on a crisis alert.

The media enhanced the climate of crisis by publishing a series
of vividly detailed stories based on various states' accounts of
how their budgets -- and the recipients of aid based on the
budgets -- would suffer, if the tobacco money was not
forthcoming.   The states are "hooked" on tobacco, said the
media, as well as various commentators.

Judge Byron held many hearings with concerned parties behind
closed doors, and the $6.8 billion bond was birthed; which
atypical bond -- composed of cash, a note given Philip Morris by
its parent company, and interest and cash payments to be made in
the future -- was, said Philip Morris, in full compliance with
the spirit of the Illinois Supreme Court bonding rules.

William S. Ohlemeyer, associate general counsel to Philip Morris
and a vice president as well, during the period of seeking bond
modification, was eloquent about the constitutional right of
Philip Morris to appeal an adverse verdict, as guaranteed by
both the United States and Illinois constitutions.  Mr.
Ohlemeyer also pointed out that Judge Byron had authority, under
rules adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court, to reduce the
amount of the bond that must be posted in order to stay
execution of the judgment and allow the company to proceed with
its appeal.  The belief that the right to appeal and a right to
modify an existent bond amount that was equivalent to the
judgment plus interest and costs were somehow linked, appeared
to prevail both on the part of the defendant and the trial court
judge, Judge Nicholas Byron, who indicated he was considering
such alternative security as a pledge or guarantee from Altria,
Philip Morris's parent company; or the option of placing company
assets into escrow.

"All we are seeking is the right guaranteed to any defendant who
receives an adverse verdict -- to have that decision reviewed by
appellate courts.  Basic fairness and the law, demands that we
receive such an opportunity in this case," was the fundamental
argument for modification made by Philip Morris's counsel
William Ohlemeyer, as he argued for bond modification.

George Lombardi and Jeffrey Wagner, at the law firm of Winston
and Strawn and serving as national defense counsel to Philip
Morris, in their motions filed with Judge Byron seeking
modification of the bond, used an argument that might be revived
when and if Philip Morris appeals the decision of the Fifth
District Court of Illinois.   The national defense counsel made
the following argument in their motion for modification of the
amount of the appeal bond, "Once a right to appeal has been
created, the United States Constitution limits the way in which
that right may be abridged.  In short, the due process clause
'imposes constitutional constraints on states when they choose
to create appellate review.' (cite)  The US Constitution having
created a right to appeal,  Illinois must 'act in accord with
the dictates of the Constitution  -- and in particular, with the
Due Process Clause -- so as to ensure that an appeal is not
reduced to the status of a meaningless ritual.' (cite)  Although
a state-created right of appeal may, of course, be regulated by
various procedural requirements, those 'procedural limitations
may not . irrationally or arbitrarily impede access to the
courts.' (cite) "

Stephen Tillery, of the law firm Korein Tillery L.L.C., in St.
Louis, and the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the "light"
cigarettes case, objected to any reduction of the bond amount.  
Mr. Tillery said, "Every other company that loses a suit at
trial in Illinois has to post such a bond to ensure that the
plaintiffs eventually receive the compensation awarded by the
verdict; and there is no reason to grant Philip Morris special
treatment in this case."  

Mr. Tillery called Philip Morris's threats to suspend payments
to states and possibly file for bankruptcy "financial scare
tactics designed to win special judicial treatment or special
interest legislation for the firm."  Mr. Tillery, as indicated
above, consonant with his contentions that the modified bond did
not provide adequate protection of the plaintiffs' judgment, did
file an appeal with the Fifth District.  As further indicated
above, the appeals court remanded the case to Madison County's
circuit court for reconsideration in accordance with the
strictures of Rule 305, as interpreted by the Fifth District in
its subsequent decision.

The decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is succinct
and is enhanced by a flow of logical connections throughout the
written presentation of the decision by the court's justices,
Hon. Gordon E. Maag, Jr., Hon. James K. Donovan and Hon. Richard
P. Goldenhersh.

At the outset of its decision, the court begins by setting forth
a few principles as guides to understanding the principles and
rules it will be discussing:

     (1) "A stay, more formally referred to as a supersedeas,
         suspends enforcement of a judgment, and is intended to
         preserve the status quo pending the appeal and to
         preserve the fruits of a meritorious appeal, where they
         might otherwise be lost."

