---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, May 28, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 104

                           Headlines                            

ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: CO Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
ALABAMA: Supreme Court Overturns Class Certification, Injunction
ANNUITY & LIFE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT
AOL TIME: Faces Three Lawsuits For ERISA Violations in S.D. NY
AXEDA SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit

BOEING WICHITA: Judge Grants Certification to Sex Bias Lawsuit
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: To Settle TX Suit Over Wilderness Tires
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery To End September 2003 in CA Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Stock Lawsuit Stayed Over Related Action
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit

CORNELL COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in TX
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Appeals Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Dropped as Defendant in NY Securities Suit
CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CUMULUS MEDIA: Securities Agreement Distributed to Class Members

DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DUPONT: Plaintiffs in Pollution Lawsuit Fight To Remove Judge
HMO LITIGATION: Aetna's Pact With Doctors to Affect Other Suits
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Stock Lawsuit
INTERCEPT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit
MAINE: Fails To Follow Court Order To Improve Mental Services
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Settlement Ruling Expected In CD Antitrust Suit
OMAI GOLD MINES: Labels as "Unfounded" Suit Over Cyanide Spill
PDI INC.: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

PDI INC.: Enters Joint Defense Agreement For Baycol Litigation
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Securities Lawsuit Moves To Discovery in CA
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $86M Settlement in CA 401(K) Suit
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Won't Amend Securities Fraud Suit

SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Reaches Agreement in Vacation Intervals Suit
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Working For Settlement in TX Consumer Suit
STRATUS SERVICES: Named as Defendant in RSI Employee Wage Suit
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit
TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set November 2003

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
VERTICALNET INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
WARNER COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Violations Suit Transferred to NY
WESTAR ENERGY: Employees Launch Lawsuit Over Retirement Accounts

*Treaty For Worldwide Regulation of Tobacco Products Approved

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCREDO HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in TN
ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
BLUE RHINO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
FLEMING COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TX

J. JILL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Lawsuit
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in CA

                            *********

ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: CO Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Federal Judge John L. Kane granted final approval to the
settlement of the securities class action filed against Accelr8
Technology Corporation and:

     (1) Thomas V. Geimer,

     (2) Harry J. Fleury, and

     (3) James Godkin

The consolidated suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, relating to the Company's
accounting and public disclosure from October 1997 to November
1999.  

The final terms of the settlement call for the payment of
$450,000 and the issuance of 375,000 shares of Accelr8 common
stock to a settlement fund.  Monies were paid to the settlement
fund March 4, 2003.

In approving the settlement, the Court noted the difficulties
the class faced in proving any right to recovery.  David A.
Zisser of Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, attorney for
Accelr8, recommended approval of the settlement, citing the
sound business decision to terminate an open-ended litigation
expense.

Mr. Geimer characterized the final court approval as "the end of
a long battle" and noted that, "in settling the action brought
by the SEC the Company was never required to restate its
financial results."  

Mr. Geimer pointed out that the shareholders of Accelr8 still
own a company with significant assets, a viable public market
for its securities and a promising new business in the
DNA/protein microarraying arena.


ALABAMA: Supreme Court Overturns Class Certification, Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's Supreme Court ruled, in overturning the decision of
Circuit Court Judge Daniel King in Bessemer, Jefferson County,
that Judge King erred when he granted class action status to the
defendants and plaintiffs, and erred as well when he granted an
injunction, in the same case, halting video gaming operations
across the state without giving the businesses advance notice,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the video
machines, but sent the case back to Judge King "for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."  The court ruled that
Judge King should have notified Funliner of Alabama and other
video operators in the case before halting operations.

"Under the facts of this case, we have no difficulty concluding
that the trial court exceeded its discretion in issuing the
preliminary injunction in conjunction with the class
certification orders," Justice Lyn Stuart wrote for the Supreme
Court.  "An adverse party must have notice and a hearing in
order to adequately oppose a request for a preliminary
injunction."

The Supreme Court also ruled that Judge King's certification of
the case as a class action was inappropriate because the
plaintiffs were trying to recover money they lost individually
while playing the video-gaming machines owned or leased by the
various defendants.

"We note that, based on the testimony before the trial court,
there appears to be little, if any, evidence available to
establish objectively who has played the video-gaming machines
owned or leased by the defendants or when those persons might
have played the machines," Supreme Court Judge Stuart wrote.

"There also appears to be little documentation, if any, to
establish the amount of the players' claimed losses," wrote
Judge Stuart.

Judge King's order of class certification certified as
plaintiffs in the case citizens anywhere in the state who had
spent money playing any video-gaming machines owned or leased by
defendants in the case.  Judge King also certified as separate
defendant classes those who own or operate video-gaming
machines, and those who lease such machines to Alabama
businesses.

Ralph "Buddy" Armstrong, attorney for defendants, said his
clients are pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in
effect, kills the lawsuit, because it means each person wanting
to sue the arcade owners would have to file individual lawsuits.


ANNUITY & LIFE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annuity & Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. faces several securities
class actions filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Frederick S. Hammer,

     (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

     (3) John F. Burke

The complaint charges Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. and
certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial
condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout
the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued
numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and
financial performance, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
states.
  
No assurance can be given that the Company will not be required
to pay monetary damages in connection with these lawsuits.


AOL TIME: Faces Three Lawsuits For ERISA Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces three putative class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of current and former participants in the AOL
Time Warner Savings Plan, the AOL Time Warner Thrift Plan and/or
the Time Warner Cable Savings Plan.  The suits also name as
defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers and members of the Administrative Committees of the
Plans.

The lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to Plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer AOL Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that AOL Time Warner was experiencing declining advertising
revenues and that AOL Time Warner was inappropriately inflating
advertising revenues through various transactions.  The suits
also allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and request unspecified damages and unspecified
equitable relief.

The actions have been consolidated with other AOL Time Warner-
related shareholder lawsuits and derivative actions.  The
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.  
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these cases or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed Axeda System, Inc.'s officers as defendants
in the consolidated securities class action filed against them,
the Company and several investment banks that were underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Company
stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against one or both of the Company and the individual
defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.  Certain of the Company's
employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these
actions.  

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against the Individual Defendants and it.  The court later
dismissed the individual defendants from the case without
prejudice.

The Company believes that the lawsuit and claims are without
merit and that it has worthwhile defenses to the actions.  The
Company plans to vigorously defend the litigation.  However,
failure to successfully defend this action could substantially
harm its results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition.


