---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Tuesday, August 26, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 168

                        Headlines                            

3M CO.: Court Orders Reimbursement For Breast Implant Payments
AMERICAN BANCORPORATION: WV Court Limits Class in Pension Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in Insurance Suit Expected by Early 2004
ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Narrows Class in Suit Over Gas Royalties
ATLANTA: Judge Grants Certification To Group's Foster Care Suit

BANC ONE: IL Court Certifies Lawsuit For Securities Violations
CANADA: Deadline for 407 ETR Pact Participants Set For September
CHICAGO CUBS: Trial Over Illegal Ticket Brokerage Lawsuit Ends
COMMERCE INSURANCE: Arguments Heard on MA Auto Insurance Policy
COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL: Workers To Share $2.6M Pact Over Layoffs

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit Over Chrysler Takeover
EQUIFAX INC.: Employees Suing Firm Seek Certification For Suit
EQUITABLE LIFE: IL Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
EQUITABLE LIFE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Investment Act Lawsuit
FARMER'S BANK: Court Refuses Review of Judgment in Firm's Favor

FIRST FEDERAL: Customers Sue For Electronic Transfer Violations
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Faces Accounting Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
GENZYME CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit
HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: TX Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment
HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: LA Plaintiffs To Appeal Summary Judgment

HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: Plaintiffs To Appeal IL Lawsuit Dismissal
HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: Agrees To Settle CA ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
IDAHO: Judge Declines To Stop Bluegrass Field Burning By Farmers
ILLINI CORPORATION: Ex-Class Representative Seeks to Intervene
ILLINOIS: High Court Rejects Transfer of Suit To Madison County

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Several Defendants in Suit
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: AZ Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
KASH 'N' KARRY: Agrees To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial For TX Race Bias Suit Set October 2003
MBNA CORPORATION: NY Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement

MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit in Israeli Court
MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Connection Fees Lawsuit
MONTANA-DAKOTA: Dropped as Defendant in KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set Nov. 2003
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Trial Set September 2004

PEET'S COFFEE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Forges Settlement For Stock Fraud Suit
SAUDI ARABIA: Former Employee Sues To Recover Retirement Funds
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
SPORTS CLUB: Shareholders Sue Over "Going Private" Transaction

TROVER SOLUTIONS: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
TROVER SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended HMO Suit in AR Court
UNITED LIBERTY: Working For a Settlement of Life Insurance Suit
UNITED STATES: NY Legislator To Bring Suit Over Recent Blackout
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plans To Appeal Court Ruling in Suit

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Seeks Transfer of Securities Lawsuits
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Orders Lawsuit Consolidation
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Motion To Consolidate NY Suits Filed
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Suit

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: ERISA Suit Moved To IL Federal Court
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pension Suit Moved to Federal Court
WASHINGTON DC: Charged With Using Flawed Property Tax Assessment

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches TX Stock Suit
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in TX
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges TX Securities Suit
IMPATH INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SINGING MACHINE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in FL

                          *********

3M CO.: Court Orders Reimbursement For Breast Implant Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a group of insurance
companies must reimburse 3M Co. for some $250 million paid by
the company to settle a class action related to silicone breast
implants, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  However, the
court also ruled that 3M was not entitled to attorneys' fees
from the 29 insurers.

Between 1977 and 1985, some women who received 3M silicone-gel
breast implants filed lawsuits claiming the implants caused them
serious health problems.  3M denied the implants caused health
problems, but settled the class action after watching other
claimants win large verdicts against other companies.

3M then turned to its liability insurers for the insurance
benefits they had purchased.  However, some of the insurers
declined, arguing that while the policies were in effect at the
time the women received the implants, those policies had expired
by the time the women experienced the symptoms and sued,
whereupon 3M settled with the plaintiffs.

The state's Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that found
any damage caused by the implants started on the cellular level
at the time of the implant.


AMERICAN BANCORPORATION: WV Court Limits Class in Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia limited the class and granted partial summary
judgment for the class action filed against American
Bancorporation, now acquired by WesBanco, Inc.

Certain beneficiaries of the American Bancorporation Defined
Benefit Retirement Plan filed the suit, seeking to challenge
benefit calculations and methodologies used by the outside Plan
Administrator in determining benefits under the Plan which was
frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit accruals, some
years ago.  

The Plan had been the subject of a predecessor action in a case
styled American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v.
McKain, Civil Action No. 5:93-CV-110, which was also litigated
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.  The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by
the District Court on September 22, 1995, which directed
American Bancorporation to follow a specific method for
determining retirement benefits under the Plan.  

American Bancorporation has asserted that they have calculated
the benefits in accordance with the requirements of the 1995
Order.  The purported class of plaintiffs now asserts that they
are not bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to
that proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit
determination.  

The court in the current case has substantially limited the
class of plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals
and has granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce
the scope and extent of the underlying case.  The Judge handling
the case is a military reservist and has been called to active
duty and there is some uncertainty as to the timeframe for
proceedings in the matter.  

It is not believed that the case presents any material risk of
exposure to the Company though, as with any litigation matter,
there are uncertainties in the outcome of the proceeding which
cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in Insurance Suit Expected by Early 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Security Group, Inc. expects the trial in the
class action to be held by early 2004 in Florida State Court.

The suit was filed in February 2000 against the Company alleging
that it failed to follow Florida law when it discontinued
writing certain health insurance policies and offering new
policies in 1998.  

Plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully terminated
coverage, improperly notified insureds of conversion rights and
charged improper premiums for new coverage.  Plaintiffs also
allege that the Company's renewal rating methodology violated
Florida law.

On April 24, 2002, the court ruled against the Company and
ordered the question of damages be tried before a jury at a
later date.  A new judge has been assigned to the case and the
parties are awaiting the setting of a trial date.


ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Narrows Class in Suit Over Gas Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas agreed to narrow
the class in the class action filed against ANR Pipeline Co.,
some of its affiliates and other natural gas companies.

This class action alleges that the defendants mismeasured
natural gas volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-
federal and non-Native American lands.  The plaintiffs in this
case seek certification of a nationwide class of natural gas
working interest owners and natural gas royalty owners to
recover royalties that the plaintiffs contend these owners
should have received had the volume and heating value of natural
gas produced from their properties been differently measured,
analyzed, calculated and reported.  The suit also seeks
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble
damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses, and future
injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly
appropriate gas measurement practices.  No monetary relief has
been specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on April
10, 2003.  Plaintiffs' motion to file another amended petition
to narrow the proposed class to royalty owners in wells in
Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado was granted on July 28, 2003.


ATLANTA: Judge Grants Certification To Group's Foster Care Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Marvin Shoob granted class action status
to a lawsuit that claims abused and neglected children are
allowed to languish for years in Georgia'a foster care system,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

The lawsuit was filed by the New York-based advocacy group
Children's Rights on behalf of nine children and seeks an
overhaul of the state's Division of Family and Children Services
(DFCS) in DeKalb and Fulton counties.  The ruling by Judge Shoob
expands the lawsuit to cover other foster children similarly
situated as the nine lead plaintiffs.

"This is a complete victory for foster children in Atlanta,"
said Ira Lustbader, an attorney with Children's Rights.  "We are
now gathering evidence to establish at trial that the foster
care system is in need of an entire overhaul."  

The trial on the lawsuit is not expected to get under way until
next summer.  The lawsuit claims Georgia's current system fails
to work with families well enough to reunite children safely
with parents and, when that cannot be done, fails to move
children to adoption within a reasonable length of time.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys hope that a court victory would lead Judge
Shoob to demand vast improvements in the foster care system,
with continued court supervision.

"Nobody believes they (the children) should languish in state
custody or in foster care," said Donald Keenan, an Atlanta
attorney who filed the lawsuit with Children's Rights.  "That is
the worst thing in the world for them."

Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) spokesman
Jed Nitzberg said the agency has been implementing reforms to
better protect children.  Mr. Nitzberg said the agency fears the
lawsuit could make those reforms more costly.  The state is
concerned, said Mr. Nitzberg, it could end up paying millions of
dollars it doesn't have because of "very expensive outside
control."


BANC ONE: IL Court Certifies Lawsuit For Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted class certification to a lawsuit filed on
behalf of all persons or entities who exchanged their First
Commerce Corporation (First Commerce) common stock for shares of
Banc One Corporation (Banc One) common stock pursuant to the
registration statement and merger proxy/prospectus issued in
connection with the June 12, 1998 merger of First Commerce with,
and into, Banc One.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) John B. McCoy, Jr.,

     (2) Richard J. Lehmann,

     (3) Michael J. McMennamin and

     (4) Bank One Corporation.