     (2) "The supersedeas bond operates against enforcement of
         the judgment and not against the judgment itself.";
         
     (3) and, in a Black's Law Dictionary definition, also
         offered by the Fifth District, "A supersedeas
         bond/appeal bond has been defined as "An appellant's
         bond to stay execution on a judgment during the
         pendency of the appeal."

Thus, wrote the Fifth District, "requiring a bond to be posted
as a pre-condition for granting a stay serves as a means to give
the judgment creditor security during the pendency of the
appeal.  It ensures that if the judgment is affirmed, the
judgment creditor will be paid that which is owed.  It also
serves to prevent an unscrupulous debtor from hiding, diverting,
wasting or otherwise squandering his assets, resulting in the
judgment becoming uncollectible."  Ennor v. Galena Southern
Wisconsin R.R. Co., 104 Ill. 103, 104 (1882).

The Fifth District also emphasized that it was of critical
importance to analysis of the law pertaining to appeal bonds
that it be known at the outset of the appeal court's ruling that
"it is the clear law of the state of Illinois that the right to
appeal and the right to obtain a stay of judgment by filing a
supersedeas bond are separate, independent rights.  The right to
appeal is not dependent on posting a bond.  Even if an appellant
is unable to post a sufficient bond, that party may still
appeal, but enforcement of the judgment will not be stayed.  
Jack Spring, Inc. vs. Little, 50 Ill. 2d 35 (1972).

The Fifth District also pointed out that history might be a
reason for the lingering linkage in some people's minds between
the right of appeal and the posting of the bond:  "Prior to the
enactment of the Civil Practice Act, every appeal operated in
and of itself as a supersedeas or stay of all proceedings to
enforce the execution of the judgment or decree pending the
appeal."  People ex rel. Finn v. David, 328 Ill. 230 (1927).

The Fifth District pointed out that this linkage occurred
because an appeal was a continuation of the proceedings below,
and a bond was an essential and integral part of every appeal.  
However, the requirement that a bond be given in all cases of
appeal was eliminated, and section 76 of the Civil Practice Act
now provides that an appeal shall be deemed perfected when the
notice of appeal shall be filed in the lower court and that no
step other than that shall be necessary.  

In order for an appeal to operate as a supersedeas, section 82
of the Act provides that a bond must be given and order entered
approving the bond.  Today, said the Fifth District, the bonding
requirements are contained in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305.

The appeals court acknowledged, as has been pointed out by
defendant's counsel, that the right to appeal is
constitutionally guaranteed by both the United States and
Illinois constitutions.  However, the Fifth District makes the
critical point that if the right to appeal was conditioned on
posting a supersedeas bond as was formerly the case, then the
requirement would be constitutionally infirm, since the Illinois
constitution now provides for an appeal as a matter of right.
Therefore, the statutes adopted and the rules promulgated in
implementation of that right may not discriminate against
appellants by reason of the inability to furnish an appeal bond.  
Because the right to appeal and the right to obtain a stay by
posting a bond are independent, there is no constitutional
infirmity.

The Fifth District makes one more important point preliminary to
diving into the middle of the contentions of the parties:  "One
of the inherent powers possessed by all courts, independent of
Supreme Court Rule 305, is the power to grant a stay pending
appeal.  Whether to grant a stay is a discretionary act."  

However, adds the appeals court, this power is not as broad as
it may seem at first glance.  "It cannot be exercised in a
fashion that would conflict with the letter or spirit of Supreme
Court Rule 305.  Further, the duration of an unsecured or
undersecured stay should be very limited.  Allowing an extended
unsecured or undersecured stay would eviscerate the salutary
purpose served by a supersedeas bond.  A judgment creditor could
have no confidence that the judgment would ever be collectible."

With all these concepts in mind, said the Fifth District, the
Supreme Court of Illinois, in which the state constitution has
vested general administrative and supervisory authority, and in
which the state constitution expressly vests rule-making
authority concerning appeals, has promulgated Rule 305.  Given
the constitutional edicts, any legislative enactment in conflict
with the rules governing appeals is invalid.  In re Marriage of
Lentz, 79 Ill. 2d 400 (1980).