BOEING WICHITA: Judge Grants Certification to Sex Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Wesley Brown, in Wichita, Kansas, has
issued an order certifying as a class action the lawsuit brought
by 12 women alleging sexual discrimination at Boeing, thereby
clearing the way for the suit to proceed to trial on behalf of
4,800 local female workers, the Wichita Eagle reports.  A trial
date has not been set.

The lawsuit claims that the women were denied promotions, pay
raises or other employment opportunities because of their
gender.  The lawsuit also alleges that some male co-workers
verbally harassed the women, subjecting them to crude derogatory
remarks.  The lawsuit also alleges that the Company ignored
complaints and that many of its managers and supervisors are not
effectively policed and often not disciplined.  

The lawsuit asks for an order halting the alleged discriminatory
actions.  It also seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages.  Other proposed class actions are pending in
California, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Steve Berman, managing partner with Hagens Berman, a Seattle law
firm representing plaintiffs in various state class actions
said, "We have abundant evidence that paints a very compelling
picture.  Unfortunately, it is not a very pretty picture if you
are a woman looking for equality at Boeing."


BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: To Settle TX Suit Over Wilderness Tires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone Corporation's Firestone unit, based in Nashville,
Tennessee, said it has agreed to settle a Texas class action
over its recall of Wilderness AT and ATX tires more than two
years ago, the Houston Chronicle reports.  Firestone said the
details of the settlement are still being worked out and will
not be publicly disclosed until the agreement between the
parties receives court approval.

This is the first time Firestone has agreed to settle a class
action stemming from the August 2000 recall of 6.5 million
allegedly defective tires.  Similar lawsuits are pending in many
other states.

In Texas, plans tentatively call for creation of a national
settlement class, which would effectively extend the agreement's
terms to all US consumers, according to attorney Zona Jones of
the Provost Umphrey law firm in Beaumont.

Tire owners, who got free replacement tires, will be compensated
for their inconvenience and other costs.  The settlement will
not affect hundreds of personal-injury lawsuits still pending
over rollover accidents involving tread separation.

Federal authorities, however, have linked the tires, mostly
installed on Ford Motor Co. Explorers, with 271 deaths and
hundreds of injuries.  Most of the personal-injury lawsuits have
been settled out of court.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery To End September 2003 in CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has set discovery cut-off for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Broadcom Corporation for
September 5,2003.

From March through May 2001 the Company and several of its
executives were served with a number of complaints, brought as
purported securities class actions, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suits were
later consolidated.

The suit charges the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Technical Officer and Chief Financial Officer with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, according to an
earlier Class Action Reporter story.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that
motion was granted by the court in March 2002.  

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
April 2002.  In May 2002 the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint, which motion was denied in July
2002.  The Company answered the seconded amended complaint in
September 2002.

This case is now in discovery.  The Court also set the case for
a pre-trial conference on December 5, 2003.  The Company
believes the allegations in the consolidated suit are without
merit and is defending the action vigorously.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Stock Lawsuit Stayed Over Related Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action filed against CableVision Systems
Corporation and each of its directors was stayed pending the
resolution of a related action filed by one of the plaintiffs.

The suit, filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleges breach
of fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect to the
exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
Cablevision NY Group common stock.  The suit was filed on behalf
of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.  The actions seek to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock;

     (2) enjoin any sales of “Rainbow Media Group assets,
         or, in the alternative, award rescissory damages;

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages;

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action.  
The action is currently stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of a related action brought by one of the
plaintiffs to compel the inspection of certain books and records
of the Company.  The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Chordiant Software, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of its
initial public offering (IPO) and hundreds of other companies,
individuals and IPO underwriters.

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

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

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to Chordiant's officers and directors
until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement,
our officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit
without prejudice.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against Chordiant and almost
all of the other company defendants and denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against Chordiant and many of
the company defendants.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Cornell Companies, Inc. and officers Steven W. Logan, and John
L. Hendrix, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.

The consolidated suit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5,
2002.  The suit involves disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the Company: the August2001 sale
leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The consolidated compliant seeks, among
other things, restitution damages, compensatory damages,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

The court granted Flyline Partners, LP's motion to be appointed
as lead plaintiff.  The Company believes that it has good
defenses to each of the plaintiffs' claims and intends to
vigorously defend against each of the claims.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Appeals Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc. and certain of
its present and former officers.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities, including common stock and
notes, during the period from April 19, 2000 to May 24, 2001.
The relief sought includes monetary damages and equitable
relief.  

The Company and the officer and director defendants entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with counsel for the lead
plaintiffs in this litigation that tentatively resolves the
litigation.  The MOU sets forth the terms upon which the
Company, the officer and director defendants and the plaintiffs
agree to settle the litigation.

Pursuant to the MOU, the plaintiffs agreed to support and vote
in favor of the Plan if it provided for the distribution of
$16,500 in cash to be funded by the Company's insurance carriers
and 6,495,844 shares of the Company's common stock.  The
plaintiffs voted in favor of the plan.

The settlement provided for in the MOU was subject to the
approval of the court.  The court later issued its final
judgment and dismissal order.  One class member has filed an
appeal pertaining to the final judgment, but this appeal only
relates to the allocation of the settlement proceeds between the
plaintiffs and their attorneys.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Dropped as Defendant in NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against Covad
Communications Group, Inc. dismissed the Company as defendant.  
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purported
classes of stockholders and also names as defendants certain of
the Company's officers and directors and some of the
underwriters in the Company's stock offerings.

These lawsuits are so-called IPO allocation cases, challenging
practices allegedly used by certain underwriters of public
equity offerings during the late 1990s and 2000.  On April 19,
2002 the plaintiffs amended their complaint and removed the
Company as a defendant.  Certain directors and officers are
still named in the complaint.  The plaintiffs claim that the
Company failed to disclose the arrangements that some of these
underwriters purportedly made with certain investors.  

The Company believes it has strong defenses to these lawsuits
and intends to contest them vigorously.  However, litigation is
inherently unpredictable and there is no guarantee it will
prevail.


CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Critical Path, Inc., certain of its
former officers and directors and underwriters connected with
its initial public offering of common stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased common stock
at the initial public offering of common stock between March 26,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  The complaints allege generally that
the Prospectus under which such securities were sold contained
false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and
commissions received by the underwriters.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individuals.  Defendants
stayed pretrial motions and discovery pending a ruling on a
motion to dismiss the claims.  On February 19, 2003, the court
issued an opinion refusing to dismiss claims against the
defendants in the case, except in certain limited circumstances
that did not apply to the Company or its then officers and
directors.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Securities Agreement Distributed to Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for the consolidated securities class action
filed against Cumulus Media, Inc., certain present and former
directors and officers of the Company, and certain underwriters
of the Company's stock has been distributed.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, on behalf of persons who
purchased or acquired the Company's common stock during various
time periods between October 26, 1998 and March 16, 2000.  
Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated there under, and Sections 11 and 12(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, the Company's financial
condition, given the restatement on March 16, 2000 of the
Company's results for the first three quarters of 1999.