Excluded from the class are:

     (i) all persons who sold their stock prior to August 24,
         1999;

    (ii) Defendants;

   (iii) any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling
         interest or is a part or subsidiary of, or is
         controlled by Bank One Corporation; and

    (iv) the officers, directors, affiliates, legal
         representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and
         assigns of any of the Defendants.

For more details, contact the Notice Administrator, First
Commerce Securities Litigation by Mail: c/o Berdon LLP, P.O. Box
9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by Phone: (800) 766-3330 or by Fax:
(516) 931-0810.


CANADA: Deadline for 407 ETR Pact Participants Set For September
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the class in the lawsuit filed against Canada's 407
ETR have until September 5,2003 to file claims in the
settlement, Koskie Minsky, the plaintiffs' law firm stated in a
press release.

In March 2003, the 407 ETR and a representative of its customers
reached a settlement of a class action related to the company's
Late Payment Fee.  The settlement was approved by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on April 23, 2003.

Under the settlement, 407 ETR will offer a $6 credit on the
accounts of up to 840,000 customers whom were charged its $30
Late Payment Fee.  407 ETR will improve its fees associated with
the collection of tolls and other charges.  As well, anyone who
has been charged the Late Payment Fee as a result of an
administrative or system error will be eligible for a credit of
the entire $30 fee.

"As a result of this resolution, an expensive and complex court
hearing will be avoided, saving the parties, the court and the
public a great deal of time, inconvenience and expense," said
Kirk Baert, of Koskie Minsky.

"This is a fair settlement that will provide real benefits to
407 ETR customers who were charged the $30 Late Payment Fee,"
said Ken Rosenberg, from Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP,
a firm representing the plaintiffs.  "As a result of our action,
407 ETR has carefully reviewed its collection costs and
practices and is making improvements to its collection policies
and fees."

Customers who wish to make a claim for the $6 credit or $30
refund must complete and return a coupon that was previously
published in a number of Ontario-based newspapers.

For more details, contact Sue Ballantyne of Koskie Minsy by
Phone; 416-977-8353 or visit the Websites:
http://www.koskieminsky.com,http://www.paliareroland.comand  
http://www.407etr.com.


CHICAGO CUBS: Trial Over Illegal Ticket Brokerage Lawsuit Ends
--------------------------------------------------------------
A seven-day trial in the class action in which the Chicago Cubs
are accused of illegally running a ticket brokerage service,
concluded recently, the Chicago Tribune reports.  

Cook County Circuit Judge Sophia Hall gave lawyers on both sides
until September 22 to file post-trial briefs summarizing their
legal arguments and the evidence presented during the trial.  
Judge Hall set a deadline of November 24 to rule.

In closing arguments, an attorney for the ticket purchasers who
filed the lawsuit, claimed that the Cubs are breaking state law
by operating Wrigley Field Premium Ticket Services.  The lawyer
representing the brokerage and the team, both of which are owned
by the Tribune Co., countered that Premium is a legal business
that operates independently of the Cubs.  Tribune Co. also owns
the Chicago Tribune.

Paul M. Bauch, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that the Cubs
are violating state scalping laws that prohibit the owner of an
amusement, such as a baseball team, from selling tickets for
more than the listed price, or face value.

James A. Klenk, the lawyer for the Cubs and the broker, said
that although Cubs personnel may have helped set up Premium, the
ticket service has operated independently since it opened for
business in June 2002.


COMMERCE INSURANCE: Arguments Heard on MA Auto Insurance Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) heard
arguments on whether the Massachusetts automobile policy
provides coverage for inherent diminished value in relation to a
class action filed against The Commerce Insurance Company.

The suit was initially filed in Massachusetts state court,
alleging damages as a result of the alleged inherent diminished
value to vehicles that are involved in accidents.  In April
2002, the trial judge in that case entered partial summary
judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of whether the
Massachusetts automobile policy covers the lead plaintiff's
claim, ruling that the plaintiff would be entitled to
reimbursement under the policy if the plaintiff were able both
to prove that her vehicle suffered "inherent diminished value"
in the accident and to quantify the amount of such diminution in
value.  

Subsequently the Massachusetts Division of Insurance issued an
Advisory ruling in which it stated, among other things, its
position that the policy does not cover claims for "inherent
diminished value."  In July of 2002, the trial judge stayed the
trial and granted the Company's motion to have the appellate
court review the issue of whether the Massachusetts automobile
policy provides coverage for inherent diminished value.  

During the third quarter of 2002, the Company applied for direct
appellate review of this issue by the SJC, and this application
was granted.  Another Superior Court judge in Massachusetts
ruled, in a similar case brought by the same plaintiff counsel
against another insurer, that claims for diminution of value are
not covered by the Massachusetts automobile insurance policy.  

The Company's and the other insurer's cases were paired and oral
arguments were heard at the SJC on March 4, 2003.  A decision
has not been announced by the SJC and the Company is unable to
anticipate a decision date.  If the SJC agrees with the trial
judge's interpretation of the Massachusetts personal automobile
insurance policy, then the case will be remanded to the trial
court, where the Company would vigorously oppose class
certification.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure of this
purported class action.  However, if there is a final decision
certifying that a relatively large class of the Company's
policyholders is entitled to recover damages based upon the
inherent diminished value theory, the Company may have to
increase materially its loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves as a result.  Other insurance companies face similar
suits in cases outside of Massachusetts.


COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL: Workers To Share $2.6M Pact Over Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,000 former Commercial Financial Services Inc.  (CFS)
employees will share a $2.6 million settlement of their class
action against the defunct company, The Daily Oklahoman reports.  

US Bankruptcy Judge Dana Rasure found that the agreement is
fair, and in the best interest of the 1,032 plaintiffs in the
case.  Attorneys will receive $900,000.

Plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit filed in 1999, were laid
off between January 8, 1999, and February 8, 1999, and were not
rehired within six moths of their termination dates.  The
lawsuit alleged that CFS violated the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act when it eliminated their jobs.  
The law is intended to protect workers from unannounced
closures, and requires an employer to give 60-days' notice
before a mass layoff, which requirement was not followed by CFS.

Plaintiffs' attorney Mitchell McCune told the court the
settlement was a direct result of a conference held December 15
of year 2002, and final language agreed to in June 2003.  Judge
Rasure said the court had received no written objections to the
agreement.

Judge Rasure, who found for CFS in the case on June 27, 2001,
said at that time that CFS met its burden of proving that its
failure to provide 60 days' notice before the mass layoff was
"justified by unforeseeable business circumstances and that CFS
gave the best notice of the layoff practicable."

However, in a federal court appeal last year, US Magistrate
Frank McCarthy recommended that Judge Rasure's decision be
reversed and that the case be sent back to bankruptcy court for
a calculation of back pay and benefits.  US District James Payne
agreed with Judge3 McCarthy's opinion on October 30, 2002.

The amount a plaintiff receives will be relative to a person's
salary at the time of the layoff, divided by the total salary of
the group.  The checks will range from a few hundred dollars to
about $20,000 for two class members.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit Over Chrysler Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG, the world's fifth-largest automaker, agreed
to pay $300 million to settle an investors class action that
alleged Daimler-Benz AG misrepresented the takeover of the
American company as a "merger of equals," when in fact Chrysler
would be a subsidiary of Daimler, The Washington Post reports.  
The lawsuit had sought $12 billion.

Typically, larger premiums are paid to investors for
acquisitions - which Chrysler in fact was - than for mergers of
equals, said Jay W. Eisenhofer, a partner in the Wilmington,
Delaware law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., who is the lead
plaintiffs' attorney.  Therefore, Daimler should have paid
additional money to the investors at the time of its acquisition
of Chrysler as a subsidiary; instead, Daimler misrepresented the
nature of the transaction.

J. Michael Schell, a partner at Skadden, Slate, Meagher and Flom
LLP in New York, said, "The notion that this was not a merger of
equals is just far-fetched, and the notion that it was not . in
conformity with what the company said in its merger agreement
and in its proxy statement is even more far-fetched."

The lead plaintiffs in the case were the Florida State Board of
Administration, the Denver Employees' Retirement Plan, the
Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, and the
Municipal Employees and Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago.


EQUIFAX INC.: Employees Suing Firm Seek Certification For Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 60 current and former employees of the credit-
reporting firm, Equifax Inc., claim the company has failed to
pay overtime since June 2000.  The plaintiffs, all of whom work
or have worked in the Boca Raton e-marketing division, are
seeking class action certification for their lawsuit, the South
Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.  

About 14 other individuals have inquired about joining the
lawsuit, said attorney Charles Bechert III.  Mr. Bechert would
not say exactly how much overtime pay was outstanding, but he
said employees worked about 15 to 20 additional hours a week for
periods ranging from four months to three years.  The lawsuit
likely will be settled before it goes to trial, he added.   