The Supreme Court has stated the following with respect to the
rules it adopted pursuant to its constitutional rule-making
authority: "The rules of court we have promulgated are not
aspirational.  They are not suggestions.  They have the force of
law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and
enforced as written."  Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill. 2d 204, 210
(1995).

"This principle is of salient importance," said the Fifth
District.  "Neither the circuit court nor this court may ignore
or deviate from the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court
rules.  It is not our place to rewrite a rule through a tortured
construction to appease the concerns of some that may dislike
the obligations imposed by the rule.  Such judicial legerdemain
is impermissible."

Rule 305 governs stays of enforcement of judgments pending
appeal.  The rule is not complex, said the Fifth District.  The
Fifth District explains Rule 305, thusly, ""Rule 305(a) is
devoted to stays of the enforcement of money judgments.  This
subsection expressly states that money judgments are stayed only
if 'a timely notice of appeal is filed and an appeal bond is
presented, approved and filed' in accordance with the rule.  The
bond requirement is unambiguous.  'The bond shall be in an
amount sufficient to cover the amount of the judgment, interest
and costs.'  If a sufficient bond is presented that meets the
requirement of Rule 305(a), a stay is automatic."

"Rule 305(b) deals with stays of enforcement in cases involving
both non-money judgments and money judgments.  It grants the
court the authority to stay the enforcement of both non-money
and money judgments on terms that are 'just.'  Nevertheless, the
bond requirement applicable to money judgments is expressly
retained in the mandatory language: 'a bond ... shall be
required in money judgments.' "   

The Fifth District reminds us that the use of the word 'shall'
in statutes and Rules expresses a clear intent to impose a
mandatory obligation.  Thus while section (b) grants a measure
of discretion to the court in fixing the terms of the stay of a
nonmoney judgment, "even under (b) money judgments must be
bonded to obtain a stay. And nothing in this section allows a
bond in an amount less than that specified in section (a)."

What then is the purpose of including the subject of money
judgments under section (b)?   "We believe," said the Fifth
District, "that this section is a codification of the inherent
power of the courts to grant temporary stays in situations where
the procedural requirements of section (a) have not yet been
satisfied; for example, requirements of timeliness, sufficiency
of the surety."  However, the Fifth District clarified the
limits of the courts' inherent power:  "The discretion to
grant a stay of a money judgment on 'just' terms is limited in
scope, and the stay is limited in duration to the time needed to
post a proper bond.  If after a reasonable time a proper bond is
not posted, the stay must be lifted."

"Section (f) is consistent with this interpretation.  It
specifies with respect to the condition of the bond that it must
be sufficient to provide for 'that payment of the judgment,
interest and costs' if the judgment is affirmed on appeal."

"While section (g) allows the appellate court to change the
amount, terms or security of the bond, nothing authorizes this
court to approve a bond that will not be sufficient to pay the
judgment, interest and costs."

Having laid out the law, the Fifth District, next applied the
law to the contentions of the parties.  The court noted that the
plaintiffs claim that the modified bond posted by Philip Morris
fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 305, and plaintiffs
are asking the court to modify the amount, terms and security of
the appeal bond.  But, said the court, Philip Morris claimed
that the $6.8 billion bond posted conforms to Rule 305(b), in
that section (b) allows for a discretionary stay on such terms
and conditions as are "just," including the approval of a stay
when the bond posted fails to satisfy section (a).  Philip
Morris contended that unless this was true, section (b) would be
meaningless.

The court said that it disagreed with Philip Morris, and pointed
out that the case cited by Philip Morris extensively did not
adopt Phillip Morris's position and did not even deal with the
issues with which Philip Morris is dealing, the amount and
sufficiency of the bond.

"Rule 305(b) to the extent it concerns money judgments is a
safety valve.  Nothing in that section authorizes a bond amount
or condition that deviates from Rule 305(a) or (f)."  The
discretion allowed the courts as to appeals, said the Fifth
District, runs to their authority to issue temporary stays of
judgment while an appeal bond structured as mandated by section
(a) is put together by a party planning to appeal and seek a
stay of judgment.

