---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Thursday, August 28, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 170

                        Headlines                            

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Agreement in NY Securities Lawsuit
AOL TIME: Employees' Suit Over ERISA Violations Moved to S.D. NY
AOL TIME: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. NY
ARIZONA: Indirect Lawsuits V. Price-Fixing Manufacturers Allowed
ATRIUM COMPANIES: Reaches Settlement in Colorado Homeowners Suit

AXEDA SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BSQUARE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BSQUARE CORPORATION: Dismissed as Defendants in CSFB Stock Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit Stayed Pending Other Suit's Resolution
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in NY Court

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuits
CORVIS CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Stock Suit in NY
CRITICAL PATH: Agrees To Settle NY Consolidated Securities Suit
CUMULUS MEDIA: Wrapping Up WI Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
DIGITAL RIVER: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits For CA Energy Market Price Manipulation
DUKE ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Natural Gas Publishers Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY: To Ask For Dismissal of Stock, Derivative Lawsuits
FAIRMARKET INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle NY Securities Suit
GEVITY HR: Fairness Hearing For FL Settlement Set September 2003

GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suit in NY
IMMERSION CORPORATION: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
INFOSPACE INC.: Expects Filing of Amended Securities Suit in WA
INTERCEPT INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ITXC CORPORATION: Reaches Pact To Settle Securities Fraud Suit

JAPAN: Legal Specialists To Sue Over High Consumer Loan Interest
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Securities Suits in E.D. TN
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
MACATAWA BANK: Customers File Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuit in MI

MINNESOTA: Jewish Leader Hired To Settle Anti-Semitism Lawsuit
NEUBERGER BERMAN: Shareholders Sue Over Ruby Acquisition Merger
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: CA Court Grants Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: NY Court Dismiss in Part Consumer Lawsuit
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle CA Labor Violations Suit

REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit For Arbitration
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Issues Favorable Judgment in Lawsuit
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set November 2003
THEGLOBE.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

VERTICALNET INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuits
VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
VITRIA INC.: Dismissed As Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit
WEBMETHODS INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Securities Suit
                        
                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges NY Stock Suit
READ-RITE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files CA Stock Lawsuit

                          *********

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Agreement in NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, and
certain of its current or former officers and directors and
several of the underwriters involved in the Company's initial
public offering (IPO).

The suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
ACLARA common stock from the time of the Company's IPO (March
20, 2000) through December 6, 2000, alleges that the
underwriters in the ACLARA IPO solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased ACLARA stock
in the IPO and the after-market.

The complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants violated
the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements.

More than 300 issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000 have
been named in similar lawsuits.  In July 2002, an omnibus motion
to dismiss all complaints against issuers and individual
defendants affiliated with issuers (including ACLARA defendants)
was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these
similar actions.

On February 19, 2003, the court in this action issued its
decision on defendant's omnibus motion to dismiss.  This
decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA but
denied the motion to dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and
virtually all of the other defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
actions announced a proposed settlement with the Company and the
other issuer defendants.  The proposed settlement, which has
been approved by the Company's board of directors, provides that
the insurers of all settling issuers will guarantee that the
plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling defendants,
including the investment banks who acted as underwriters in
those offerings.

It is possible that the parties may not reach agreement on the
final settlement documents or that the court may not approve the
settlement in whole or part.  If a final settlement is not
reached or is not approved by the court, ACLARA believes it has
meritorious defenses against the suit.


AOL TIME: Employees' Suit Over ERISA Violations Moved to S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against AOL Time Warner, Inc. and other
Warner entities has been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Time Warner Entertainment (TWE),

     (2) WEA Corporation,

     (3) WEA Manufacturing Inc.,

     (4) Warner Bros. Records,

     (5) Atlantic Recording Corporation,

     (6) various pension plans sponsored by the companies and

     (7) the administrative committees of those plans

On April 8, 2002, three of the Company's former employees of
certain subsidiaries filed the suit in the US District Court for
the Central District of California.  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 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).


AOL TIME: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action 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.  

Several suits were filed, naming as defendants AOL Time Warner,
certain current and former directors and officers of AOL Time
Warner and members of the Administrative Committees of the
Plans.  The lawsuits allege violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  

Specifically, the suits alleged AOL Time Warner 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 the Company was experiencing
declining advertising revenues.  The suit further alleges that
the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising revenues
through various transactions.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages and unspecified equitable relief.

The ERISA actions have been consolidated with other AOL Time
Warner-related shareholder lawsuits and derivative actions under
the caption In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and "ERISA"
Litigation in the Southern District of New York.

On July 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming additional defendants, including America
Online, Inc., certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of AOL Time Warner, certain current and former members
of the Administrative and Investment Committees of the Plans and
Fidelity Management Trust Company.


ARIZONA: Indirect Lawsuits V. Price-Fixing Manufacturers Allowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that state law lets
people who buy products through middlemen file price-fixing
lawsuits directly against the manufacturers, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The state high court said in two cases that its interpretation
of the Arizona Antitrust Act, enacted in 1974, was not bound to
follow a 1977 US Supreme Court ruling that a near-identical
federal law did not permit indirect price-fixing lawsuits.

The tobacco companies and glass manufacturers who were the
defendants in the two Arizona cases, had argued that the class
actions were barred because Arizona was required by its own law
to follow the federal approach against indirect price-fixing
suits.