On May 20, 2002, the court approved a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement pursuant to which plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
each claim against the Company and the other defendants in
consideration of $13 million and the issuance of 240,000 shares
of the Company's Class A Common Stock.

Upon court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement,
a measurement date was reached with respect to the Company's
Class A common stock to be issued under the settlement, and the
stock portion of the settlement liability will no longer be
adjusted each reporting period for changes in the fair value of
the Company's Class A common stock.

The Company had previously funded the $13 million cash portion
of the settlement on November 30, 2001.  Of the $13 million
funded cash portion of the settlement, $7.3 million was provided
under the Company's preexisting insurance coverage.  Of the
240,000 shares of Class A common stock to be issued under the
settlement, 60,000 shares were initially issued in June 2002,
32,849 shares were issued during the first quarter of 2003
and the remaining 147,151 shares are expected to be issued by
the end of June 2003.

On January 14, 2003, the court issued an order authorizing the
settlement agent to distribute the cash and shares to the class
members.  As a result, the cash portion of the settlement was
distributed by the settlement agent to the class members in
February 2003.


DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Digital River, Inc. and certain of the
Company's s officers and directors.

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

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

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies.  On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits
were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  
Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on
September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other
things, that the time for all defendants in the IPO Lawsuits to
respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the
court.  Thus, the Company has not been required to answer any of
the complaints, and no discovery has been served on the Company.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued a decision denying the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and
almost all of the other issuers and denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and many of
the other issuers.


DUPONT: Plaintiffs in Pollution Lawsuit Fight To Remove Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action alleging that a chemical produced
by DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West  
Virginia, has contaminated residents' water supplies, are
fighting the company's attempt to remove the judge now presiding
over the lawsuit, the Charleston Gazette reports.

DuPont's recently filed motion argues that Wood County Circuit
Court Judge George W. Hill should recuse himself because he
lives in the allegedly contaminated area and has "a potential
economic interest in the outcome of the trial."  The plaintiffs
have said that the company has known for more than a year where
Judge Hill lives, but did not raise the issue until just days
before another hearing in the case.

"Instead, DuPont sat back and experimented with Judge Hill to
see how he would rule on DuPont's arguments and, after it became
clear that Judge Hill would not tolerate DuPont's double talk on
the facts and efforts to delay this case through repeated
discovery abuses and frivolous motion practice, DuPont evidently
decided it was time to get rid of Judge Hill," plaintiff's
motion in response said.

The residents sued DuPont in August 2001, claiming the company's
Washington Works plant contaminated drinking water supplies by
releasing the chemical ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or C-8,
which is used to make Teflon and other products.  DuPont's
scientists and officials have said there are no known health
effects from the chemical, which the company has used for more
than 50 years.

On April 10, Judge Hill ruled that C-8 is toxic and hazardous to
humans and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.  Then, on April 18,
Judge Hill ordered DuPont to pay for the testing for those
residents who want to determine how much C-8 is in their bodies.

"Because this case is scheduled for trial in less than four
months, allowing DuPont to effectively stay this case at this
late date by raising such clearly frivolous and knowingly waived
disqualification claims now, would be extremely prejudicial to
plaintiffs and should not be permitted," the plaintiffs' motion
says.


HMO LITIGATION: Aetna's Pact With Doctors to Affect Other Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. recently agreed to pay $170 million to settle a class
action by over 700,000 doctors who said the company's business
practices cut payments to physicians and interfered with
appropriate patient care.  Aetna broke ranks with eight other
health insurers named in the class action, making it the first
of the defendant insurers to reach agreement with the doctors,
the Charleston Gazette reports.

The doctors said the settlement, which also creates new payment
procedures, as well as the cash payout, will pressure the other
defendants to reach similar agreements.  The accord with Aetna
also created a foundation to engage in activities to improve
health care.

In a statement, lawyers for the eight remaining health insurers
said they intend to continue the litigation with the doctors and
"defend the case vigorously."  The lawyers also said they expect
the class certification to be overturned on appeal, which would
cause the case to "lose most, if not all, of its significance."

The settlement reached between Aetna and the 700,000 doctors
still has to be approved by the US District Court in Miami,
where Judge Federico Moreno maintains jurisdiction over the
lawsuit brought against the nine health insurers.  The lawsuit
alleges that the insurers used their coercive economic power to
force doctors into unfavorable contracts, and used pay schemes
to reduce the amount of care given patients, including, among
other things, appropriate tests and referrals to specialists.

Clearly, the conflict between insurers and the physicians will
not disappear soon, the Charleston Gazette reported.  For
example, the Connecticut Medical Society recently filed a
lawsuit in US District Court in Miami, against the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association and its 41 members, accusing them of
violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).   The lawsuit charges the Blue Cross plans with short-
changing the doctors and intruding in patient care.


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Integrated Information Systems, Inc.,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and the
members of the underwriting syndicate involved in the Company's
initial public offering.  The suit generally alleges that:

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

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

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

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

In July 2002, the Company, as part of the group of issuers of
shares named in the consolidated litigation and the Individual
Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  The Underwriter Defendants filed motions to dismiss
as well.

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

On November 1, 2002, the Court heard oral arguments on the
motions to dismiss, and in February 2003, the Court dismissed
the section 10(b) claims against the Company but allowed the
plaintiffs to continue to pursue the remaining claims.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.


INTERCEPT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterCept, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of individuals who purchased the Company's
common stock between September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003.  
The suit also names as defendants:

    (1) John W. Collins,

    (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

    (3) Scott R. Meyerhoff, and

    (4) former officer Garrett M. Bender,

The plaintiff has alleged that InterCept and the individual
defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omitted to
make material disclosures throughout the class period due to
their false assurances that the adult entertainment portion of
the Company's s merchant services business was insignificant and
their failure to disclose the impact of the implementation of
new Visa regulations in November 2002. The plaintiff alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.  

  
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering.

The suit asserted, among other things, that Company's initial
public offering registration statement contained misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering to
the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the claims against the Company and its officers and
directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter
defendants).  On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint naming as defendants not only the underwriter
defendants but also the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating
to, among other allegations, the underwriters&' alleged conduct
in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering
and the disclosures contained in the Company's registration
statement.  

The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their public
offerings.  On July 15, 2002, the Company together with the
other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated
proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims
against the Company and virtually all of the other issuer
defendants under the registration provisions of the securities
law may proceed.  The court also ruled that the claims under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed
against the Company and a majority of the other issuer
defendants.