Next, the Fifth District addresses Philip Morris's claims that
it established sufficient facts to warrant a discretionary stay
in light of the alleged adverse consequences to third parties
and the prospect of bankruptcy if the bond requirements are not
relaxed.   The Fifth District, in its ruling, pointed out that
these claims are not relevant to the issue at hand.  Rule 305 is
not a suggestion, wrote Justice Maag.  "We have no authority to
deviate from its requirements to entertain the defendant's
requirements."

The court observed that Justice Marshall, in his concurrence, in
the case of Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 95 L.Ed.
2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (1987), eloquently addressed a similar
argument.  Justice Marshall's words sound like an echo of the
Philip Morris quandary:

"Because a wealthy business corporation has been ordered to pay
damages in an amount hitherto unprecedented and finds its
continued survival in doubt, we and the courts below have been
presented with arguments of great sophistication and complexity
. The Court's opinion, which addresses in sweeping terms one of
these questions, is the result of what Justice Holmes called 'a
kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear
seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of
law will bend.' " (Justice Marshall quoted Justice Holmes in
Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)).

Examining Philip Morris's contention that the United States and
Illinois constitutions guarantee its right to appeal and that
because it cannot post a bond in conformity with Rule 305(a),
its constitutional right to appeal has been violated, the Fifth
District said that it already had addressed this matter earlier
in the opinion (see above) and declined "to rehash the matter.  
Suffice it is to say that the right to a stay and the right to
appeal are separate and independent.  Philip Morris may appeal
with or without a bond and with or without a stay.  There is no
constitutional deprivation."  See Jack Spring Inc., 50 Ill. 2d
351 (1972).

In conclusion, the Fifth District said, "In light of the
discussion set forth above with respect to the strictures of
Supreme Court Rule 305 that both this court and the circuit
court must observe, we remand this cause to the circuit court of
Madison County for the limited purpose of reconsidering the
amount, terms, conditions and security of the appeal bond in
support of a stay of the judgment in conformity with Supreme
Court Rule 305 and this opinion, while retaining jurisdiction
over the appeal for all other purposes .  The present stay of
enforcement is to remain in effect for 30 days following the
entry of this order, to preserve the status quo while
proceedings are conducted on remand.  If it is determined that
additional time is necessary and reasonable to comply with the
requirements of an appeal bond fashioned after the
reconsideration, the trial court, in the exercise of its
inherent authority, may grant a temporary stay of the
enforcement of the judgment for this purpose.  In light of the
ability of the trial court to grant a temporary stay following
the remand, we deny Philip Morris's motion for an interim stay."

The breaking news story recently reported in the Chicago
Tribune, that Judge Nicholas Byron, in accordance with the Fifth
District's remand instructions, has reconsidered his earlier
modification of the amount of the appeal bond and has ruled that
a $12 billion bond must be posted in order for Philip Morris to
obtain a stay of judgment, satisfies the remand order. Judge
Byron has also given Philip Morris USA 60 days to appeal his
ruling.

William Ohlemeyer, a Philip Morris vice president and its
associate general counsel, said last Friday that the company
would appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.

"Philip Morris USA cannot post a bond in that amount and remain
a viable business," said Mr. Ohlemeyer.  "The lower bond
established by Judge Byron, while onerous to the company, was
and is sufficient to protect the financial interests of the
class during an appeal, and the company is optimistic the
Illinois Supreme Court will agree."

Philip Morris is now exercising its most viable option,
appealing the Fifth District's ruling to the Illinois Supreme
Court.  If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth District's
opinion, then Philip Morris can choose to appeal the circuit
court's verdict which awarded the plaintiff Illinois "light"
cigarette smokers a judgment of $10.1 billion, with or without a
stay of judgment:  with a stay, if it posts a $12 billion appeal
bond; without a stay, if it posts no bond.

It seems unlikely that Philip Morris will choose to post a $12
billion bond after its protestations about its inability to come
up with such an amount of money.  Is there anybody, any groups,
'out there' who will come forth under some arrangements, with
the difference between the $6.8 billion bond Philip Morris was
ready to post and the current $12 billion bond needed for
posting an appeal bond under Rule 305(a)?

The next choice would be for Philip Morris to file for
bankruptcy as it has threatened to do to protect itself from
creditors -- particularly its judgment creditors, and the 46
states to whom the company is indebted under the 1998 Master
Settlement Agreement.  Filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 11
would probably pose its own set of problems that Philip Morris
would have to attempt to resolve.