The Arizona Supreme Court said, however, that it did not read
Arizona law that way and that there were sound policy reasons to
allow the suits to go forward.  The Supreme Court cited the
state's constitutional policy decision to protect consumers by
prohibiting monopolies, price-fixing and other barriers to fair
competition.

Justice Rebecca White Berch wrote the decision, giving an
example of how an indirect lawsuit might be a consumer's only
remedy.  Auto dealers who depend on manufacturers to supply them
with popular models are not likely to sour that relationship by
suing over a price increase that it can pass on to purchasers,
leaving the purchasers the only likely party to challenge
antitrust violations, Justice Berch wrote.

Though the US Supreme Court's 1977 ruling said it would be
difficult to measure accurately damages owed to thousands of
customers in nationwide indirect antitrust cases, the state
Supreme Court said it had confidence that Arizona courts could
work it out.

"We choose to follow the command of our constitution and afford
greater protection to Arizona citizens by allowing them to prove
their cases under Arizona law to Arizona courts," Justice Berch
wrote.

The 4 to 1 decision upheld rulings by state Court of Appeals
panels in Phoenix and Tucson.  The Courts of Appeals had
overturned trial judges who had dismissed lawsuits filed in
Maricopa County against the glass companies and in Pima County
against the tobacco companies.

In each case, a trial judge had ruled that the plaintiffs could
not sue the manufacturers directly because the plaintiffs had
bought the products through retailers or wholesalers, not the
manufacturers.

Supreme Court Vice Chief Ruth V. McGregor dissented, saying that
the Legislature had signaled in the state antitrust law that it
wanted Arizona courts to follow interpretations of the federal
statute for the sake of uniformity.  However, the majority
rejected that argument, contending there was no uniformity
between the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling and rulings by other
state courts.


ATRIUM COMPANIES: Reaches Settlement in Colorado Homeowners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atrium Companies, Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed
against it, its subsidiary Atrium Door and Window Company of the
Rockies, formerly known as Champagne Industries, Inc. and three
other home builder and home product manufacturer defendants in
state District Court in Boulder, Colorado.

63 homeowners filed the suit, claiming to represent a purported
class of approximately 4,500 homeowners.  The suit alleges
manufacturing and design defects associated with its Imperial
window, a half-jamb wood window manufactured by Champagne and
installed in plaintiffs' homes between 1987 and 1997.  The
claims asserted against the Company, which purchased Champagne
in 1999, are based on alter ego and successor liability
theories.

On June 26, 2003, the Colorado state court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement agreement between the named plaintiffs,
the Company and Champagne to resolve all claims in the class
action lawsuit.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement
agreement, which is subject to final approval of the Colorado
state court, Champagne's insurance carriers will pay $18.475
million into a settlement fund that will be used to compensate
the approximately 4,500 class members, either through a one-time
liquidated payment or through a payment that would be used by
class members for the repair and replacement of windows.

In addition, Champagne will offer to sell a fixed number of
replacement windows to the class members at a reduced price from
Champagne's retail list price, which reduced price shall in no
event be below Champagne's manufacturing cost.  Neither the
Company nor Champagne will pay any cash to the class members
under the proposed settlement agreement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, all class
members will release the Company and Champagne from any
liability arising from any claims asserted or that could have
been asserted by the plaintiffs in this litigation, including
any claims associated with the Imperial window.  In addition, as
part of the proposed settlement, co-defendant Ryland Homes has
agreed to withdraw with prejudice its cross-claim against
Champagne.  The hearing for final approval of the settlement
agreement is scheduled for September 9, 2003.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. agreed to settle a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against it, certain of its officers and
directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters
of its 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 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.  On October 9, 2002,
the court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice.

A proposal was made in July 2003, for the settlement and release
of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  The
Company believes the terms of the settlement will not have a
material impact on its results of operations, liquidity, and
financial condition.


BSQUARE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
BSquare Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, certain of its current
and former officers and directors and the underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from October 19, 1999 to December 6,
2000, alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock 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.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the individual defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed the individual defendants from the case without
prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the individual defendants.  On February 19, 2003,
the court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company and the plaintiff class.  It is anticipated
that any of the Company's potential financial obligation to
plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the MOU and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance.

The MOU and related agreements are subject to a number of
contingencies, including the approval of the MOU by a sufficient
number of the other approximately 300 companies who are part of
the consolidated case against the Company, the negotiation of a
settlement agreement, and approval by the Court.


BSQUARE CORPORATION: Dismissed as Defendants in CSFB Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BSquare Corporation was dismissed as defendant in the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation.  The suit also names the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer and a former Chief
Financial Officer.

CSFB is the lead underwriter involved in the Company's initial
public offering.  The action sought damages in an unspecified
amount.  However, plaintiffs failed to serve the Company within
120 days of the filing of the initial complaint as required by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On July 16, 2003, the court entered an order designating the
Company as a terminated party.  Accordingly, the complaint
against the Company has been dismissed without prejudice.

     
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Suit Stayed Pending Other Suit's Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation in Delaware Chancery Court has been stayed 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 suit names as defendants the Company and each of its
directors, and 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

On October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.  The Company believes the claims are
without merit.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation faces a class action filed in
New York Supreme Court by the Teachers Retirement System of
Louisiana.  The suit also names as defendants directors and
officers of the Company and certain current and former officers
and employees of the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and
American Movie Classics.