"We are trying to negotiate it," said Mr. Bechert.  While the
complaint focuses on overtime pay, the attorneys also are
investigating employee allegations of unpaid commissions,
questionable sales and other wrongdoings, he added.


EQUITABLE LIFE: IL Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted in part the motion to dismiss a class action
filed against The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United
States and Axa Network, LLC by two former agents on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated present, former and
retired agents who, according to the complaint:

     (1) "were discharged by Equitable Life from `statutory
         employee status' after January 1, 1999, because of
         Equitable Life's adoption of a new policy stating that
         in any given year, those who failed to meet specified
         sales goals during the preceding year would not be
         treated as `statutory employees," or

     (2) "remain subject to discharge from `statutory employee'
         status based on the policy applied by Equitable Life"

The complaint alleges that the company improperly "terminated"
the agents' full-time life insurance salesman statutory employee
status in or after 1999 by requiring attainment of minimum
production credit levels for 1998, thereby making the agents
ineligible for benefits and "requiring" them to pay Self-
Employment Contribution Act taxes.

The former agents, who assert claims for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and 26 U.S.C.
3121, and breach of contract, seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, plus restoration of benefits and an adjustment of their
benefit plan contributions and payroll tax withholdings.

In March 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In July 2003, the court granted in part and denied
in part the Company motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing
plaintiffs' claims for violation of 26 U.S.C. 3121 and breach of
contract.  The Company has answered plaintiffs' remaining claim
for violation of ERISA.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Investment Act Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States asked
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York to dismiss a putative class action complaint filed against
it, asserting a single claim for relief under Section 47(b) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 based on the Company's
alleged failure to register as an investment company.

According to the complaint, the Company was required to register
as an investment company because it was allegedly issuing
securities in the form of variable insurance products and
allegedly investing its assets primarily in other securities.  
The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of all persons who
purchased or made an investment in variable insurance products
from Equitable Life on or after May 7, 1998.

The complaint seeks declaratory judgment permitting putative
class members to elect to void their variable insurance
contracts, restitution of all fees and penalties paid by the
putative class members on the variable insurance products,
disgorgement of all revenues received by Equitable Life on those
products, and an injunction against the payment of any dividends
by Equitable Life to the Holding Company.

Although the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company's management believes that the ultimate
resolution of the matters should not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial position of the Company.  
The Company's management cannot make an estimate of loss, if
any, or predict whether or not such litigations will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of
operations in any particular period.


FARMER'S BANK: Court Refuses Review of Judgment in Firm's Favor
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Supreme Court refused plaintiffs' motion for a
discretionary review of a lower court's judgment in favor of the
defendant in the class action filed against Farmers Bank &
Capital Trust Company.

The suit was initially filed in Jefferson Circuit Court,
Louisville, Kentucky, on behalf of a class consisting of all
present and former owners of the County of Jefferson, Kentucky,
Nursing Home Refunding Revenue Bonds (Filson Care Home Project)
Series 1986A and County of Jefferson, Kentucky, Nursing Home
Improvement Revenue Bonds (Filson Care Home Project) Series
1986B (collectively "the Bonds").  

The plaintiffs alleged that the class had been damaged through a
reduction in the value of the Bonds and a loss of interest on
the Bonds because of the actions of the Bank in its capacity as
indenture trustee for the Bondholders.  The plaintiffs demanded
compensatory and punitive damages.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to join additional bondholders as plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs claimed to hold bonds in the aggregate principal
amount of $480,000.  Before trial, the court dismissed thirty-
nine of the plaintiffs because they were unable or unwilling to
present testimony to support their claims.

The case was tried to a jury beginning on March 28, 2000 on the
claims of four plaintiffs holding bonds in the aggregate
principal amount of $80,000.  The court granted a directed
verdict in favor of the Bank on the plaintiffs' claim that the
Bank had engaged in commercial bribery and that the legal fees
that were paid by the Bank should be disgorged because of an
alleged conflict of interest of the Bank's counsel.  The jury
found for the plaintiffs on the claim that the Bank had breached
its fiduciary duty and awarded the plaintiffs $99,875 in
compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages.

The Bank filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
or, in the alternative, for a new trial, asserting that the
jury's verdict that the Bank breached its fiduciary duty was not
supported by sufficient evidence, that the jury's award of
damages was speculative and was not supported by the evidence,
and that the jury's award of punitive damages was not supported
by sufficient evidence.  The Bank also asserted that a new trial
was warranted because of the erroneous admission of evidence
concerning legal fees paid by the Bank.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal contending that the denial of class
certification was erroneous, that the individual plaintiffs
should not have been dismissed from the lawsuit, that certain
evidence was erroneously excluded, and that the directed verdict
regarding the disgorgement of legal fees and the commercial
bribery claims was erroneous.  On August 1, 2000, the Kentucky
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as having been prematurely
filed.

On January 3, 2001, the Jefferson Circuit Court entered judgment
in favor of the Bank notwithstanding the jury's verdict in favor
of the plaintiffs, holding that the Bank reasonably relied in
good faith on the advice of its counsel, that there was no
evidence that the Bank breached its fiduciary duty to the
plaintiffs, and that there was no evidence that the Bank caused
the plaintiffs' losses.

On January 31, 2001, the plaintiff bondholders appealed, and on
February 9, 2001, the Bank cross-appealed, the judgment of the
Jefferson Circuit Court to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  In
their appeal, the Bondholders claim that the trial court's
denial of class certification was erroneous, that certain
individual plaintiffs should not have been dismissed from the
lawsuit, that the trial court erroneously directed a verdict
against them on the issue of a conflict of interest, and that
the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was erroneously granted
because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's
verdict.

In its cross-appeal, the Bank claims that the trial court
erroneously bifurcated the trial on the issue of liability and
damages, that certain witnesses should have been excluded from
the trial, that the Bank should have been granted summary
judgment, and that certain evidence and testimony regarding
attorneys' fees should have been excluded.

On May 10, 2002, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the
Jefferson Circuit Court's judgment in favor of the Bank.  The
plaintiff bondholders filed a motion for discretionary review to
the Kentucky Supreme Court on June 7, 2002.

On June 7, 2002, the plaintiffs filed with the Kentucky Supreme
Court a motion for discretionary review.  The Bank filed a
response opposing the plaintiffs' motion.  The Kentucky Supreme
Court later denied plaintiffs' motion for discretionary review.  
The judgment in favor of the Bank is therefore now final and
subject to no further appeal or judicial review.


FIRST FEDERAL: Customers Sue For Electronic Transfer Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Federal Savings Bank of Eastern Ohio faces a class action
filed by Mark and Mindy Mumford in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint alleges violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act and the Ohio Revised Code and breaches of various
duties in connection with an electronic transfer of funds from
the plaintiffs' account and returned check charges.  The
plaintiffs seek unquantified damages, litigation costs and
attorney fees on behalf of all consumers who at any time after
June 22, 2002, had or will have a deposit account with First
Federal to or from which electronic transfers are or can be made
and from which an unauthorized electronic transfer was or may be
made.


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Faces Accounting Fraud Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia law firm, Berger & Montague, has filed a class
action in the United States District Court, in Akron, Ohio,
against FirstEnergy Corporation on behalf of investors, alleging
that the company misrepresented its earnings and employed
accounting practices that were misleading as well, Associated
Press Newswires reports.  The Berger & Montague law firm also
has handled investor lawsuits against Rite Aid, Sotheby's and
Sunbeam, among others.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of anyone who may have purchased
stock in the utility company between April 24, 2002, and August
5 of this year, when it announced plans to restate its earnings
for all of last year and the first quarter of this year.  The
restatement reduced FirstEnergy's earnings by a total of $99
million.

The company, however, attributed the restatement to an
accounting adjustment and said it was unrelated to its role into
last week's blackout that left 50 million people without power.

Experts have said the outage appears to have started on the
northeast Ohio power grid owned by FirstEnergy, the nation's
fourth-largest investor owned utility, with 4.3 million
customers in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit contends that the company violated the law through
the alleged misrepresentations that included deregulation costs
and the value of its leased electric generating facilities.   
The alleged misrepresentations artificially inflated
FirstEnergy's stock price.  The lawsuit asked for unspecified
damages to be determined at trial.

The New York law firm Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman also filed a
lawsuit against FirstEnergy in Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court in
Cleveland, on behalf of any American or US business that lost
power.  The lawsuit accused FirstEnergy of being reckless and
causing the outage.


GENZYME CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
Genzyme Corporation relating to the exchange of all of the
outstanding shares of Biosurgery Stock and Molecular Oncology
Stock for shares of Genzyme General Stock.

Two suits were initially filed against the Company.  The first
case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court on May 28, 2003, is
a purported class action on behalf of holders of Biosurgery
Stock alleging a breach of an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in the Company's charter and a breach of the
Company's board of directors' fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff
in this case is seeking an injunction to adjust the exchange
ratio for the tracking stock exchange.