If the Supreme Court interprets its own Rule 305 in a way that
affirms Philip Morris's contentions, history probably will not
be entirely surprised when it gets around to appraising all the
dynamics of this landmark legal battle.


TOMMY HILFIGER: Final Approval Granted To Saipan Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval has been granted for the settlement proposed by
Tommy Hilfiger Corporation and other garment manufacturers and
retailers, asserting claims that garment factories located on
the island of Saipan engaged in unlawful practices relating to
the recruitment and employment of foreign workers.

One action, brought in San Francisco Superior Court, was filed
by a union and three public interest groups alleging unfair
competition and false advertising.  The other, an action seeking
class action status filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court in Saipan, was
brought on behalf of an alleged class consisting of the
Saipanese factory workers.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs in both actions.  As part of these agreements, the
Company specifically denies any wrongdoing or liability with
regard to the claims made in the actions.  The settlement
provides for a monetary payment, in an amount that is not
material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows, to a class of plaintiffs in the
federal action.

The federal court has issued an order and final judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing the actions with
prejudice.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. in the United States
District Court of Massachusetts.  The suit also names as
defendants former Chief Executive Officer, Richard F Selden, and
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Rodman W. Moorhead, III.

The suit generally alleges that, during the period from January
2001 through January 2003, the Company made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining US marketing
approval of Replagal and seek equitable and monetary relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorney's
fees and costs.

On April 9, 2003, the court consolidated the various actions
under one matter entitled "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  Plaintiffs then amended the suit to
include as defendants in the action:

     (i) the Company's former Chief Financial Officer,

    (ii) each of the individual members of the Company's Board
         of Directors (other than Mr. Astrue),

   (iii) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

    (iv) Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown,

     (v) Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and

    (vi) Leerink Swann & Company

The amended complaint asserts claims:

     (a) against each of the defendants under Section 11 of the
         Securities Act and against Dr. Selden under Section 15
         of the Securities Act;

     (b) against SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank
         Alex. Brown, Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink
         Swann & Company under Section 12(a)(2) of the
         Securities Act;

     (c) against the Company and Dr. Selden under Section 10(b)
         of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
         thereunder; and

     (d) against Dr. Selden under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
         Act

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information concerning the status and progress for obtaining
U.S. marketing approval of its Replagal product to treat Fabry
disease.  A class has not been certified, and the Company has
not yet responded to the amended complaint.


WH INTERMEDIATE: Asks For Dismissal of Herbalife Marketing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WH Intermediate Holdings, Ltd. asked the United States District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the
class action filed against it and certain of its distributors.

The second amended complaint alleges that specified marketing
plans employed by the distributor defendants are illegal,
attempts to challenge the legality of Herbalife's marketing
system, and seeks to state causes of action under federal
securities laws and various other laws.

The Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is
under submission by the court.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the allegations contained in the
lawsuit.

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CREE INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a securities class action
against Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE) and certain of its officers
and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.  This suit is brought on
behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants, who
purchased Cree common stock between August 19, 1998 and June 13,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Cree and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws. During the Class
Period, defendants issued statements that failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the defendants artificially inflated Cree's
         operating income by improperly recognizing revenue on
         purported "sales" of Cree's silicon carbide crystals to
         C3 Inc., an affiliated company of Cree that was run by
         the brother of the company's former CEO;

     (3) that the defendants failed to disclose, in Cree's
         registration statements and its prospectuses, how
         proceeds from its secondary offerings would be used;

     (4) that the defendants artificially inflated Cree's
         operating income so that they could participate in the
         Company's "discretionary incentive program" and so that
         the Company's outside directors would qualify for
         additional Cree stock options;

     (5) that the defendants were concealing these facts in
         order to manipulate the Company's earnings so that
         defendants could unload material amounts of their Cree
         holdings for more than $68 million; and

     (6) that the false and misleading information disseminated
         by the defendants caused Cree's common stock to trade
         at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Robert N. Kaplan, or Laurence D. King
by Mail: 555 Montgomery Street, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
(415) 772-4700 by Fax: (415) 772-4707 or by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of FirstEnergy
Corp. (NYSE: FE) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 24, 2002 and August 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's 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
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

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

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above- market leases.  News of
this shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5 percent
to close at $31.33 per share on extremely heaving trading volume

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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE) from April 24, 2002 through
August 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's 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
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

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

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above-market leases.  News of this
shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell $2.79 per share
or 18 percent to close at $13.09 per share on extremely heaving
trading volume.