The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  

The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint also alleges breaches of
contract and unjust enrichment by the Company.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates International Inc. will issue nearly six
million new shares as part of a settlement of three class
actions related to its accounting practices, which remain under
federal investigation, according to a report by Associated Press
Newswires.

Under the terms of the settlement, Computer Associates said it
would issue up to 5.7 million shares of common stock to
shareholders in three class actions.  Plaintiffs' attorney fees
will be covered by the stock issuance.

Melvyn Weiss, of the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, an attorney whose law firm is co-lead counsel in one
of the consolidated lawsuits, said the case appeared to be
protracted.  "We felt that getting stock today, if the company
has a good future, had a better upside for our clients than
waiting three, four or five years to resolve this case," Mr.
Weiss told The Wall Street Journal.

The lawsuits pertain to how the Long Island, N.Y.-based company,
which makes software for corporate mainframe computers,
recognized revenue and awarded executive compensation and how
these matters were handled by its accounting practices.  
Government inquiries by the Department of Justice and Securities
and Exchange Commission are continuing.

In addition to the stock payment, Computer Associates agreed to
maintain for at least three years several corporate-governance
changes it had made, including limiting the number of inside
directors to three.  Computer Associates had been the target of
separate shareholder complaints that its board was beholden to
management.


CORVIS CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corvis Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the Company's IPO on
behalf of all persons who purchased Company stock between July
28, 2000 and the filing of the complaint.

The suit names as defendants the Company, its directors and
officers who signed the registration statement in connection
with the Company's IPO, and certain of the underwriters that
participated in the Company's IPO.  The Company's directors
and officers have since been dismissed from the case, without
prejudice.

The complaints allege that the registration statement and
prospectus relating to the Company's IPO contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions in that those documents did
not disclose:

     (1) that certain of the underwriters had solicited and
         received undisclosed fees and commissions and other
         economic benefits from some investors in connection
         with the distribution of the Company's common stock in
         the IPO and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters had entered into
         arrangements with some investors that were designed to
         distort and/or inflate the market price for the
         Company's common stock in the aftermarket following the
         IPO.

The complaints ask the court to award to members of the class
the right to rescind their purchases of Corvis common stock (or
to be awarded rescissory damages if the class member has sold
its Corvis stock) and prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' and experts witness' fees and other costs.

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an
executive committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate
their claims and function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have
been appointed in almost all of the IPO allocation actions
including the Corvis action.

On October 17, 2001, a group of underwriter defendants moved for
the judge's recusal.  The judge denied that application.  On
December 13, 2001, the moving underwriter defendants filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking the disqualification of
the judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On April 1, 2002, the Second Circuit denied the moving
underwriter defendants' application for a writ of mandamus
seeking the judge's recusal from this action.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the IPO allocation actions, including the Corvis action.  On
February 19, 2003, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted with regard to certain claims and denied with regard to
certain other claims.

As to the Company, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims,
alleging that the Company participated in a scheme to defraud
investors by artificially driving up the price of the
securities, were dismissed with prejudice, but the Section 11
claims, alleging that the registration statement contained a
material misstatement of, or omitted, a material fact at the
time it became effective, survived the motion to dismiss.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs' executive committee announced
a proposed settlement between plaintiffs, on the one hand, and
the issuer defendants and their respective officer and director
defendants, including the Company and its named officers and
directors, on the other.  A memorandum of understanding to
settle plaintiffs' claims against the issuers and their
directors and officers has been approved as to form by counsel
for the issuers and the process of obtaining individual approval
by each of the 309 issuer defendants, including the Company, is
now underway.

The proposed settlement does not resolve plaintiffs' claims
against the underwriter defendants.  The proposed settlement is
also subject to approval by the district court.  The principal
components of the proposed settlement include:

     (i) a release of all of plaintiffs' claims against the
         issuer defendants and their officers and directors
         which have, or could have, been asserted in this
         litigation arising out of the conduct alleged in the
         amended complaints to be wrongful;

    (ii) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain potential claims against the underwriter
         defendants and the agreement by the issuers not to
         assert certain claims against the underwriter
         defendants; and

   (iii) an undertaking by the insurers of the issuer defendants
         to pay to plaintiffs the difference (the Recovery
         Deficit) between $1 billion and any lesser amount
         recovered from the underwriter defendants in this
         litigation.

If recoveries in excess of $1 billion are obtained by plaintiffs
from the underwriters, the insurers of the settling issuer
defendants will owe no money to the plaintiffs.  The Company
cannot be certain that we will not be subject to additional
claims in the future, including claims brought by the
underwriter defendants still involved in the litigation.


CRITICAL PATH: Agrees To Settle NY Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Path, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its former officers and directors and
underwriters connected with its initial public offering of
common stock.

The purported class action complaints were filed by individuals
who allege that they purchased common stock at the initial and
secondary public offerings between March 29, 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 excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations
of "laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over
1,000 complaints have been consolidated into a single action.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to resolve the cases.  The proposed settlement
involves no monetary payment by the Company and no admission of
liability.  However, it is subject to approval by the Court.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Wrapping Up WI Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media, Inc. expects to finish settlement payments for
the consolidated securities suit filed against it, certain
present and former directors and officers of the Company, and
certain underwriters of the Company's stock in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, by
September 2003.

The suit, filed 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, alleged, among other
things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 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 $13.0 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 $13.0 million cash portion
of the settlement on November 30, 2001.  Of the $13.0 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,
90,581 shares were issued during the first and second quarter of
2003 and the remaining 89,419 shares are expected to be issued
by the end of September 2003.