The second case, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on June 3, 2003, was brought
by two holders of Biosurgery Stock alleging violations of
federal securities laws as well as a breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter, a breach
of the Company's board of directors' fiduciary duties, common
law fraud, and a breach of the merger agreement with Biomatrix.  
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the tracking
stock exchange, but they withdrew that motion on June 19, 2003.  
The plaintiffs are also seeking an adjustment to the exchange
ratio, the recission of the acquisition of Biomatrix, and
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on July 2,
2003.  Rather than reply to this motion, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint on August 1, 2003.  This amended complaint
asserts class action status and, except for the recission on the
Biomatrix acquisition, seeks the same relief as the original
complaint.

The Company believes both cases are without merit.


HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: TX Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the 150th Judicial District in Bexar
County, Texas granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in
the class action filed against Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. and
Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.

The suit asserts that the Company's subrogation recovery efforts
on behalf of its client Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.
violated a number of common law duties, as well as the Texas
Insurance Code and the Texas Business and Commerce Code.  The
petition alleges that the Company, as the subrogation agent for
Prudential, made fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of
unlawfully pursuing subrogation and reimbursement claims that
the plaintiff asserts are unenforceable because:

     (1) prepaid medical service plans may not exercise rights
         of subrogation and reimbursement;

     (2) the subrogation and reimbursement claims asserted by
         the Company are not supported by contract documents
         that provide enforceable recovery rights and/or do not
         adequately describe the recovery rights; and

     (3) the sums recovered pursuant to such claims unlawfully
         exceed the amount Prudential paid for medical goods and
         services.

The Company was served with the petition in November 1999, and
has answered, denying all allegations.  The court has not yet
addressed the question of whether to certify the putative class.  
After the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in
January 2002, the plaintiff moved the court to delay
consideration of the motion until the plaintiff could complete
additional discovery.  The plaintiff's motion to delay
consideration was granted.

On October 25, 2002, the plaintiff filed an amended petition
naming one additional plaintiff as a purported class
representative.  The amended petition does not add any new
claims.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
January 24, 2003 and the plaintiffs filed a cross motion
for summary judgment.  

The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment
that the defendants were entitled to enforce the terms of
Prudential's policies.  The same judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment to the extent that Prudential could
not recover more than its costs.  The Company believes that the
court will provide a written opinion clarifying the impact of
the ruling.  The court has not yet considered whether to certify
a plaintiff class in the lawsuit.


HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: LA Plaintiffs To Appeal Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana's ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of Healthcare Recoveries, in the class action
filed against it, asserting that its subrogation recovery
efforts on behalf of its clients violate certain Louisiana state
laws, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The suit alleges that the Company intentionally and negligently
interfered with the plaintiff's and the putative class members'
rights to settle certain personal injury claims.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company unlawfully pursued subrogation
and reimbursement claims that the plaintiff asserts are
unenforceable because the clauses in the Company's clients'
coverage documents that create such recovery rights are rendered
null and void by Louisiana statutes that generally prohibit
coordination of benefits with individually underwritten
insurance coverages.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all
persons covered under group health policies that were issued or
delivered in the State of Louisiana and who received any
communication from the Company attempting to enforce any clauses
that allegedly were rendered null and void by Louisiana law.  
The plaintiff seeks on behalf of the purported class
compensatory and statutory damages, interest, costs, attorneys'
fees and such additional damages and relief as may be allowed by
any applicable law.

In July 2001, the court granted a motion for summary judgment
filed by the Company as concerned the plaintiff's Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, dismissing those claims
with prejudice.  The court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment, without prejudice to the right of the Company
to reassert its motion, with respect to the plaintiff's state
law claims.  The court ordered that the parties submit memoranda
addressing whether the court still had subject matter
jurisdiction, given dismissal of the federal claim.

In August 2001, the court ruled that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, thus dismissing the remaining claims, without
prejudice. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the United States
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its opinion
reversing the dismissal of the FDCPA claims.  The court also
affirmed the trial court's determination that diversity
jurisdiction did not exist in the case.  The court remanded the
case to the federal district court for further proceedings.

On April 29, 2003, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to accept an appeal of
the Court of Appeals ruling.  The Supreme Court denied the
Petition on June 9, 2003.

After the case was remanded to the trial court, the Company
filed a second motion for summary judgment.  On May 13, 2003,
the court entered an order granting the Company's motion,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's claims under the FDCPA
and dismissing without prejudice the plaintiff's remaining state
law claims.  On May 27, 2003, the plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Company intends to file its Appellee brief in August 2003.

The Company disputes the plaintiff's allegations regarding the
applicability of the FDCPA and intends to vigorously defend its
position in this case.

In addition to filing the appeal in federal court, the plaintiff
in October 2001 filed a new complaint in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana, in a putative class
action styled Hamilton v. Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., 2001-
15989.  This state court action asserts claims substantially
similar to those in the federal court action.

In November 2001, the Company filed preliminary exceptions to
this new complaint.  There were no further proceedings in the
case until March 2003 when the Company filed a motion to stay
any further proceedings in that case due to the related case
pending in federal court.  On April 25, 2003, the state court
entered an order granting the Company's motion to stay the
lawsuit.


HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: Plaintiffs To Appeal IL Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek permission to appeal the dismissal of a class
action filed against Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Christie
Clinic, P.C. and PersonalCare Health Management, Inc. and
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.

The suit, filed in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit, Champaign County, Illinois asserts that the Company, as
subrogation agent for PersonalCare Health Management, made
fraudulent misrepresentations in the course of unlawfully
pursuing subrogation and reimbursement claims.  The complaint
seeks recovery from the Company for compensatory damages,
punitive damages and costs.

The Company disputes the plaintiff's allegations.  Each
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action.  In October
2002, the court granted each of the defendants' motions and
dismissed the plaintiff's action entirely.  The plaintiff
subsequently filed her notice of appeal and, the Appellate Court
heard oral argument of the appeal on April 23, 2003.  On June
20, 2003, the Appellate Court entered an order affirming the
trial court's ruling.  On July 3, 2003, the plaintiff filed a
motion seeking leave to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme
Court.


HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES: Agrees To Settle CA ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los against it, Trover Solutions,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive.

The plaintiff asserts that the Company's subrogation recovery
efforts violate California's unfair trade practices statute by
pursuing recovery from Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) members' personal injury recoveries when case law
allegedly held that ERISA plans could not enforce their recovery
rights.

The Company timely removed the action to federal court and filed
a motion to dismiss.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the state court.  On March 3, 2003, the court
entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion to remand and
denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.

In June 2003, the plaintiff and the Company agreed to settle all
claims in the case in exchange for payment of $7,000 from the
Company to the plaintiff.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.


IDAHO: Judge Declines To Stop Bluegrass Field Burning By Farmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
After hearing more arguments from health and conservation groups
recently, Sixth District Judge William Woodland again declined
to stop bluegrass farmers from burning their fields this season,
according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.  Instead,
the judge opted to order a full hearing on the merits of the
case this fall.

Judge Woodland already had denied the request for a stay on
burning made by Safe Air For Everyone (SAFE), the American Lung
Association and the Idaho Conservation League, saying he was not
convinced after reading the SAFE affidavit that this year's
burning had caused major health problems.  However, the judge
did agree to let both sides make additional arguments during the
preliminary injunction hearing sought by the health and
conservation groups, which was held last Friday, and at the end
of which, as indicated above, Judge Woodland ruled against
stopping the farmers from burning their fields this season.

The full hearing on the merits will come after burning is over
for the year, and that is unfortunate, said Patti Gora, director
of SAFE, a grass-roots organization opposed to grass burning.  
"We know people are suffering both physical ailment as well as
economic damages," Ms. Gora said.

Farmers, on the other hand, say they must burn their grass
stubble to shock it into producing a reasonable yield the
following year.  

The health and conservation groups had filed a lawsuit August 11
to challenge the state's new field-burning regulations.  They
alleged the rules were illegally put in place this summer with
public hearings.  They alleged further that the new regulations
do not protect public health.

The new regulations require the Idaho State Department of
Agriculture Director Pat Takasugi to find that there is no
economically viable alternative to field burning before a
burning season can officially begin.  Director Takasugi made
such a finding at the beginning of the burning season, and
burning started July 23.

Many thousands of acres still remain to be burned this season;
notably, 10,000 acres on the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's reservation
awaits burning.

A separate class action, filed in Idaho by attorney Steve Berman
against the grass growers, is on hold until the Idaho Supreme
Court decides the constitutionality of the state's new field
burning law, which grants farmers immunity from lawsuits if they
register their fields and burn legally.