The Company along with several other issuer defendants has
notified the court that it intends to seek reconsideration of
the court's ruling as to the claims under the antifraud
provisions.  The Company and its officers and directors believe
that the allegations in the lawsuit against them are without
merit.  The litigation process is inherently uncertain and
unpredictable, however, and there can be no guarantee as to the
ultimate outcome of this pending litigation.  The Company is
currently unable to estimate any potential loss associated with
this matter.


MAINE: Fails To Follow Court Order To Improve Mental Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Maine has failed to comply with the numerous
requirements of a 12-year-old court order to improve services
for patients at the Augusta Mental Health Institute, Superior
Court Judge Nancy Mills said in her recently issued 354-page
decision, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Judge Mills said state officials not only failed to meet the
terms of the AMHI consent decree, but that they should have
acknowledged their failure.  "This is not a failure of funding.  
The evidence made clear that until the recent budgetary
problems, money for consent decree purposes was consistently
provided by the Legislature.  This is the failure of management
to get the job done," Judge Mills wrote.

State officials signed the consent decree in 1990, to settle a
class action complaining of deteriorating and dangerous
conditions at the state psychiatric hospital.  The state has
been held in contempt of court by two different judges for
missing deadlines to make improvements in the mental health
system.


MUSIC INDUSTRY: Settlement Ruling Expected In CD Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge plans to rule soon on the proposed settlement of
a music antitrust lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of 43
states, which accused major record labels and large music
retailers of conspiring to set the minimum music prices, the
Lexington Herald Leader reports.  The conspiracy was engaged in
by the music industry, according to the lawsuit, to counter the
competition from discount retailers like Target and Wal-Mart.

Judge D. Brock heard testimony recently for more than three
hours on the fairness of the agreement that calls for music
distributors and retailers to pay $143 million in cash, as well
as compact discs.  Of the total settlement, $75.7 million would
be distributed in the form of 5.6 million CDs sent to libraries
and schools throughout the nation.

The proposed cash settlement in the case totals $67.3 million.  
The actual cash distributed to consumers is expected to be
around $44 million, and would, roughly, put $12.60 in the
pockets of 3.5 million consumers.  The remaining cash will be
expended on attorney fees and distribution costs.

Attorneys representing the named defendant companies declined to
testify in court.  The named defendants are:

     (1) Sony Music Entertainment,

     (2) EMI Music Distribution,

     (3) Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation,

     (4) Universal Music Group,

     (5) Bertelsmann Music Group,

     (6) Tower Records,

     (7) Musicland Stores and

     (8) Transworld Entertainment

The payout, if approved, would resolve an antitrust lawsuit
started by prosecutors in the several states in 1996.


OMAI GOLD MINES: Labels as "Unfounded" Suit Over Cyanide Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian mining company Cambior Inc, which owns a majority in
the Omai Gold Mines Ltd., called "unfounded" a class action
asking $2 billion in damages over a massive spill of cyanide-
tainted water into the Essequibo River, the main waterway of the
South American country of Guyana, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The lawsuit, recently filed in Guyana's High Court, also alleges
that the Omai Gold Mines continue to discharge harmful waste
into the Essequibo River. However, Cambior has said that Omai
Gold monitors the water quality along the river and discharges
only treated waste that is harmless.  Cambior said in a recent
statement that it considers the class action unfounded and
frivolous and will contest it vigorously.

The company has until May 29 to file a defense in court.  If it
does not, the prosecution can then ask the court to make a
ruling, said Peter Britton, one of the lawyers who filed the
case on behalf of 23,000 people living along the Essequibo.

The lawsuit charges Omai Gold and its shareholders, including
majority share holder Cambior Inc., with negligence in allowing
a dam to collapse in 1995, which resulted in the pouring of 764
million gallons of cyanide-tainted slurry into the river.  The
lawsuit says the river is still tainted and its fish
contaminated.  The residents have no scientific evidence,
however.  The company has said it completed its cleanup and
continues to monitor waste levels in the river.

The August 1995 spill lasted five days until engineers could
bring it under control.  Huge numbers of fish and other marine
life were killed and drinking water had to be trucked in for
hundreds of villages and wildlife dependent on the river and its
tributaries.

Omai Gold produces about 70 percent of Guyana's annual average
gold production and employs more than 700 workers.


PDI INC.: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDI Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, its chief executive officer and
its chief financial officer.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The suit also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.  

The suit purports to state claims against the Company on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002.  The suit alleges that the
Company intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading
public statements and omissions concerning its financial
condition and prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin
in connection with the October 2000 distribution agreement with
GSK, its marketing of Lotensin in connection with the May 2001
distribution agreement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, as well as its marketing of Evista in connection
with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly
& Co.

The Company asked for the suit's dismissal under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Company
believes that the allegations in this purported securities class
action are without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.


PDI INC.: Enters Joint Defense Agreement For Baycol Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDI Inc. entered into a joint defense and indemnification
agreement with Bayer Pharmaceuticals over several lawsuits,
including two class actions, alleging claims arising from the
use of the prescription compound Baycol that was manufactured by
Bayer and co-marketed by the Company on Bayer's behalf under a
contract sales force agreement.  

In August 2001, Bayer announced that it was voluntarily
withdrawing Baycol from the US market.  To date, the Company has
defended these actions vigorously and has asserted a contractual
right of indemnification against Bayer for all costs and
expenses the Company incurs relating to these proceedings.  The
Company expects that additional lawsuits might be filed.

In February 2003, the Company entered into a joint defense and
indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer
has agreed to assume substantially all of the Company's defense
costs in pending and prospective proceedings, subject to certain
limited exceptions.  Further, Bayer agreed to reimburse the
Company for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred to date
in defending these proceedings.  The Company is currently in
discussions with Bayer regarding additional legal fee
reimbursements, however, no agreement has been reached and
therefore no additional amounts have been accrued to-date.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Securities Lawsuit Moves To Discovery in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against Providian
Financial Corporation is moving into discovery after the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
refused to dismiss the suit.  The suit also names as defendants
the Company and certain of its executive officers and/or
directors.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
made false and misleading statements concerning its operations
and prospects for the second and third quarters of 2001, in
violation of federal securities laws.  The suit was filed on
behalf of persons or entities who acquired Company stock between
June 6 and October 18, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company, a consumer lender, and three
of its top officers misled the investing public during the class
period because, by changing the way in which bankruptcy losses
were processed, recognition of over $30 million of charge-offs
was deferred until the second quarter of fiscal year 2001. The
way in which this change was implemented violated generally
accepted accounting principles and SEC rules and permitted
defendants to understate the Company's net charge-off rate and
perpetuate the representation of its continued earnings per
share growth.