On January 14, 2003, the court issued an order authorizing the
settlement agent to distribute the cash and shares to the class
members.  The class members received their settlement portions
in February 2003.


DIGITAL RIVER: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital River, Inc. forged a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and
certain of the Company'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, or 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, referred to here as the IPO Lawsuits, 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.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated IPO
Lawsuits currently pending against the Company and over 300
other issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000, announced a
proposed settlement with the Company and the other issuer
defendants.  The proposed settlement provides that the insurers
of all settling issuers will guarantee that the plaintiffs
recover $1 billion from non-settling defendants, including the
investment banks who acted as underwriters in those offerings.

The Company believes that it has sufficient insurance coverage
to cover the maximum amount that it may be responsible for under
the proposed settlement.  


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits For CA Energy Market Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC faces several class
actions, charging it and other energy companies with
manipulating California's energy markets.

On April 28, 2003, five individuals from three states filed a
class action lawsuit against Duke Energy and numerous other
energy companies in Superior Court of the State of California,
San Diego, County, on behalf of purchasers of electric and/or
natural gas energy residing in the states of Oregon, Washington,
Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana.  On June
30, 2003, the Attorney General of the State of Montana, for the
state and its citizens, and a rural electric cooperative filed
suit in the First Judicial District of Montana, County of Lewis
and Clark, against numerous energy companies including the
Company.

Plaintiffs claim that wholesale and retail pricing throughout
the "West Coast Energy Market" is dominated by trading and
pricing in California and allege that defendants, acting
unilaterally and in concert with other energy companies, engaged
in manipulation of the supply of energy into the California
markets, resulting in artificially high electricity prices.  

Plaintiffs, also alleging that defendants' actions were in
violation of California's antitrust and unfair business
practices laws, seek actual and treble damages, restitution of
funds acquired by unfair or unlawful means, an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the alleged unlawful
activity and other appropriate relief.  


DUKE ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Natural Gas Publishers Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court in Los Angeles granted the motion to
dismiss the class action filed by the Lieutenant Governor of the
State of California against the publisher of natural gas trade
publications and numerous other defendants, including seven Duke
Capital Corporation entities.  The suit was filed on behalf of
the general public and taxpayers of California.

The suit alleges that the defendants engaged in various unlawful
acts, including artificially inflating the index prices of
natural gas reported in industry publications through collusive
behavior, and have thereby violated state business practices
laws.  The plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting the defendants
from engaging in the acts complained of, restitution,
disgorgement of profits acquired through defendants' alleged
unlawful acts, an award of civil fines, compensatory and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts and other appropriate
relief.

On July 8, 2003, the court issued an opinion granting the
motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint on filed rate and
preemption grounds.  In so ruling, the court granted leave to
the plaintiffs to amend the complaint with certain restrictions
so as not to contravene the intent of the ruling.   


DUKE ENERGY: To Ask For Dismissal of Stock, Derivative Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, LLC intends to ask for the
dismissal of several securities class actions and shareholder
derivative lawsuits filed over its alleged "round trip trades."

Since April 2002, 17 shareholder class actions were filed
against the Company - 13 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and four in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  The
13 lawsuits pending in New York were consolidated into one
action and included as co-defendants Duke Energy executives and
two investment banking firms.

In December 2002, the New York court granted in all respects the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs's claims.  The four
lawsuits pending in North Carolina name as co-defendants Duke
Energy executives.  Two of the four North Carolina suits were
consolidated.  This consolidated case involved claims under the
Employee Retirement Income and Security Act relating to Duke
Energy's Retirement Savings Plan.  This consolidated action
named Duke Energy board members as co-defendants.

In late June 2003, the federal court in North Carolina dismissed
with prejudice the consolidated ERISA-based action.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.  All but two of the
original 17 shareholder suits now have been dismissed.

In addition, Duke Energy has received three shareholder
derivative notices demanding that it commence litigation against
named executives and directors of Duke Energy for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties and insider trading.  Duke Energy's
response to the derivative demands is not required until 90 days
after receipt of written notice requesting a response.  

The suits arise out of allegations that Duke Energy improperly
engaged in "round trip" trades resulting in an alleged
overstatement of revenues over a three-year period.  The
plaintiffs seek recovery of an unstated amount of compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs for alleged violations of
securities laws.


FAIRMARKET INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairmarket, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Scott Randall (former President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board),

     (2) John Belchers (former Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons who purchased the common stock of FairMarket between
March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges that
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees and
commissions in connection with that offering.

The suit further alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On October 8, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the
claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall
and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or
the Company.  On February 19, 2003, the court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  As a result, the only claims that remain against the
Company are those arising under Section11 of the Securities Act
of 1934.  

The Company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation.  The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the Company and its present and former
directors and officers.  

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of significant
conditions and contingencies, including the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement, final approval of the
settlement by the Company's directors & officers liability
insurance carriers, the plaintiff class, and the approval of the
settlement by the court.


GEVITY HR: Fairness Hearing For FL Settlement Set September 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Twelfth Judicial Division, Manatee County, Florida court
will hear arguments for and against the settlement proposed by
Gevity HR for the class action filed against it and certain of
its directors on September 26,2003.

The suit alleges that the directors and senior officers of the
Company breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing
to pursue a proposal from Paribas Principal Partners to acquire
the Company in order to entrench themselves in the management of
the Company.