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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE), between April
24, 2002 and August 5, 2003 inclusive.  The class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of FirstEnergy
securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other claims, that
First Energy materially overstated its earnings, revenues, net
income, and earnings per share and, as a result, the value of
the Company's net income and financial results were materially
overstated at all relevant times.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com


CV THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CVTX) from May 14, 2003 through
August 1, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges CV Therapeutics and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period about
Ranexa, its drug for the potential treatment of chronic angia,
thereby artificially inflating the price of CV Therapeutics'
common stock.

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

     (1) that Ranexa lacked the required regulatory assessment  
         of safety and efficiency for FDA approval;

     (2) that the Company's clinical development was in a state
         of complete chaos due to changes in CV Therapeutics
         relationship with Quintiles Transnational Corporation;

     (3) that due to the change in the Company's relationship
         with Quintiles, the Company's clinical program with
         respect Ranexa was defective and prohibited CV
         Therapeutics from meeting the required Mid-August 2003
         deadline for distribution of briefing packages
         concerning Ranexa to the FDA for its September 2003
         presentation at the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs
         Advisory Committee meeting;

     (4) that the Company mislead the FDA into believing that
         its application for Ranexa was appropriate for
         presentation to the FDA; and

     (5) that the Ranexa New Drug Application could not be
         approved as submitted due to safety and efficiency
         reasons.

On August 1, 2003, after the close of the markets, CV
Therapeutics announced that it had reached agreement with the
FDA to cancel the review of Ranexa by the Cardiovascular and
Renal Drugs Advisory Committee in September 2003.  News of this
shocked the market.  Shares of CV Therapeutics fell 20.78
percent or $7.31 per share to close at $27.87 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


IMPATH INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Impath, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMPH)
between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 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 investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Impath common
stock.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company:

     (1) failed to timely record an impairment in the value of
         its accounts receivables, thereby artificially
         inflating the Company's reported net income and
         earnings per share throughout the Class Period;

     (2) failed to properly account for its GeneBankT asset,
         thereby overstating its reported financial results;

     (3) published misleading financial statements that were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (4) falsely represented that the Company had adequate
         internal controls.

On July 30, 2003, the Company shocked the investment community
when it issued a press release announcing that it had initiated
an investigation into possible accounting irregularities
involving the overstatement of its accounts receivable.  In
addition, the Company reported that it believed that the
financial impact of the overstatement would be "material" and
that "investors should not rely on the consolidated financial
statements or the independent auditors reports, where
applicable, contained in the Company's previously filed periodic
reports, including those set forth in the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for 2002 and prior periods, and the most
recently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003."  Trading in Impath stock was halted in
response to the Company's announcement.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Willy Gonzalez by
Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
wgonzalez@zsz.com.


IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of IMPATH, Inc.
(Nasdaq: IMPH) between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against the Company and:

     (1) Carter Eckert,

     (2) James Agnello,

     (3) David Cammarata,

     (4) Richard P. Adelson, and

     (5) Anu D. Saad

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 21, 2001 and
July 29, 2003.  

The complaint alleges that IMPATH's quarterly press releases and
SEC filings were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company had materially overstated
its accounts receivables and improperly capitalized a material
asset, thereby artificially inflating the Company's reported
Class Period results and financial condition.

On July 30, 2003, before the open of regular trading, IMPATH
issued a press release announcing that its audit committee had
begun an investigation into possible "accounting irregularities"
by the Company and that the Company believes it had overstated
its accounts receivable and had been improperly capitalizing its
GeneBank asset.

As a result of these developments, IMPATH warned that a
restatement of previously filed financial reports was "likely,"
and that the Company has advised its creditors that its
financial reports "may have been inaccurate as a result of these
issues."

In response to this announcement, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted
trading in the Company's common stock and announced that the
stock will not resume trading until IMPATH provides NASDAQ with
additional information.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas Risen or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-571 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.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  * * *