The suit also alleges that the corporate officers sold almost
$22 million of their personal holdings during the class period,
while the Company's share price was artificially inflated.
Ultimately, on October 18, 2001, the Company was forced to admit
that it would not post any earnings per share growth. On this
news, the Company's share price fell to less than $5.00 per
share, a drop of over 90% from its class period high of $59.95
per share.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $86M Settlement in CA 401(K) Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation has reached an $8.6 million
settlement for the consolidated class actions filed against it
and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who were participants
or beneficiaries of its 401(k) Plan since July 17, 2001, allege,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by encouraging participants to invest in the Company's common
stock, and restricting sales of the common stock held under the
Plan, at a time when the common stock was an unsuitable Plan
investment.

The parties have agreed to settle this litigation on a classwide
basis for $8.6million, which will be funded by our insurance
carriers.  The settlement received preliminary approval from the
court in April 2003.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted approval to the settlement proposed by Sagent
Technology, Inc. to settle the consolidated securities class
action filed against it on behalf of purchasers of its common
stock between October 21, 1999 and April 18, 2000.

The claims allege that the Company misrepresented its prospects
for 1999 and the first quarter of 2000.  Thereafter, the court
consolidated the complaints and selected a lead plaintiff and
counsel.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, which the court granted.  However, the court gave the
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.  In December 2001, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The Company then
filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on February 15, 2002.

The hearing on the motion was held on June 3, 2002.  On June 5,
2002, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.  

The Company has moved to strike certain portions of that
complaint on the grounds that those particular allegations were
dismissed by the court from the prior complaint.  On August 26,
2002, the court sustained the Company's motion to strike certain
portions of the complaint.

The parties have settled the lawsuit.  The Company's $5.5
million contribution to the settlement was funded by its
directors' and officers' insurance carriers.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Won't Amend Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Sagent Technology, Inc. notified the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California they were
standing on the complaint without further amendment.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between May 11, 2001 and November 28, 2001.  The suit
alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company's restatement of its condensed
consolidated financial statements for the first and second
quarters of 2001, resulting from a fraud scheme perpetrated on
us by a former employee who falsely claimed to have made sales
of the Company's products to the federal government.

On September 11, 2002, the court dismissed the complaint with
leave to amend.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
their intent to stand on the complaint, without further
amendment. The court has not yet ruled on this.


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Reaches Agreement in Vacation Intervals Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. reached a mediated settlement for the
class action filed by plaintiffs who each purchased Vacation
Intervals from the Company, in Texas state court.  

The suit alleged that the Company violated the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and the Texas Timeshare Act by failing to
deliver to them complete copies of the contracts for the
purchase of the Vacation Intervals as they did not receive
a complete legal description of the Hill Country Resort as
attached to the Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants, and
Conditions of the Resort. The plaintiffs also claimed that the
Company violated various provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act with respect to the maintenance fees charged by
the Company to its Vacation Interval owners.

In November 2002, the court denied the plaintiff's request for
class certification.  In March 2003, additional plaintiffs
joined the case, and a fourth amended petition was filed against
the Company and Silverleaf Club alleging additional violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.  The class
allegations were also deleted from the amended petition.

In their fourth amended petition, the plaintiffs sought damages
in the amount of $1.5 million, plus reasonable attorneys fees
and court costs.  The plaintiffs also sought rescission of their
original purchase contracts with the Company.

The Company, Silverleaf Club, and the plaintiffs have agreed to
a mediated settlement of the claims.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company and Silverleaf Club have agreed to pay
the plaintiffs an aggregate sum of $130,000, and the plaintiffs
have agreed to convey their Vacation Intervals back to the
Company and have agreed to dismiss the action against the
Company and Silverleaf Club with prejudice.


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Working For Settlement in TX Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silverleaf Resorts faces a purported class action was filed
against the Company by a couple who purchased a Vacation
Interval from the Company in Texas state court.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the Texas
Government Code by charging a document preparation fee in regard
to instruments affecting title to real estate.  Alternatively,
the plaintiffs allege that the $275 document preparation fee
constituted a partial prepayment that should have been credited
against their note and additionally seek a declaratory judgment.  
The petition asserts Texas class action allegations and seeks
recovery of the document preparation fee and treble damages on
behalf of both the plaintiffs and the alleged class they purport
to represent, and injunctive relief preventing the Company from
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in connection with
the sale of its Vacation Intervals in Texas.

The Company has been vigorously contesting the plaintiffs'
claims and believes that it has meritorious defenses to
plaintiffs' allegations.  However, the Company is attempting to
settle the plaintiffs' claims through continuing settlement
negotiations.  If the matter cannot be settled in a manner
acceptable to the Company, the Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself against plaintiffs' claims.


STRATUS SERVICES: Named as Defendant in RSI Employee Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stratus Services Group, Inc. was named as one of several
defendants in a class action filed in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County against RSI Home Products, Inc., one
of its customers.  The suit alleges:

     (1) failure to pay hourly wages and overtime wages,

     (2) failure to provide rest periods and meal periods or
         compensation in lieu thereof,

     (3) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
         employees,

     (4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized
         employee wage statement provisions,

     (5) violation of the unfair competition law, and

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty

The Company has engaged California counsel to represent it in
such proceedings; the time to file an Answer has been extended
to June 6, 2003 for all defendants.  The amount of plaintiff's
claim against all defendants is not yet reasonably determinable
or quantifiable.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Clark County, Nevada approved the
settlement proposed by Technical Olympic USA, Inc. to settle a
class action filed in relation to its announcement in March 2001
of a proposed merger with Engle Homes, Inc.  

Another separate suit was filed in the 80th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  The suits challenged the merger
as a breach of fiduciary duty.  Two interveners filed
interventions in the Texas class action.

In March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of the class actions and interventions.  Under
the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $350,000 in the aggregate.  The settlement was subject to
a number of conditions, including the closing of the merger,
providing notice to the class, conducting confirmatory
discovery, executing a definitive settlement agreement and
obtaining final approval by the court.  The parties originally
contemplated that the settlement would be consummated in the
Texas action.

In the third quarter of 2002, the parties learned that the
anticipated Texas forum was unavailable due to a prior
dismissal.  On April 28, 2003, the court entered an Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement relating to the Nevada
action.


TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set November 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Terayon Communications Systems and certain of its officers and
directors is set for November 4, 2003 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between November 15,1999 and April 11, 2000, alleged
that the defendants had violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing
to disclose material information regarding the Company's
technology.  