At a hearing on June 5, 2003, the court gave preliminary
approval to the proposed settlement of the suit.  The court
authorized distribution of information pertaining to settlement
terms to class members and has set September 26, 2003 to hold a
fairness hearing on final approval of the settlement.

The terms of the proposed settlement include no admission of
liability or wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the
individual defendants, and call for payment in the total amount
of $1.8 million to the class members not requesting exclusion,
inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, which will be paid out
of insurance proceeds, therefore resulting in no financial
impact on the Company.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRIC Communications, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company,
certain of the Company's officers and the underwriters of the
Company's December 14,1999 initial public offering (IPO):

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corporation,

     (2) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (3) DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and

     (4) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.

The suit makes claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  Citing several
press articles, the consolidated suit alleges that the
underwriter defendants used improper methods in allocating
shares in initial public offerings, and claim the underwriter
defendants entered into improper commission agreements regarding
aftermarket trading in the Company's common stock purportedly
issued pursuant to the registration statement for the initial
public offering.  

The consolidated complaint also alleges market manipulation
claims against the underwriter defendants based on the
activities of their respective analysts, who were allegedly
compromised by conflicts of interest.  The plaintiffs in the
consolidated complaint seek damages as measured under Section 11
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
witnesses' fees and other costs; no specific amount is claimed
in the plaintiffs' prayer in the consolidated complaint.  By
Order of the court, no responsive pleading is yet due, although
motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of the issuers
have been filed.

In October 2002, certain of the Company's officers and directors
who had been named as defendants were dismissed without
prejudice upon order of the presiding judge.  In February 2003,
the presiding judge dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against
the Company and its named officers and directors with prejudice.  

For several months, the Company has participated in settlement
negotiations with a committee of Issuers' litigation counsel,
plaintiffs' executive committee and representatives of various
insurance companies.  The Company's Insurers were actively
involved in the settlement negotiations, and strongly supported
a settlement proposal presented to the Company for consideration
in early June 2003.  The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs
would be paid for by the Insurers and would dispose of all
remaining claims against the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company has decided to approve
the settlement proposal in July 2003.  Although the Company
believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it has
decided to accept the settlement proposal (which does not admit
wrongdoing) to avoid the cost and distraction of continued
litigation.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, three of
its current or former officers or directors and certain
underwriters of the Company's November 12, 1999 initial public
offering (IPO).  

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
from the date of the IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that:

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

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

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The motion was denied as to claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving the Company, as
well as in all other cases (except for 10 cases).  The motion
was denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to the
Company, on the basis that the complaint alleged that the
Company had made acquisition(s) following the IPO.  The motion
was granted as to the claim under Section 10(b), but denied as
to the claim under Section 20(a), as to the remaining individual
defendant.

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

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


INFOSPACE INC.: Expects Filing of Amended Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
InfoSpace, Inc. expects plaintiffs to file an amended securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against it, its former chief executive
officer, its former chief financial officer, Merrill Lynch &
Co., and one of its analysts..

The complaint alleges that the Company and its former chief
executive officer made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects during the period between
January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and does not specify
the amount of damages sought.  

On October 11, 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the case to the Southern
District of New York for pre-trial proceedings to be
consolidated with the other various claims pending against
Merrill Lynch.  On March 25, 2003, the court granted the
Company's motion to sever and transfer the case back to the
Western District of Washington.  


INTERCEPT INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and three of its officers asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against them on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
September 16,2002 and January 9,2003.  The officers named in the
suit are John W. Collins, G. Lynn Boggs, Scott R. Meyerhoff and
its former officer, Garrett M. Bender.

The plaintiff alleged that the Company 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 merchant services business was insignificant
and their failure to disclose the impact of the implementation
of new Visa regulations in November 2002.

The plaintiff alleged 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.

On August 7, 2003, InterCept, Mr. Collins, Mr. Boggs and Mr.
Meyerhoff filed motions to dismiss all of the actions, and on
August 12, 2003, they filed answers to each of the complaints
denying liability and stating affirmative defenses.  The Company
believes the claims are without merit and will continue to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.


ITXC CORPORATION: Reaches Pact To Settle Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITXC Corporation agreed to settle a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against it and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges, among other things, that, in connection with
the Company's public offerings of securities, its Prospectus did
not disclose certain alleged practices involving its
underwriters and their customers.  These actions seek
compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses
associated with the litigation.  No discovery has taken place.

The Company is one of hundreds of companies named in
substantially identical lawsuits.  Management believes that ITXC
and its officers/directors did not engage in any improper or
illegal conduct.  All of these cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Scheindlin in the Southern
District of New York, who refused to dismiss the cases in an
opinion issued in February 2003.

All of the individual defendants who had been named as
defendants in the Company's case have now been dismissed from
the proceeding without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation with
the plaintiffs.  Neither the individual defendants nor the
Company nor its insurers paid any consideration for these
dismissals.

The parties have negotiated a settlement entirely funded by the
directors and officers insurance carriers, and it is anticipated
that this proposed settlement (the terms of which are still
confidential) will be approved within the next few weeks and go
to the court for approval.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will neither have
future liability nor expenses in connection with the litigation,
except for a limited obligation to cooperate in discovery in the
plaintiffs' continuing cases against the underwriters.


JAPAN: Legal Specialists To Sue Over High Consumer Loan Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asahi Shimbun, a national group of legal specialists, is
preparing class actions against consumer loan companies for
charging illegally high interest rates, the Asahi Evening News
reports.