ILLINI CORPORATION: Ex-Class Representative Seeks to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------------------
The former class representative in the securities class action
filed against Illini Corporation moved to intervene as plaintiff
in the suit.  

A Company shareholder filed the suit in 1998 against Illinois
Stock Transfer Company, as Rights Agent for Illini Corporation
under Illini Corporation's Shareholder Rights Agreement, for
specific performance of the Rights Agreement, both individually
and on behalf of a class of Company shareholders.

The complaint alleges that the Rights Agreement was triggered in
April of 1998, and that the Rights Agent has a duty under the
Rights Agreement to distribute Rights Certificates to the
shareholders of Illini Corporation.  The Company was added as a
Defendant in 1999, and the class has been certified.  Plaintiff
seeks to recover her attorneys's fees from Illini Corporation in
addition to the other relief sought.

In January 2000, the trial court entered summary judgment in
favor of Illini Corporation and Illinois Stock Transfer Company.  
Plaintiff appealed this ruling denying plaintiff's summary
judgment motion to the Illinois Appellate Court.  The appeals
court reversed the summary judgment for defendants and remanded
the case for trial on the issue of whether the Illini
Corporation Board of Directors acted in good faith in
determining that a shareholder's acceptance of a gift of Illini
Corporation Stock did not trigger the Rights Amendment and
later, in Illini Corporation's later amendment of the Rights
Agreement.

The appeals court further ruled the plaintiff's attorneys' fees
were recoverable under the Rights Agreement.  After a series of
unsuccessful motions filed by the plaintiff's counsel, Illini
Corporation entered a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel.  
The court removed the counsel for the plaintiff class and
appointed new counsel to represent the class.

The removed counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied.  The new counsel filed a motion for direction to
remove the class representative, which was granted on January
15, 2003.  On March 7, 2003 the trial court appointed a
successor class representative.  The Company is negotiating for
a settlement of the suit with the new class representative and
class counsel.

The former class representative filed a motion to opt out of the
class.  The motion was denied.  The former class representative
has now filed a motion to intervene as plaintiff in the class
suit.  That motion is pending.


ILLINOIS: High Court Rejects Transfer of Suit To Madison County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revealing its concern over "forum shopping," the Illinois
Supreme Court stopped an effort to bring a lawsuit in Madison
County over an accident in a neighboring county, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The court ruled that lawsuits should be filed in a place where
there is a solid connection to the case, and not in a spot where
attorneys hope to find sympathetic judges and juries.

Madison County is known as friendly territory for class actions
and claims against large businesses.  It deals with more class
action cases than any jurisdiction, except Los Angeles County
and Cook County, according to one recent analysis.  Plaintiffs
in Madison County have won huge awards, including the $10.1
billion settlement against tobacco company Philip Morris.

The ruling applies to a lawsuit filed by one William Dawdy Jr.,
who was involved in a traffic accident with an employee of the
Union Pacific Railroad Co.  The railroad worker lives in
Macoupin County, where the accident took place.  Mr. Dawdy lives
in Greene County.  The witnesses live in a variety of places,
but none of them Madison County.

Still, Mr. Dawdy filed his lawsuit in Madison County, arguing
that Union Pacific operates a facility there, and it would be
convenient to attorneys and witnesses.  The Supreme Court,
however, ordered the case transferred to Macoupin County.

"The record strongly indicates that a trial in Macoupin County
would better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends
of justice," Justice Charles Freeman wrote for the majority of
the court.  He said it would be wrong to add an unnecessary case
to Madison County's crowded court system or ask its residents to
serve as jurors in a dispute that has nothing to do with their
county.

William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois
University, said the justices are reinforcing existing
standards.  "They may have taken the case to emphasize there are
limits," said Professor Schroeder.  "Maybe, they are trying to
send a message that you just cannot move a lawsuit wherever you
want."

Justice Thomas Kilbride dissented however, saying the case has
enough Madison County connections to justify a trial there.  And
according to attorney Bruce Pfaff of the Illinois Trial Lawyers
Association, which filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court)
brief, Justice Kilbride reached the correct decision.  Mr. Pfaff
said he does not see the high court's ruling as a message that
attorneys should be careful about forum shopping.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Several Defendants in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed several of the individual defendants in the
consolidated securities class action filed against Imclone
Systems, Inc.  The consolidated amended complaint initially
named as defendants the Company, as well as:

     (1) Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, former President and Chief
         Executive Officer,

     (2) Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, former Chief Scientific Officer
         and then-President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) Robert F. Goldhammer, former director and then-Chairman
         of the Board of Directors,

     (4) Richard Barth,

     (5) David Kies,

     (6) Paul Kopperl,

     (7) John Mendelsohn,

     (8) William Miller,

     (9) John Landes, former General Counsel, and

    (10) Ronald Martell, Vice President for Marketing and Sales,

The complaint asserted claims for securities fraud under
sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased our publicly traded securities between March 27, 2001
and January 25, 2002.  The complaint also asserted claims
against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal under section 20A of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a separate purported sub-class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between December 27, 2001 and December
28, 2001.

The complaint generally alleged that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.  The complaint
sought to proceed on behalf of the alleged class described
above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
seeks recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

On November 25, 2002, all defendants other than Dr. Samuel D.
Waksal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.  On June 3, 2003, the court granted that
motion in part, dismissing the complaint as to all the
defendants except the Company, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal and Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: AZ Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
heard oral arguments for the motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Insight Enterprises, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The
plaintiff in this action alleges the Company, and certain of its
officers, made false and misleading statements pertaining to our
business, operations and management in an effort to inflate the
price of our common stock.  The lawsuit also names as co-
defendants:

     (1) Eric J. Crown, the Chairman of our Board of Directors,

     (2) Timothy A. Crown, Chief Executive Officer and a
         director; and

     (3) Stanley Laybourne, Executive Vice President, Chief
         Financial Officer and Treasurer and a director.

In the complaint, which was filed in December 2002, the
plaintiff seeks class action status to represent all buyers of
the Company's common stock from September 3, 2001 through July
17, 2002.

In February 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  Oral
arguments on the motion were heard on June 30, 2003, and the
Company is currently awaiting the court's ruling.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The costs
associated with defending the allegations in this lawsuit and
the potential outcome cannot be determined at this time.


KASH 'N' KARRY: Agrees To Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kash 'n' Karry grocery store will settle a lawsuit accusing the
supermarket chain of sex discrimination by paying $3.1million,
which will include $500,000 in coupons and gift certificates for
female employees to use at its stores, the South Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

Fourteen female employees had joined the lawsuit, which was
filed in US District Court in Tampa, Florida, charging the
grocery chain paid women less than men who did similar work.

The women's lawyer, David Linesch of Palm Harbor, said
substituting coupons for at least part of the cash in a class
action settlement is gaining in popularity.  "It is a way for
the company to give people a benefit but it is easier for the
company to accomplish," Mr. Linesch said after the settlement
was announced.

Shelley Broader, the grocery chain's recently appointed
president and chief executive, said in a statement that the
chain is looking to becoming the supermarket of choice for
Florida.  Rather than engaging in costly, protracted litigation,
"we used this opportunity to strengthen our existing policies
and move forward."

Kash 'n' Karry is a division of Brussels-based Delhaize Group,
and has 137 stores in Florida.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial For TX Race Bias Suit Set October 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc.
is set for October 2003 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.  A Company employee and a former
employee filed the suit, alleging race discrimination in
employment.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August of 1998.  The
court in April 1999 issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which includes all persons of a certain minority
employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present.  The
Company appealed this class certification decision by the
District Court to the 5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals
in New Orleans, Louisiana.  This appeal was denied on June 23,
1999.

The Company believes that the facts and the law in this action
support its position and is confident that it will prevail if
this case is tried on its merits.


MBNA CORPORATION: NY Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York, County of New York granted final
approval to the settlement proposed by MBNA Corporation for the
class action, filed against it and MBNA America Bank, NA.

The suit alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash
promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and
deceptive.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including
actual, treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an
alleged breach of contract, common law fraud and violation of
New York consumer protection statutes.

In April 2000, summary judgment was granted to the Corporation
and the Bank on the common law fraud claim and a class was
certified by the court.  In November 2001, the court gave
preliminary approval to the settlement of this suit for an
estimated $18.0 million, including fees and costs.  In July 2003
the court entered a final order approving the settlement.

The Company expects that one or more objectors will appeal the
order.  The Company has reserved $19.5 million for the
settlement amount and the costs of implementing the settlement.


MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit in Israeli Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their petition to certify a class action
against MIRS Communications, Ltd. in the amount of NIS170
million (US$36 million) was filed in the Tel Aviv District
Court.

The claim is in connection with the change in the Company's
tariffs resulting from the implementation of its own dialing
prefix, which replaced its previous dialing prefix, the Tel-Aviv
area code.  As a result, persons in the Tel Aviv area code
claimed that they are subject to higher tariffs than those   
they had been subject to under the Company's previous dialing
prefix.