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated suit.  After
defendants' motion had been fully briefed and argued, the court
issued an order granting in part defendants' motion and
giving plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  The
defendants then moved to dismiss this new complaint and oral
argument on the motion occurred on December 17, 2001.

On March 29, 2002, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The parties are now in the discovery process.  In
addition, the court has certified the plaintiffs' proposed
class.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition
to other forms of relief.  The Company considers the lawsuits to
be without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these
allegations.  However, the litigation could prove to be costly
and time consuming to defend, and there can be no assurances
about the eventual outcome.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
September 21, 2001 secondary offering of common stock in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
made false and misleading statements in the Company's prospectus
issued in connection with the secondary offering.  The suits
further alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding the Company during the class period of June
5, 2000 through January 2, 2001.

The suits were later consolidated and by court order dated
December 3, 2001, Radiant Advisors, LLC was designated as lead
plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP were
designated as co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions.  
Plaintiff filed a single amended complaint on September 13,
2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 8, 2002.  On February 7, 2003, the court issued an order
denying in part and granting in part, with leave to amend, the
Company's motion to dismiss.  On March 10, 2003, plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint against the Company, certain of its
current officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Company's September 21, 2000 secondary offering of stock
alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's secondary offering
in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering of stock as well as its
secondary offering of stock.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the initial public
offering and the secondary stock offering between January 31 and
December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleges generally that the
prospectuses under which such securities were sold contained
false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and
commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York.  On July 1, 2002,
the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.  
On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other
issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the
motions to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the
plaintiffs' claims, including those against the Company.  
Limited discovery is currently underway.


VERTICALNET INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against Verticalnet, Inc., several of its officers
and directors and four underwriters involved in the issuance and
initial public offering of the Company's common stock in
February 1999:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company LLC and

     (4) WIT Capital Corporation

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under,
based on, among other things, claims that the four underwriters
awarded material portions of the initial shares to certain
favored customers in exchange for excessive commissions.

The plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in a
practice known as "laddering," whereby the clients or customers
agreed that in exchange for IPO shares they would purchase
additional shares at progressively higher prices after the IPO.  
With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the
Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose in the
prospectus and the registration statement the existence of these
purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

This amended complaint contains additional factual allegations
concerning the events discussed in the original complaints, and
asserts that, in addition to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, the Company and our officers and directors also
violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act in connection with the IPO.

In addition to this amended and consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit and in the hundreds of other similar
suits filed against other companies in connection with IPOs that
occurred in the late 1990s have filed "master allegations" that
primarily focus on the conduct of the underwriters of the IPOs,
including the Company's IPO.

On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing,
without prejudice, the claims against the individual Verticalnet
officers and directors who had been named as defendants in the
various complaints.  In February 2003, the court entered an
order denying a motion made by the defendants to dismiss the
actions in their entirety, but granting the motion as to certain
of the claims against some defendants.  However, the court did
not dismiss any claims against the Company.

The Company has retained counsel and intends to vigorously
defend itself in connection with the allegations raised in the
amended and consolidated complaint.  In the opinion of
management, the ultimate resolutions with respect to these
actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.


WARNER COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Violations Suit Transferred to NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Warner Communications, Inc., AOL
Time Warner, Inc. and three former employees of certain
subsidiaries of AOL Time Warner has been transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York from the Central District of California.  The suit also
names as defendants:

    (1) Time Warner Entertainment, Inc.,

    (2) WEA Corporation,

    (3) WEA Manufacturing Inc.,

    (4) Warner Bros. Records,

    (5) Atlantic Recording Corporation, and

    (6) various pension plans sponsored by the companies and the
        administrative committees of those plans

Plaintiffs allege that defendants miscalculated the proper
amount of pension benefits owed to them and other class members
as required under the plans in violation of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

Due to the preliminary status of this matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this suit.


WESTAR ENERGY: Employees Launch Lawsuit Over Retirement Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Westar Energy workers have filed class actions claiming
mismanagement caused them to lose money in their retirement
accounts, the Wichita Eagle (Kansas) reports.

The class actions allege that the employees' 401(k) retirement
plans containing Westar Energy stock fell in value last fall
when the company restated earnings and disclosed it had been
subpoenaed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
over "meaningless" trades with Cleco Corporation.

About 30 Westar employees have filed lawsuits in US District
Court claiming the company's retirement plan suffered "tens of
millions of dollars in losses" because substantial assets of the
plan were imprudently invested in Westar stock.  The lawsuits
were filed against Westar Energy and:

     (1) David Wittig, former chairman, chief executive officer
         and president,

     (2) Paul Geist, former chief financial officer and
         treasurer,

     (3) Bruce Akin, current vice president for shared services,

     (4) Larry Irick, corporate secretary and general counsel         
         and

     (5) "unknown fiduciary defendants."

The lawsuits claim the company violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by issuing false and misleading statements to the
market between March 31, 2001, and December 26, 2002, the class
period.

Westar stock is among the investment alternatives available to
employees who enroll in the company's 401 (k) plan. The company
matches 50 per cent of each participant's contributions that are
six percent of the participants' salary or less.

"The stock (in Westar Energy) still has critical value and the
company still has value," said Ronald Pope said.  "We are just
critical of the way they managed the 401(k) under the previous
management."


*Treaty For Worldwide Regulation of Tobacco Products Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent landmark move, health officials from 192 nations
unanimously approved a global health treaty, the first of its
kind, that could change the face of the global tobacco industry,
the Christian Science Monitor reports.

To slow the spread of smoking, especially in the poor nations,
where smoking rates are soaring, the World Health Organization
in Geneva, voted for unprecedented and potentially deep
restrictions on tobacco products.  The treaty must still be
implemented by governments worldwide, which must pass laws
regulating everything from the size of health warnings on the
pack of cigarettes to restrictions on secondhand smoke.

In Hong Kong, the dance CDs put out by Marlboro might disappear.  
In Vietnam, umbrellas with "Salem attitude" painted across them
might be sent to the trash.  The cafes in Kiev that display the
Camel logo would have to change their names.  Implementation
could also mean that some nations will ban the use of the
terms "light" or "low tar" as misleading."

"This treaty has the potential to save literally tens of
millions of lives over the next 25 years," said Matthew Myers,
president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The treaty is called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
(FCTC).  It is controversial within the tobacco industry itself.
However, Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, has
said it is in favor of the treaty.

"What we hope and expect is that this treaty can be a catalyst
in every country that signs on for meaningful and effective
treatment of tobacco," said Mark Berlind, associate general
counsel for Altria.