Representing the plaintiff borrowers victimized by the companies
is a group of younger shiho shoshi, or legal scriveners.  They
say the suits are designed to mark changes in the law that will
allow them, for the first time, to represent clients in civil
lawsuits in summary court.  Until the legal change in April,
shiho shoshi specialized in registering real estate transaction
and new companies, as well as in drafting legal documents for
presentation in court.

Members of the Asahi Shimbun said the class action is a way to
publicize their existence as legal specialists able to handle
cases most consumers would normally have to abandon.  The shiho
shoshi group plans to file the lawsuits on September 29 in at
least 10 district and summary courts, including Kobe, Kyoto,
Shizuoka, Nagano and Fukuoka.  The group, which is seeking a
combined compensation of at least 500 million yen, will target
consumer loan companies that impose illegal interest rates.

Under the interest limit law, the maximum rate of interest is
between 15 and 20 percent, depending on the amount of the loan.  
However, consumer lending companies flout the law with impunity
because it does not provide for penalties for excessive interest
rates.  Most consumer lending companies set maximum interest
rates close to 29.2 percent, the level at which criminal
penalties can be imposed under a different statute, the capital
contributions law.

The lawsuits will attempt to retrieve for plaintiffs the
interest they paid in excess of that prescribed by the interest
limit law.  Because the amounts involved are normally quite
small, most consumers cannot find a lawyer willing to take their
case.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote Systems, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO).

The suit, filed on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
securities between September 24, 1999 and August 19, 2001,
alleges that the underwriters in the Company's IPO, allocated
shares in those initial public offerings in unfair or unlawful
ways, such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy in the
aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in the Company
with higher than normal commissions.  The complaint also alleges
that the Company had a duty to disclose the activities of the
underwriters in the registration statement relating to its
initial public offering.  

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action with
cases brought against over three hundred other issuers and their
underwriters that make similar allegations regarding the initial
public offerings of those issuers.  

The plaintiffs' counsel and the individual named defendants'
counsel have reached an agreement whereby the individual named
defendants have been dismissed from the case, without any
payments by the Company.  The Company has accepted a settlement
proposed by the plaintiffs and its Directors and Officers
insurance carriers, which will not require any payments by the
Company.  The final settlement is currently awaiting approval
from the court.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Securities Suits in E.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee against it, its directors, former
directors, executive officers and former executive officers.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company, through some of its executive officers, former
executive officers, directors and former directors, made false
or misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
financial condition and results of operations during periods
beginning March 31, 1999 and continuing until March 11, 2003.

Additionally, seven purported shareholder derivative complaints
have been filed in federal and state courts in Tennessee
alleging a breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, by some
of the Company's officers and directors.  The allegations in
these lawsuits are similar to those in the federal class action
litigation.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved
in the Company's initial public offering.

The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that
the 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 under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants.  

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

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed settlement
provides that the class members in the class action cases
brought against the participating issuer defendants will be
guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, the Company and any
other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign
to the class members certain claims that they may have against
the underwriters of their IPOs.  

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
Court final settlement documents, and final approval by the
Court.  If the proposed settlement described above is not
consummated, the Company intends to continue to fight the
litigation.  Moreover, if the proposed settlement is not
consummated, the Company believes that the underwriters may have
an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees and
other costs of defending this suit.


MACATAWA BANK: Customers File Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macatawa Bank Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Western
Michigan.  The suit, filed by Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S.
Vail, also names LaSalle Bank Corporation as defendant.

The purported class includes investors who invested in limited
liability companies formed by Trade Partners.  The Company acted
as escrow agent with respect to certain of these limited
liability companies.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company
breached the escrow agreements, breached its fiduciary duties
and acted negligently or grossly negligently with respect to the
plaintiff's investments.  The complaint seeks certification of
the action as a class action, unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company has answered the complaint denying the material
allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend the case.


MINNESOTA: Jewish Leader Hired To Settle Anti-Semitism Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Cloud State University has hired Rabbi Joseph Edelheit to
lead the new Jewish studies and other outreach programs at the
school, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

A Jewish Studies program and an Office of Jewish Communal
Activities and Resources were mandated under settlement of a
federal class action charging the university with anti-Semitism.

Rabbi Edelheit, 56, of Hopkins, served at the Temple Israel in
Minneapolis, from 1992 to 2001.  He has spent the past two years
as an adjunct instructor at the University of Minnesota and as a
consultant.  He will teach, develop curriculum and direct an
office focused on community outreach.  The Jewish Studies
program will teach students about Jewish religious philosophy
and ethnic identity.  The office will focus on community
education and programming.

The settlement requires the university to spend $625,000 during
the next five years to build the program.


NEUBERGER BERMAN: Shareholders Sue Over Ruby Acquisition Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neuberger Berman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County over its
proposed merger with Ruby Acquisition Company, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) John A. Elliot,

     (2) Joyce F. Brown,

     (3) Nathan Gantcher,

     (4) David W. Glenn,

     (5) Kevin Handwerker,

     (6) Jeffrey B. Lane,

     (7) Arthur Levitt, Jr.,

     (8) Jon C. Maddura (sic),

     (9) Robert Matza,

    (10) Jack H. Nusbaum,

    (11) Marvin C. Schwartz,

    (12) Lawrence Zicklin and

    (13) Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of its public stockholders in
connection with the contemplated merger.  The complaint alleges
that the Company's individual defendant board members breached
their fiduciary duty by allegedly failing to make all efforts to
maximize the value of the Company's common stock.