MIRS COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Connection Fees Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their petition for a class action against
MIRS Communications, Ltd. and the other three cellular operators
in Israel in the total amount of NIS 600 million (US$127
million) was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court in May 2002.

The claim involves the inter-connect fees that were collected
from the customers of the other operators with regard to phone
calls that were made to voice recorder applications through the
cellular operators' dialing numbers.


MONTANA-DAKOTA: Dropped as Defendant in KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Montana-Dakota Utilities, Inc. (now the MDU Resources Group,
Inc.) and its subsidiary Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline
Company have been dismissed as defendants in a legal proceeding
filed against over 200 natural gas transmission companies and
producers, gatherers and processors.

The suit was filed on behalf of subclasses of gas producers,
royalty owners and state taxing authorities in the State
District Court for Stevens County, Kansas, (State District
Court).  The suit contains allegations of improper measurement
of the heating content and volume of all natural gas measured by
the defendants other than natural gas produced from federal
lands.  The plaintiffs have not specified the amount they seek
to recover.  

In September 2002, the plaintiffs moved for certification of the
case as a class action and on April 10, 2003, the court denied
the motion.  On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
file an amended class action petition.  Neither Williston Basin
nor Montana-Dakota were named as defendants in the amended class
action petition.  The motion to amend the class petition was
granted by the court on July 28, 2003, and as a result Williston
Basin and Montana-Dakota are no longer defendants in this
proceeding.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set Nov. 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action filed
against Nanophase Technologies Corporation and Joseph Cross, its
President and CEO is set for November 12, 2003.

The complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent
material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with
the Company's public disclosures, including certain press
releases, concerning the Company's dealings with Celox, a
British customer.  

The complaint further alleged that the action should be
maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain
persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from
April 5, 2001 through October 24, 2001.  The complaint sought
relief including unquantified compensatory damages, attorneys'
and expert witness' fees.

In March 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging
that the Company and four of its officers (Joseph Cross, Daniel
Bilicki, its vice president of sales and marketing, Jess
Jankowski, its acting chief financial officer and Gina
Kritchevsky, its then-current chief technology officer) were
liable under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and
omissions of fact in connection with the Company's press
releases, publicly-filed reports and other public disclosures
concerning the Company's relationship with Celox and the
Company's purportedly improper booking, and later reversal, of
$400,000 in revenue from a one-time sale to that customer
treated as a bill and hold transaction.  The amended complaint
alleged the same class and sought the same relief as in
plaintiff's initial complaint.  In November 2002, defendants
answered the amended complaint, denying all alleged wrongdoing.

Following certain discovery, on June 11, 2003, the Company
agreed to settle all claims against all defendants for
$2,500,000.  On June 12, 2003, the court certified the class
alleged in the amended complaint.  The court ordered preliminary
approval of the settlement on July 31, 2003 and has scheduled a
hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement for November 12, 2003.  The settlement does not admit
liability by any party.  


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Trial Set September 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class actions against Packaging Corporation of
America is set for September 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The suits name the Company as a defendant based solely on the
allegation that it is successor to the interests of Tenneco
Packaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also named
as defendants in the suits, along with nine other linerboard and
corrugated sheet manufacturers.

The complaints allege that the defendants, during the period
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 to artificially increase prices of
corrugated containers and corrugated sheets, respectively.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all persons in the
United States who purchased corrugated containers or sheets
directly from any defendant during the above period, and seek
treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
class.  The court granted plaintiffs' class certification motion
on September 4, 2001, but modified the proposed class to exclude
those purchasers who purchased corrugated containers or sheets
pursuant to contracts in which the price was "not tied to the
price of linerboard."  The court's class certification decision
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on
September 5, 2002.

The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the Supreme Court of the United States, which was denied on
April 12, 2003.  Notices were issued to the class on or about
April 24, 2003 and the Court set June 9, 2003 as the deadline
for class members to opt out of the class.  

Several plaintiffs have opted out of the class and approximately
ten direct action complaints have been filed in various federal
courts across the country by opt-out plaintiffs.  These cases
have effectively been consolidated for pretrial purposes before
the court.  All of the opt-out complaints make allegations
against the defendants, including the Company, substantially
similar to those made in the class actions.

No schedule has yet been entered with regard to the cases.  The
Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations have no merit
and intend to defend against the suits vigorously.  The Company
does not believe that the outcome of this litigation should have
a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or cash flow.


PEET'S COFFEE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. faces several class actions filed in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
filed by one former and one current store manager alleging
misclassification of employment position.  The suit seeks
damages, restitution, reclassification and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

The Company is investigating the charges.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Forges Settlement For Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quintiles Transnational Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated class action filed in the North Carolina Business
Court by certain of the Company's shareholders seeking to enjoin
the consummation of the initial transaction proposed by Pharma
Services Company (a company controlled by Dennis B. Gillings,
Ph.D.) to acquire all the Company's outstanding shares for
$11.25 per share in cash.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Dr. Gillings,

     (2) other members of the Company's Board of Directors, and

     (3) Pharma Services Company

The suit alleges, among other things, a breach of fiduciary
duties by the directors with respect to the proposal.  The
complaints seek to enjoin the transaction proposed by Pharma
Services Company, and the plaintiffs seek to recover damages.

On November 11, 2002, a Special Committee of the Company's Board
of Directors announced its rejection of the proposal by Pharma
Services Company and its intention to investigate strategic
alternatives available to the Company for purposes of enhancing
shareholder value, including the possibility of a sale of the
Company and alternatives that would keep the Company independent
and publicly owned.

On January 6, 2003, the court entered a Case Management Order
staying the lawsuits until March 29, 2003 or until the Company
provides notice of a change-of-control transaction.  On March
28, 2003, the court entered an Order Maintaining the Status Quo,
which continued its prior Case Management Order in all respects
until the earlier of a date selected by the Court or until the
Company provides the notice contemplated by the Case Management
Order.

On April 10, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a
merger agreement with Pharma Services Holding, Inc. which
provides for payment to the Company's shareholders of $14.50 per
share in cash.  The Company expects to hold a special meeting
later this year at which time the shareholders will vote on the
proposed transaction.

On June 25, 2003, counsel for the parties signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, in which they agreed upon the terms of a
settlement of the litigation, which would include the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims against all defendants including
the Company and the Company's Board of Directors.

The settlement is conditional, among other things, on the
execution of a formal Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release, certification of a shareholder "class"
for purposes of the settlement only, consummation of the merger
transaction and final approval of the settlement by the Court
after Notice to the class and a fairness hearing.

The settlement contemplates that plaintiffs' lead counsel will
apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in
an amount not to exceed $450,000.  Any attorneys' fees and costs
awarded by the Court, up to $450,000, and costs of identifying
and notifying members of the settlement class would be paid by
the Company.  No other payments would be required from the
Company or any other party under the terms of the settlement.  
The parties are currently finalizing the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement, class notice and related documents.

As contemplated by the Stipulation of Settlement, the plaintiffs
have filed an amended class action complaint to address the
proposed merger.  The Company denies any liability alleged in
the amended complaint and, in the event the settlement is not
consummated for any reason, the Company intends to defend these
claims vigorously.


SAUDI ARABIA: Former Employee Sues To Recover Retirement Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Engineer John Peterson, like many other Americans, accepted an
offer to work in Saudi Arabia in order to help modernize the
country, in the late 1970s, enticed by a generous employment
package which combined high pay and generous benefits, the
Chicago Tribune reports.   

Mr. Peterson and other non-Saudi workers were recruited by Saudi
and American companies to work toward the country's
modernization by building roads, schools, transportation
facilities, as well as hospitals and sports facilities, among
other improvements.

Particularly attractive was the American workers' opportunity to
participate in a government-mandated retirement program, funded
largely by hefty contributions from their Saudi-Arabian
employers.  Mr. Peterson, for example, worked 11 years in Saudi
Arabia on the modernization program, and his retirement fund
grew with his contributions and those made by his employers.

When he returned to the United States and tried to get all of
his money, the Saudi government refused to pay, Mr. Peterson
said, as it has refused for thousands of other Americans who
worked in Saudi Arabia.

"What we (other similarly situated American former employees of
the Saudi government) want out of this, is what is rightfully
ours," said Mr. Peterson, 49, who filed a class action in an
effort to recover the contributions his Saudi employers made for
years to a retirement fund his name.

"There are thousands of Americans like Mr. Peterson who provided
services to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that allowed that
country to prosper," said Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington
University law professor who is representing Mr. Peterson.  "A
government that has benefited from the toil of American workers
can respect their work and provide what is rightfully theirs."