On the other hand, British American Tobacco, the parent of US-
based Brown & Williamson, said in a statement that it had
"mixed" views of the treaty.  The British company likes the
strong provisions against smuggling and counterfeiting of
cigarettes.  However, it denounces the ban on advertising,
giving as its reason for disapproval that consumers will
not be able to get information on potentially safer cigarettes
under development.

The treaty has been under negotiation for the last three years.  
During much of that time, the United States was perceived as
being against a tough crackdown.  Katharine Mulvey, executive
director of In Fact, an activist nongovernmental organization,
termed the US position as "obstructionist."  However, the United
States has finally decided to back the treaty.

If President Bush signs the treaty, he will forward it on to the
US Senate for ratification. Congress would have to pass
implementing legislation.  The US successfully inserted language
that exempts nations from implementing the treaty except within
their constitutional limits.  The US Supreme Court has ruled,
for example, that certain forms of tobacco advertising are
constitutionally protected as free speech, and the US would
therefore under the language inserted in the treaty be within
the treaty if it refused to ban tobacco advertising that was
protected under the Supreme Court's decision.

The WHO treaty is vague about suing tobacco companies.  A
provision lets each country decide on the basis of their own
laws what to do about liability under its laws.

Some people doubt that the US Senate will even ratify the
treaty.  They point to the requirements like warning labels that
cover almost one-third of a cigarette pack, and a provision that
states that public health takes priority over commercial
interest.  The lobbying against the treaty will be intense in
Washington, say observers of the national scene.

"This will be one more treaty the United States does not
ratify," said Clyde Prestowitz, author of a new book, "Rogue
Nation," who is president of the Economic Strategy Institute in
Washington.  "The United States has spent a lot of effort and a
lot of time trying to open markets to tobacco."

According to WHO, the treaty is needed urgently.  "In the
absence of a strong treaty like this, the estimate is that the
number of smokers will rise to 1.6 billion smokers in 20 years,"
said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.  

Many of these will face death as a result of their smoking; WHO
estimates nearly five million smokers die from smoking-related
causes each year.  By 2020, WHO estimates that figure will grow
to 10 million without the help of the treaty to stem the rise in
smokers; 70 percent will be in the developing nations.  "This
treaty is the closest thing we have to a vaccine against
tobacco-caused death in the developing world," said Mr. Myers.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

May 31, 2003
2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Crowne Plaza Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com

June 2-3, 2003
BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 2-3, 2003
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 7, 2003
USING MEDITATION TO RESOLVE MOLD CLAIMS - AN ATTORNEYS GUIDE
BridgeportCE
Omni Los Angeles Hotel
Contact: 1-818-505-1490; www.reconferences.com

June 9, 2003
ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
ARSENIC AND CCA-TREATED WOOD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
American Law Institute
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 16-17, 2003
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

June 16-17, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 16-17, 2003
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

June 19-20, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Chicago
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 24-25, 2003  
SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Times Square, New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

June 26-27, 2003
THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC
Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006;
cservice@northstarconferences.com

July 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 31-August 1, 2003  
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

August 26-27, 2003
THE ANNUAL MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
FROM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH TRIAL
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-505-1490

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 8-9, 2003
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15-16, 2003  
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
Water Contamination Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
Fair Labor Standards Conference
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACCREDO HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Accredo Health, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ACDO) securities between
June 16, 2002 and Aril 7, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Accredo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Accredo provides specialized contract pharmacy and
related services pursuant to agreements with biotechnology drug
manufacturers relating to the treatment of patients with certain
costly, chronic diseases.

The complaint charges that during the class period, defendants
caused Accredo's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  The true facts, which were known by the defendants
but actively concealed, were:

     (1) The Company's Q4 02 to Q2 03 results were grossly
         overstated.  Prior to the Company's acquisition of the
         Specialty Pharmaceutical Services (SPS) division of
         Gentiva Health Services, the Company was reserving 12%
         of gross patient receivables as an allowance for
         doubtful accounts.  After completing due diligence of
         SPS in May/June 2002, defendants realized that if they
         revealed the truth about the consolidated receivables
         it would negatively impact the Company's receivables
         and net income;

     (2) The Company's hemophilia product line was not tracking
         with the Company's projections. This product line was
         very material to the Company as it represented 30% of
         the Company's gross revenue and was the Company's
         highest gross margin business line (35%-40% vs.
         consolidated margins of 20%); and

     (3) As a result of the above, the Company's fiscal 2003
         revenue projections of $1.45 billion and EPS
         projections of $1.33-$1.38 were grossly inflated.

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 or by
E-mail: ACDO@bernlieb.com.


ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman lodges a securities class action against certain
of its officers of Allou Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX:ALU), Mayer
Rispler & Company, Arthur Andersen LLP and KPMG LLP was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Allou
securities between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 2003.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It alleges that defendants
issued a series of material misrepresentations that caused
plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Allou
securities at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Moshe Balsam or Jack I Zwick by Mail:
The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New
York 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-
mail: info@wynyc.com  


BLUE RHINO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Blue Rhino Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO) from August 15, 2002
through February 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between August 15, 2002 and
February 5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Blue Rhino securities.  The complaint alleges that defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's operations and financial results.

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that the 10 distributors acquired on November 22, 2002,
         which included Platinum Propane LLC and Ark Holding
         Co., LLC, were not healthy, highly profitable, and
         independent of the Company as portrayed by Blue Rhino.
         In fact, on a combined basis, these distributors had
         lost $2.8 million in the first ten months of 2002 and
         owed Blue Rhino $5 million in cash advances in addition
         to their $2.8 million of debt.  Also, one of the
         acquired distributors (Platinum) was in violation of
         its debt covenants for 2001;

     (2) that the Company misrepresented that the purchase price
         of this acquisition only totaled $21 million when in
         fact the true price of the acquisition was $32 million;

     (3) that the Company was beginning to see a decline in
         earnings from the Overfill Protection Device (OPD)
         regulations;

     (4) that the Company's earnings projections were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made; and

     (5) that the false and misleading information disseminated
         by the defendants caused Blue Rhino's securities to
         trade at artificially inflated prices.

On February 5, 2003, the Company filed a current report on Form
8-K with the SEC.  Therein, the Company for the first time, and
contrary to its previous statements, disclosed that the true
acquisition price paid by the Company for the 10 distributors in
November 2002 was $32 million; that the acquired distributors
had a net loss of $2,804,000; and that the acquired distributors
were not healthy, highly profitable, and independent of the
Company.  News of the Company's 8-K filing shocked the market on
February 6, 2003.  On that day, shares of the Blue Rhino fell
$1.56 or 11% to close at $12.59, down from its previous day
close of $14.15.