The complaint further claims that defendant Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The complaint also alleges that our discussions with
Lehman Brothers, allegedly without inviting other interested
parties to make acquisition offers, will harm the interests of
plaintiff and the Company's public stockholders by allowing
Lehman Brothers to avoid a competitive sale process for its
businesses.  

The plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the merger as well as certain damages, including
rescissory damages, in connection therewith.  The complaint was
brought prior to public announcement of the merger agreement or
any of its material terms.  


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: CA Court Grants Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval for the settlement proposed by
Providian Financial Corporation for the consolidated class
actions filed against it on behalf of all persons who were
participants or beneficiaries of the plan since July 17, 2001.

These consolidated actions, which alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, have
been settled on a class-wide basis for $8.6million, which will
be funded by the Company's insurance carriers.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: NY Court Dismiss in Part Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part Providian Financial Corporation's
motion to dismiss the consumer class action filed against it,
Visa, MasterCard and a number of other credit card issuing
banks.

The suit alleges that uniform foreign currency surcharges
allegedly imposed by the defendants are the result of a
conspiracy in restraint of trade and violate the federal
antitrust laws, and that the defendant banks failed to
separately identify these surcharges to their customers on their
monthly statements in violation of the federal Truth-in-Lending
Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss the suit March 2002.  In July
2003 the court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claim for actual damages under the Truth-in-Lending Act, and
denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' antitrust claims.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle CA Labor Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation reached a preliminary agreement
to settle the class action filed in California State Court
against it and Providian Bancorp Services, alleging that the
Company's Paid Time Off (PTO) plan violates California Labor
Code section 227.3 because the Company caps the payout of PTO
benefits for terminated employees at 40 hours.

Following removal of the case to federal court and the
subsequent remand to state court, the parties have reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the case, subject to
documentation and approval by the court.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit For Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Court granted RealNetworks, Inc.'s motion to
stay the consumer class action filed against the Company pending
arbitration.

William Cirignani filed the suit in March 2003, alleging causes
of action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff alleges that consumers who
attempted to download or purchase certain of the Company's
products and services were fraudulently and deceptively enrolled
in, and prevented from canceling, the Company's subscription
services.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable
relief in the form of an order prohibiting the alleged false and
deceptive practices, treble damages and other relief.

On June 2, 2003, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending arbitration, based on the provisions in the Company's
End User License Agreements with consumers for the relevant
products and services, which provide for disputes to be resolved
through arbitration.  The court later granted the Company's
motion.

Although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this
lawsuit, the Company believes that the allegations in this
action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.  The Company believes the ultimate outcome
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sagent Technology, Inc. settled the securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 21, 1999 and April 18, 2000.

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.  On April 28, 2003,
the court approved the settlement and issued a final judgment
and order of dismissal with prejudice as to all parties.   


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Issues Favorable Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a judgment in favor of Sagent Technology, Inc.
and certain of its officers in the securities class action filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between May 11,
2001 and November 28, 2001.

The complaints alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with its restatement of its condensed
consolidated financial statements for the first and second
quarters of 2001, resulting from a fraud scheme perpetrated on
the Company by a former employee who falsely claimed to have
made sales of our products to the federal government.

On September 11, 2002, the court dismissed the complaint with
leave to amend.  Thereafter, on October 16, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of their intent to stand on the complaint,
without further amendment.  


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set November 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Terayon Communication Systems is set for November 4,2003 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Several suits were filed in April 2000 against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's securities between February 2, 2000 and
April 11, 2000.  The suits 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 allegations in the other lawsuits were substantially the
same and, on August 24, 2000, all of these lawsuits were
consolidated.  The court hearing the consolidated action has
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The consolidated suit alleges claims on behalf of persons who
purchased Company securities between November 15, 1999 and April
11, 2000.  On October 30, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss
the suit.  On March 14, 2001, 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.

On April 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On June 15, 2001,
defendants 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.

On February 24, 2003, the court certified the plaintiffs'
proposed class.  Since then, the parties have completed nearly
all discovery from fact witnesses and are now beginning expert
witness discovery.  In addition, both plaintiffs and defendants
have filed summary judgment motions that are scheduled for
hearing on September 8, 2003.  Defendants' motion seeks judgment
as to plaintiffs' entire claim.  Plaintiffs' motion seeks a
determination that certain of the defendants' class period
statements were false.  


THEGLOBE.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
TheGlobe.com, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
several investment banks that were the underwriters of the
Company's November 23, 1998 initial public offering and its May
19, 1999 secondary offering.  

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from
November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs allege
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading and in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the individual defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed the individual defendants from the case without
prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the individual defendants.  

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
compliant against the Company.  The Company has approved a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and related agreements which
set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company and the
plaintiff class.  It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligations of the Company to plaintiffs due pursuant to the
terms of the MOU and related agreements will be covered by
existing insurance.  

Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and approval by the
court.


VERTICALNET INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verticalnet, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, 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 in the suit 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.

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.   

The suit asserts that, in addition to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, the Company and its officers and directors also
violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act in connection with the IPO.

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 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.

On June 5, 2003, Company counsel, with the approval of the
Company's directors, executed a Memorandum of Understanding on
behalf of Verticalnet with respect to a proposed settlement of
the plaintiff's claims against it.  This proposed resolution of
the litigation has been publicly announced (although not yet
formally accepted by the plaintiffs) and widely reported in the
press.  