A Saudi Embassy spokesman, Nail Al-Jubeir, declined to comment
on the specifics of the lawsuit.  However, he said the Saudi
program was canceled in the 1980s and that "people were paid
off."  He said an office had been established in Washington that
handled requests for reimbursement, but he said he did not know
whether it had systematically refused to pay the eight percent
employer contribution.

That is exactly what the Saudi government has done, said Eric
Segal, Mr. Peterson's attorney.  Thousands of American citizens
and residents who worked in Saudi Arabia from 1969 to 1987, when
the program was still in place, are still owed employer-
contributed monies from the pension fund.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek the consolidation of several securities class
actions filed against Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and three of
its officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company between April 19, 1999 and
August 2, 2002, and seeks unspecified money damages.

The complaint asserts that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading because the Company
restated its earnings and financial statements for the years
ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in the Company's Form 8-
K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002 and Form
10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002.

Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the actions and to appoint
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.


SPORTS CLUB: Shareholders Sue Over "Going Private" Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sports Club Co., Inc. faces a securities class action filed
against it and its principal shareholders and directors,
alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants had
violated certain fiduciary duties owed the minority shareholders
by announcing the principal shareholders' offer to cash out the
minority shareholders in a "going private" transaction at a
price of $3.00 per share.  

The complaint also asserts that the defendants were using the
proposed going private transaction to avoid disclosure of
accounting problems that resulted in the restatement of the
Company's financial statements, which were re-filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2003. The
plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the completion of the going
private transaction, damages and attorney's fees.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trover Solutions, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the class action filed
against it and:

     (1) Prudential Health Care Plan,

     (2) Prudential Insurance Company of America and

     (3) Aetna, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of two Texas residents against the
Company, one of the Company's clients, Prudential Insurance
Company, a subsidiary of the client, PruCare HMO, and a company
which had acquired the business of the client company, Aetna.  

In the complaint, plaintiffs Kimberly Bruun and Ashley Emanis,
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, asserted
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of persons who were
members of PruCare HMO health plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) from whom the Company,
under its contract with the client, recovered reimbursement.  

The complaint alleged that reimbursement recoveries made by
PruCare HMO and the Company violate the terms of the standard
PruCare HMO plan documents, and that reimbursement recoveries
violate the Conformity with Law provision in the standard plan
documents because subrogation and reimbursement are prohibited
under the federal HMO Act.

The complaint further alleged that the defendants' subrogation
and reimbursement recoveries resulted in a double recovery to
PruCare HMO because PruCare HMO did not account for subrogation
and reimbursement recoveries as offsets to expenses when setting
premium rates.  The complaint further alleged that the
defendants improperly recovered in subrogation or reimbursement
for services provided by capitated providers, or that in the
alternative, the defendants improperly recovered more for
capitated services than was paid for the services, or
alternatively, that the defendants improperly collected amounts
that exceeded the reasonable cash value of capitated services.

The plaintiffs allege that PruCare HMO, Prudential, Aetna and
the Company are fiduciaries and that they each have breached
their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.  Alternatively, the
plaintiffs allege that if Aetna, Prudential and the Company are
not fiduciaries, that they knowingly participated in PruCare
HMO's breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, demand enforcement of
the plan documents under certain sections of ERISA.  The
plaintiffs also demand restitution and disgorgement of sums
recovered by defendants and the establishment of a constructive
trust.  The plaintiffs also demand an accounting of PruCare
HMO's and Aetna's rate documents, the subrogation and
reimbursement claims for capitated services, and/or the actual
costs paid by PruCare HMO and Aetna for the capitated services.

On April 16, 2003, the defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the lawsuit or to change the venue of the lawsuit to a
federal court in Texas.  The court has not ruled on the motions.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended HMO Suit in AR Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Trover
Solutions, Inc., American Home Assurance Company and HMO
Partners, a client of the Company in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.

The suit asserts that the Company, as subrogation agent for HMO
Partners, unlawfully demanded payment of a subrogation claim
against proceeds of a medical payments insurance policy issued
to the plaintiff by American Home.  The complaint also alleges
that the Company was unjustly enriched because the plaintiff was
not fully compensated ("made whole") for his injuries in
violation of the Arkansas no-fault motor vehicle insurance
statute and because the payment constituted a double recovery
to the Company and to HMO Partners, in violation of the Arkansas
Health Maintenance Organizations Act.

The amended complaint further alleges that in recovering the
subrogation claim the Company acted negligently, that it
interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relationship with
the motor vehicle insurer and that the Company may be directly
or vicariously liable for the acts of other defendants.

The amended complaint demands relief on behalf of a purported
class of persons who purchased medical payments coverage as
required by the Arkansas no-fault motor vehicle insurance
statute and who were entitled to but did not receive benefits
under such policies due to the payment of those benefits to
third parties, including the Company and HMO Partners.  The
amended complaint demands compensatory and punitive damages, 12%
statutory penalties, costs, expenses, interest and attorney's
fees.


UNITED LIBERTY: Working For a Settlement of Life Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Liberty Insurance is proposing to settle a class action
filed in Ohio State Court, relating to a particular class of
life insurance policies that the Company issued over a period of
years ending around 1971.

The suit alleges that the Company's dividend payments on these
policies from 1993 through 1999 were less than the required
amount.  It does not specify the amount of the alleged
underpayment but implies a maximum of about $850,000.  

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company is liable to pay
punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.  The action has been
certified as a class action on behalf of all policyholders who
were Ohio residents and whose policies were still in force in
1993.

The Company has denied the complaint's material allegations.  
Pre-trial discovery is continuing.  The Company has filed a
motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed and
argued and awaits decision by the court.  

At the Company's request, an initial mediation session has been
completed and negotiations are continuing.  As a pre-requisite
for the mediation, the Company offered to settle the matter for
payments over time, which would include attorneys' fees, and
which would be contingent upon an exchange or reformation of the
insurance policies currently owned by the members of the class.

At this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to
determine whether an unfavorable outcome of the action is likely
to occur or, alternatively, whether the chance of such an
outcome is remote.  Therefore, at this time, management has no
basis for estimating potential losses, if any.  In addition, the
Company is party to other lawsuits in the normal course of
business.  Management believes that recorded claims liabilities
are adequate to ensure that these other suits will be resolved  
without material financial impact to the Company.


UNITED STATES: NY Legislator To Bring Suit Over Recent Blackout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Councilman Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), is planning a class
action on behalf of those "who suffered extreme financial
consequences" from the power outage, the New York Post reports.

However, New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken a
different position.  The city will not sue to recover damages
from the blackout, said the mayor.  "I don't know whether it is
even legally possible," Mayor Bloomberg said, after speaking
recently to a community group on Staten Island.

"I suspect that the cost of those suits would far outweigh the
benefit.  Some things just happen and there is just nobody
responsible.  Stuff happens and you have to adjust to it," said
the mayor.

Mayor Bloomberg put a $5 million price on the city's overtime
bill-- less, however, than the earlier estimates of $10 million
to $15 million.  The mayor also described as "vastly overstated"
some of the losses claimed for the overall economic severity in
New York City.

"Clearly, some food was thrown away and that's economic pain,"
said the mayor.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plans To Appeal Court Ruling in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corporation plans to appeal the Superior Court in
Worcester, Massachusetts' ruling stating the Company and its
subsidiaries violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
in two class actions filed against them.  The Company's
subsidiaries are:

     (1) The Paul Revere Corporation (Paul Revere),

     (2) The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company,

     (3) The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company, and
  
     (4) Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

One suit purported to represent independent brokers who sold
certain individual disability income policies with benefit
riders that were issued by subsidiaries of Paul Revere and who
claimed that their compensation had been reduced in breach of
their broker contract and in violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act (the Act).  A class was certified in
February 2000.

In April 2001, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on
the breach of contract claim.  Notwithstanding the jury verdict,
the judge was obligated to rule separately on the claim that
UnumProvident and its affiliates violated the Act.  

In September 2002, the judge ruled that Paul Revere violated the
Act and awarded double damages plus attorneys' fees.  Most of
the issues concerning how to calculate the damages have been
determined but several remain outstanding before an appeal can
be perfected.  Complicating the matter was the unexpected death
of the trial judge.  In March 2003, a new judge was assigned to
the case so the parties can proceed to conclude matters before
the trial court.  

The Company feels strongly that the judge's ruling that the Act
was violated is contrary to both the law and the facts of the
case and plans to appeal after the judgment is made final.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Seeks Transfer of Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for the transfer of twenty-one class actions and
derivative suits filed against UnumProvident Corporation,
several of its subsidiaries, and some of their officers and
directors were held on July 24,2003 before the the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict litigation.

The motion seeks to transfer the suits, now pending against them
in various federal district courts to a single district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  Each of
these actions contends, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in improper claims handling practices in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) or
various state laws or failed to disclose the effects of those
practices in violation of the federal securities laws.