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action
against Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), a subsidiary of
Credit Suisse Group (NYSE:CSR), on behalf of persons who
purchased Winstar, Inc. common stock from January 5, 2001
through April 5, 2001, inclusive in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that CSFB violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing analyst reports setting a $79 per share target price
that lacked a reasonable basis and rating Winstar a "strong buy"
without adequately disclosing the significant risks of investing
in Winstar, including that Winstar needed to raise more than $3
billion to fund its business plan and that it might not be able
to raise the necessary funds.

The complaint further alleges that CSFB touted its "independent
research" but failed to disclose that it actually used its
analyst reports to obtain lucrative fees for its investment
banking business.  The Securities Exchange Commission recently
filed a complaint against CSFB for issuing analyst reports in
2001 concerning Winstar that lacked a reasonable basis and
failed to adequately disclose the risk of investing in Winstar
and for violations of NASD and NYSE regulations.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, or Liz Hutton,
Paralegal, by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134, or by E-mail:
cases@shulaw.com.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all persons
who acquired securities of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE:FLM) in
connection with the public offering dated June 17, 2002.

In connection with the offering, Fleming issued 9.2 million
shares of common stock at $19.40 per share and $200 million in
Notes.  The Fleming Securities were sold pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectus, as amended, which
contained false and misleading statements of material fact and
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made therein not misleading.

The Registration Statement materially misstated the Company's
financial results of operation in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) by, among other things,
including financial statements that misrepresented and/or
omitted facts concerning the Company's unauthorized deductions
on invoices received from vendors, which reduced recognition of
expenses associated with the cost of goods sold and understated
accounts payable, the lengthened amortization period for long-
term assets, and lack of control over costs.

Defendants also represented that Fleming's retail operations
were profitable at a time when the Company was, in fact, losing
money on its retail business and was in the process of divesting
itself of those operations.  Defendants presented sales figures
for Fleming's retail operations such that Fleming's same store
sales appeared to be increasing when they were actually
declining.

In addition, at the time of the Offering Fleming had been
shipping undesirable and unsaleable merchandise from its
distribution operations to its failing retail outlets in order
to boost its distribution business earnings, while using its
retail operations as a dumping ground for product that under
GAAP should have been substantially written down or written off
entirely.

On July 30, 2002, less than two months after defendants sold
more than $378 million worth of the Fleming Securities to the
public, Fleming issued a release announcing that, contrary to
the prior positive statements contained in the Registration
Statement, Defendants were in fact evaluating strategic
alternatives for dealing with the Company's money-losing retail
operations.  The market's reaction to this news was swift and
severe; Fleming's stock price fell more than 30% to $10.76 per
share on August 2, 2002.

On September 5, 2002, The Wall Street Journal ran an expose of
Fleming's practices of taking excessive and unauthorized
deductions on the amounts it owed to vendors.  The article
confirmed that certain senior Fleming insiders had resisted
engaging in the improper accounting practices and that some
vendors were refusing to ship to Fleming because of disputes
with Fleming over its improper accounting practices.  Fleming's
stock price dropped 30% in response to these revelations to just
$6.51 per share on September 9, 2002, while the Fleming Notes
declined approximately 10%.  Thus, in two months, Fleming's
stock price lost approximately 65% of its value as the truth
regarding the Company's financial condition and its retail
operations became known.

Then, on January 14, 2003, Fleming further confirmed the falsity
of the Registration Statement when it announced in "a progress
report on the divestiture of its price-impact retail operations"
that it was marking down the realizable value of its retail
stores by $116 million "to adjust the carrying value of retail
assets to their estimated net realizable value."  

On January 23, 2003, Fleming announced a $190 million loss on
its discontinued retail operations (including impairment of
$115.3 million).  On April 1, 2003, Fleming filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy code.  Currently, Fleming's common stock trades below
$.25 per share, while the Fleming Notes trade at a discount of
approximately 16% of the price that they sold to the public.

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 or by
E-mail: FLM@bernlieb.com.


J. JILL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired J. Jill
Group, Inc. (NasdaqNM:JILL) securities between February 12, 2002
and December 4, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
against the Company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone:
215-886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NOR) from August 2, 2000 through
December 13, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that NorthWestern, a provider of value-added
energy and communications services, and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning NorthWestern's business condition.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented the Company's revenue and earnings by
maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivable at
NorthWestern's communications subsidiary Expanets, and by
failing to make full disclosure of problems with the
implementation of a new information technology infrastructure.

On December 13, 2002, defendants disclosed that the earnings
would be significantly less than the estimates for 2002.  
According to the press release, NorthWestern would need to
increase its reserves "by at least $50 million" and financial
results for 2002 could not be reported until a year-end audit
was completed.  On this news, the Company's stock plummeted 37%,
from the previous day's close.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, PC by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.  


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: REGN) between March 28, 2000 and
March 30, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and certain
officers of the Company.

During the class period, Regeneron initiated and completed Phase
II and Phase III clinical studies of its drug AXOKINE for the
treatment of obesity.  Defendants claimed that the Phase III
study would demonstrate that patients in the study who were
administered AXOKINE over a one year period would lose more
weight than those patients administered a placebo.  Defendants
led the public to believe that as a consequence, AXOKINE would
be more effective in treating obesity than other competing
products and would generate sales of more than $500 million
annually.

However, 73.5% of the patients taking AXOKINE developed
antibodies.  The consequence of the antibodies was to neutralize
or reduce the effectiveness of AXOKINE, thereby dramatically
reducing the number of potential patients that could possibly be
treated by AXOKINE.

On March 31, 2003, as a result of the market's awareness that
antibodies had significantly impacted the efficacy and
marketability of AXOKINE, the price of Regeneron shares dropped
immediately and closed down 56.5% from the previous day.  Over
the next few weeks Regeneron shares would settle having declined
64%, for a market capitalization loss of approximately $464
million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole,
Christopher Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Regeneron.


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Robertson Stephens, Inc. on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Redback
Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RBAK) securities between June 14, 1999
and March 8, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst
Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading public
statements, research reports and "Buy" recommendations on
Redback and praised the acquisition of Siara Systems, Inc.
(Siara) by Redback while failing to disclose that Johnson owned
Siara stock and that the acquisition would result in a
multimillion windfall for Johnson.  

The complaint also alleges that, based on defendants'
recommendations and failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts
of interest, Redback securities sold at artificially inflated
prices during the class period.  As a result, Plaintiff and the
rest of the class purchased their Redback shares at prices that
were artificially inflated and were damaged thereby.

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 or by
E-mail: RBAK@bernlieb.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  * * *