The proposed settlement, if approved by the court, would result
in, among other things, the dismissal of all claims against the
Company, its officers and directors.  It is expected that the
proposed resolution will be reviewed by the court in late 2003
or early 2004.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technologies, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received
by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in
January 2001 against numerous public companies that first sold
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these IPO-
related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before
United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of
New York.

Defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-related
lawsuits on July 15, 2002.  On February 19, 2003, Judge
Scheindlin issued a ruling denying in part and granting in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss.  On June 18, 2003, the
Company's Board of Directors approved a resolution accepting a
settlement offer from the plaintiffs according to the terms and
conditions of a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding
negotiated between the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff class will
dismiss with prejudice all claims against the Company and it
current and former directors and officers, and the Company will
assign to the plaintiff class or its designee certain claims
that Vitria may have against the underwriters of its IPO.  In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the plaintiffs recover less than $1.0 billion in settlement
or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO-
related lawsuits, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1.0 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers.

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the court.  If
approved, there will be no cash or other payment from the
Company to the plaintiff class or any other parties.


VITRIA INC.: Dismissed As Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors were dismissed as defendants in the class action filed
against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that CSFB knowingly
conspired with dozens of issuers, including the Company, to
conduct initial public offerings based on misinformation about
our future prospects and the proper pricing of their shares, in
violation of the anti-fraud provisions of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
voluntarily dismissed the Company and its officers and directors
from the action without prejudice.  This dismissal was
reaffirmed in two orders issued by the court in July 2003.  
Accordingly, neither the Company nor any of its officers and
directors remains a party to this action.   


WEBMETHODS INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webmethods, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, several of its
executive officers at the time of its initial public offering
and the managing underwriters of its initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's initial public offering registration statement and
final prospectus contained material misrepresentations and
omissions related in part to certain commissions allegedly
solicited and received by the underwriters, and tie-in
arrangements allegedly demanded by the underwriters, in
connection with their allocation of shares in the Company's
initial public offering.

The suit further alleges that those commissions and arrangements
were not disclosed to the public after the Company's initial
public offering.  The amended complaint also alleges that false
analysts' reports were issued.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between February 10, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.

This case has been consolidated as part of In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation (SDNY).  The Company has
considered and agreed to enter into a proposed settlement offer
with representatives of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
proceeding, and believe that any liability on behalf of the
Company that may accrue under that settlement offer would be
covered by its insurance policies.

                        
                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002 and
August 13, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, against the Company and:

     (1) Randolph C. Blazer,

     (2) Michael J. Donahue,

     (3) Robert C. Lamb, and

     (4) Robert S. Falcone

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 30, 2002 and
August 13, 2003.

On August 14, 2003, before the market opened, defendants shocked
the public when they issued a press release and concurrently
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that BearingPoint's
financial results would be restated for the first three quarters
of fiscal 2003 due to acquisition and accounting relating
adjustments.

The market's reaction to the announcement was swift and drastic.  
On August 14, 2003, the price per share of BearingPoint common
stock fell $2.41 or 23 percent from its previous day's trading
to close at $7.90, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: bearingpoint@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of FirstEnergy,
Corporation (NYSE: FE) between April 24, 2002 and August 5,
2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  This case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

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

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

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

     (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for costs
         incurred in connection with the deregulation of certain
         of its businesses by employing an inappropriately long
         amortization schedule, thereby understating costs and
         materially and artificially inflating earnings during
         the Class Period;

     (3) that the Company had materially overvalued certain
         leased power generation facilities that were carried as
         assets on the Company's balance sheet;

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

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

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above- market leases.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5
percent to close at $31.33 per share on extremely heaving
trading volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Glen L. Abramson or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: (215) 875-3000, (888) 891-2289 by Fax:
(215) 875-5715 by E-mail: Investorprotect@bm.net or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


READ-RITE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files CA Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Read-Rite Corporation (Other OTC:RDRTQ.PK) (Formerly
NASDAQ: RDRT) securities between October 30, 2001 and June 6,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges certain of Read-Rite's officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Read-Rite is an independent supplier of magnetic
recording heads for the hard disk drive (HDD) and tape drive
markets.  The Company designs, manufactures and markets magnetic
recording heads as head gimbal assemblies (HGAs) and
incorporates multiple HGAs into head stack assemblies.

Read-Rite's products are sold primarily for use in 3.5-inch HDDs
for desktop computer devices, for high-performance enterprise
HDDs used in network and mainframe applications, as well as for
consumer electronic devices such as game stations or personal
video recorders.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements about the
Company, and as a result Read-Rite's stock traded at inflated
prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $39 on
January 9, 2002, before the Company announced it would file for
bankruptcy.

The true facts which were known to each of the defendants, but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) the Company's 40 GB/platter inventory was overstated by
         $16.7 million;

     (2) the Company's Philippine real estate holdings were
         overstated by approximately $6.8 million;

     (3) the Company needed to restructure its operations and
         the associated charges would cost the Company in excess
         of $20 million and would cause an earnings shortfall in
         coming quarters;

     (4) the Company's Q2 FY03 loss was grossly understated;

     (5) the Company was experiencing massive technical problems
         associated with its 40GB/per platter programs.  
         Moreover, the Company was experiencing these problems
         well before January 2002 and beyond April 2002 when
         defendants claimed such problems were fixed; and

     (6) the Company was underfunded and could not complete the
         production of its 80GB programs.

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: RDRT@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  * * *