No decision has yet been rendered on this motion. Several
additional actions were commenced in various federal district
courts after the transfer motion was filed against some of the
same defendants making allegations identical to some of the
actions that are the subject of the transfer motion.  The
defendants intend to seek to include those later filed actions
in any transfer order in the event that the transfer motion is
granted.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Orders Lawsuit Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee ordered consolidated six securities class actions
filed against UnumProvident Corporation, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's publicly traded securities between May 7, 2001
and February 4, 2003.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company caused its shares to
trade at artificially high levels by, among other things,
issuing misleading financial statements, improperly accounting
for impaired investments, and pursuing certain improper claims
handling practices.  The complaints assert claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
these complaints.  The Company strongly denies the allegations
in these complaints.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Motion To Consolidate NY Suits Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate three securities class
actions in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
UnumProvident Corporate-Backed Trust Securities (CorTs)
certificates pursuant to an initial public offering on or about
April 18, 2001 through March 24, 2003.

The suits seek to recover damages caused by the Company's
alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff asserts that the
Company issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings directed to the
investing public.  

On July 7, 2003, a fourth action, "Harriet Bernstein v. CorTs
Trust for Provident Financing Trust I, et al," was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York making virtually identical allegations.  This action has
not yet been made part of the pending motion to transfer for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against UnumProvident
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a putative nationwide class of long-term disability insurance
policyholders.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff individually was wrongfully
denied disability benefits under a group long-term disability
plan and alleges breach of state law fiduciary duties on behalf
of himself and others covered by similar plans whose disability
benefits have been denied or terminated after a claim was made.  
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive and
declaratory relief and payment of benefits.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and will
fight any attempt to certify the putative class.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the class action filed against
UnumProvident Corporation, on behalf of group long-term
disability participants insured under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) plans whose claims were denied or
terminated on or after June 30, 1999.

The amended complaint alleges that these claimants had their
claims improperly challenged and that the Company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
these participants in ERISA plans in which the Company is the
claims adjudicator.  The Company maintains that the allegations
are false and that the claims, as framed, are not permissible
under ERISA's carefully structured avenues of relief.

The Company denies the complaint's allegations.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: ERISA Suit Moved To IL Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against UnumProvident Corporation in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois has been moved to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

The complaint alleges that individuals were wrongfully denied
benefits and alleges causes of action under:

     (1) breach of contract,

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

     (3) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) common law fraud,

     (5) intentional misrepresentation,

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty and

     (7) alternatively, violations of the Employee Retirement
         Income Security Act (ERISA)

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as
restitution and punitive damages.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of disability participants insured under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans.

The complaint alleges that these claimants had their claims
improperly denied or terminated and that the Company breached
certain fiduciary duties owed to these participants in ERISA
plans.  The complaint also alleges violations under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  

The complaint seeks reversal of claim denials or contract
rescissions and re-determination by an independent person of
claims of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
appointment of a master to oversee certain claim handling
matters, and treble damages under RICO.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
these complaints.  The Company denies the allegations in the
complaint.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pension Suit Moved to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action initially filed against UnumProvident
Corporation in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee in
the Thirteenth Judicial District at Memphis has been removed to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who were
insured by long-term disability policies issued by subsidiaries
of UnumProvident and who did not obtain their coverage through
employer sponsored plans and who had a claim denied, terminated,
or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary after January 1,
1995.

Plaintiff alleges that UnumProvident Corporation and its
subsidiaries employed various unfair claim practices in
assessing entitlement to benefits by class members during this
period and, as a result, wrongfully denied legitimate claims.  
The plaintiff and the class seek contractual, equitable, and
injunctive relief.


WASHINGTON DC: Charged With Using Flawed Property Tax Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S. Craig, 75, who retired from his law career in 1989, had
intended to concentrate on researching his Swedish heritage and
writing books and articles.  However, he found himself back in
the legal mode as he leads a class action against the
Washington, D.C. government (the District), claiming that it
used a flawed property tax assessment methodology that resulted
in highly unfair assessments for the past three years, The
Washington Post reports.

The lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court and has been
granted class-action status by Judge Eugene Hamilton, who denied
a motion from the District's lawyers that he throw out all
petitioners who had not first appealed to the city's appeal
board.

Judge Hamilton is hearing Mr. Craig's motions against the 2002
assessments; the judge has asked Mr. Craig to file separate
motions against the 2003 and 2004 assessments.

Mr. Craig contends the city's assessment methodology is flawed
because it does not assess each home individually, but instead
applies blanket - and often inaccurate -assessments in different
neighborhoods.  The result, said Mr. Craig, is that the tax
burden falls more heavily on some owners than it does on others.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Launches TX Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Flowserve Corporation (NYSE:FLS) securities between
October 23, 2001 and September 27, 2002, inclusive.

By the beginning of the Class Period, Flowserve was experiencing
double-digit declines in its "aftermarket" sales of pumps and
valves, primarily to the chemical and general industrial
segments of its markets.  In preparation for continued declines
in its aftermarket sales and services, the Company idled several
of its manufacturing plants.  

Flowserve withheld these adverse facts from the public while it
continued to issue highly positive earnings statements and
forecasts.  In light of its declining revenues and earnings, the
Company determined that in order to maintain its debt covenants,
avoid default, and obtain favorable debt re-financing and re-
pricing terms, among other things, it would need to obtain
additional capital from the equity markets.

Consequently, Flowserve completed two public offerings during
the Class Period, issuing over 16 million shares of its common
stock to the unsuspecting investing public at artificially
inflated prices.  The $433.9 million in proceeds realized from
the offerings was used to retire debt incurred in connection
with Flowserve's prior acquisitions and to finance an additional
acquisition.

During this time, certain Flowserve executives, including Renee
J. Hornbaker, engaged in a substantial insider selling campaign,
disposing of over 98,000 shares of Flowserve common stock, at or
near market highs, and realizing over $3.2 million in illicit
proceeds.

The truth was revealed on September 27, 2002, when the Company
warned of a 21% earnings shortfall for the quarter ending
September 30, 2002, and cut its full year 2002 earnings guidance
by over 60%, to $1.45 per share, from the $2.30 per share
earnings guidance shared with investors during roadshow
presentations promoting Flowserve's public offerings less than
six months prior.  

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 per
share on September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the
Class Period high of $34.90 per share reached on May 2, 2002.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: FLS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Flowserve
Corporation (NYSE:FLS), between October 23, 2001, and September
27, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company.
C. Scott Greer, and Renee J. Hornbaker.

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 October 23, 2001 and
September 27, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flowserve securities.

During the class period, the Company alleges that Defendants,
among other things:

     (1) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales
         (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were
         steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue;

     (2) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less
         dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments,
         which had historically been very sensitive to economic
         downturn;

     (3) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one
         or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a
         result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing
         decline in sales; and

     (4) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002
         earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the
         declines the Company was experiencing in critical
         business segments.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class
Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

Prior to disclosure of the true facts, Flowserve completed two
public offerings of its common stock, thereby raising more than
$430 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their personally held
Flowserve common stock for substantial profit.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext. 6883 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of all purchasers
of Flowserve Corporation (NYSE:FLS) securities during the period
from October 23, 2001 through September 27, 2002, inclusive.

The action charges Flowserve and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the class period -- of artificially
inflating the price of Flowserve's shares.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class
Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

For more details, contact Pamela Kulsrud or Elaine Mui by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com


IMPATH INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of IMPATH, Inc. (NasdaqNM:IMPH) between
February 21, 2001 through July 29, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts:

     (1) that the Company was failing to timely record an
         impairment in the value of its accounts receivables and
         as a result, the Company's reported financial results
         were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period;

     (2) that the Company was failing to properly account for
         its GeneBank(tm) asset, thereby overstating its
         reported financial results; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements published during the Class Period were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading.

On July 30, 2003, IMPATH disclosed that it had initiated an
investigation into possible accounting irregularities involving
accounts receivables which the Company believes have been
materially overstated and will likely require restatement.  
Following this announcement, shares of IMPATH common stock were
halted from trading.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.
between June 30,2003 and July 15,2003 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint charges defendant Bernard Schwartz with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  It alleges that
defendant issued materially false and misleading statements
which resulted in plaintiffs purchasing Loral securities during
the Class Period at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Behram Parekh by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024 by Phone: 800-437-7918
or 310-208-2800 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


SINGING MACHINE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action against
Singing Machine Company, Inc. (Amex: SMD) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company and Salberg & Company, Singing Machine's auditor.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between the dates of August 9,
2001 and May 20, 2003, whereby artificially inflating the price
of the securities.  The class period is between August 9, 2001
to July 14, 2003, inclusive.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.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  * * *