CAR_Public/030811.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Monday, August 11, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 157

                        Headlines                            

ARIZONA: Residents Settle For $26M Suit Over Aquifer Pollution
ATALANTA CORPORATION: Recalls Sliced Pepperoni For Mislabeling
ATLANTIC DATA: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Stock Lawsuit Remanded To GA State Court
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Suit in GA

CCC INFORMATION: IL Court Refuses to Reconsider Suit Dismissal
CCC INFORMATION: Customer Sues For Fraudulent Business Practices
CORNING INC.: Dropped As Defendant in Amended Suits in E.D. NY
CORNING INC.: Renews Motion For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
CORNING INC.: NY Court Hears Arguments For Stock Suit Dismissal

CORNING INC.: Court Hears Motions To Amend ERISA Violations Suit
CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Charges Two Executives With Securities Fraud
FERDINAND MARCOS: Imelda Marcos Asks RP Court To Reverse Ruling
FREDDIE MAC: WV Investment Committee Votes To Pursue Stock Suit
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Settlement Hearing Set September 2003 in TX

HEARTHSONG: Recalls 3,250 Happyvillagers Sets For Choking Hazard
HOMESTORE INC.: Inks Settlement With Cendant Over Move.Com Deal
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: States Settle Large Consumer Protection Case
HUGHES ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Echostar Suit
INTEL CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Settlement of DSP Lawsuit

INTEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Withdraw CA Securities Fraud Suit
KANSAS CITY: Firms Played Key Roles In $142M Fiber-Optics Pact
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
MAGIC CABIN: Recalls 220 Dump, Tow Trucks For Choking Hazard
MANUFACTURERS SERVICES: Working To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit

MEDCO HEALTH: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Criticize PBM Suit Agreement
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Nears Pact In Windows Consumer Fraud Suit
NIKU CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RICHARD MOHR: SEC Files Injunctive Action For Securities Fraud
SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Consumer Groups File Suit Over Estratest

TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Pact in Engle Merger Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Growers Suit Changes How Auctions Are Done
US WIRELESS: SEC Files Securities Fraud Complaint V. Executives
XTO ENERGY: Finishes Gas Royalties Settlement Payment in OK

*The New Legal World of Philip Morris: Through A Window Darkly


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in TX
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Launches TX Securities Suit
IMPATH INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in S.D. FL
STELLENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN

                          *********


ARIZONA: Residents Settle For $26M Suit Over Aquifer Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents involved in a class action over contaminated drinking
water have settled their lawsuit for $26 million and can expect
to receive $350 each in a few months, according to lawyers close
to the case, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

Residents of south Scottsdale, east Phoenix and others who were
subjected to contaminated water filed the suit in 1992.  The
lawsuit claimed that residents were exposed to the industrial
solvent trichlorethylene which is used by semiconductor plants.  
The chemical seeped into two aquifers in Phoenix and one in
Scottsdale.  

The lawsuit contended that the semiconductor companies had
disposed of the chemical improperly for more than 20 years,
beginning in 1957, and that the chemical had seeped into the
groundwater, resulting in its contamination.  Wells pumping the
contaminated water were closed in 1981.  The companies paid
about $70 million as penalties, which were used by local
officials to clean up the solvent.

There are more than 20,000 Scottsdale properties involved in the
lawsuit.


ATALANTA CORPORATION: Recalls Sliced Pepperoni For Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atalanta Corporation is voluntarily recalling approximately 500
pounds of sliced pepperoni products that are mislabeled as pork,
the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The products have been imported from
Canada.

The products being recalled are 10 lb. boxes of "SILA, SLICED
PEPPERONI, SMOKE FLAVOR ADDED, PCN: 33401."  Each label also
bears the establishment number "162" inside the Canadian mark of
inspection.  Each 10-lb. box contains two 5-lb. bags, which also
contain the label listed above.  The products were produced on
July 2, 2003 and distributed to hotels, restaurants and
institutions in New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia.

In the course of conducting a species identification test of the
pepperoni, FSIS laboratory results indicated the presence of
beef in the product.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product.

The discovery is a technical violation of the ban on the import
of beef into this country from Canada.  However, a subsequent
investigation, launched immediately after the lab results were
made known, revealed that the Canadian manufacturing plant
making the product used a combination of Australian, New Zealand
and United States beef during the production of the pepperoni.  
No Canadian beef was used as an ingredient.

For more details, contact Albert Pish by Phone: (908) 351-8000.


ATLANTIC DATA: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Data Services, Inc. and each of its directors faces
several class actions filed on behalf of its stockholders,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
Company's May 5, 2003 announcement that it had received from
certain of its directors and stockholders a preliminary
expression of interest to engage in a going private transaction.

The first suit was filed in Massachusetts state court by a
stockholder of the Company, purportedly on behalf of all other
stockholders of the Company other than the defendants.  On July
25, 2003, a second, substantially similar complaint was filed in
the same court against the Company, each of its directors and
ADS Acquisition Company, LLC.

This second complaint is brought by a stockholder of the
Company, also purportedly on behalf of all other stockholders
other than the defendants, and alleges similar breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed going private
transaction.

The Company believes that the complaints are without merit.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Stock Lawsuit Remanded To GA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia remanded the consolidated securities class action filed
against BellSouth Corporation and three of its senior officers
to Fulton County Superior Court.

The consolidated complaint alleges that during the period
November 7, 2000 through February 19, 2003, the Company:

     (1) overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its
         advertising and publishing subsidiary;

     (2) failed to properly implement SAB 101 with regard to its
         recognition of advertising and publishing revenues;

     (3) improperly billed competitive local exchange carriers
         (CLEC) to inflate revenues;

     (4) failed to take a reserve for refunds that ultimately
         came due following litigation over late payment charges
         and

     (5) failed to properly write down goodwill of its Latin
         American operations

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  At this early stage of the
litigation, the likely outcome of the case cannot be predicted,
nor can a reasonable estimate of loss, if any, be made.

In February 2003, a similar complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia on behalf of participants in
BellSouth's Direct Investment Plan alleging violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act.  Defendants removed this
action to federal court pursuant to the provisions of
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  On
July 3, 2003, the federal court issued a ruling that the case
should be remanded to Fulton County Superior Court.

Defendants are seeking permission to appeal this determination.  
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  At this early stage of the
litigation, the likely outcome of the case cannot be predicted,
nor can a reasonable estimate of loss, if any, be made.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
BellSouth Corporation, its directors, three of its senior
officers and other individuals in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of BellSouth's 401(k) plan,
allege that the company and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA, by among other
things:

     (1) failing to provide accurate information to the Plan
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plan's assets were invested
         properly;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plan's fiduciaries;

     (4) failing to disregard Plan directives that the
         defendants knew or should have known were imprudent and

     (5) failing to avoid conflicts of interest by hiring
         independent fiduciaries to make investment decisions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  At this early
stage of the litigation, the likely outcome of the cases cannot
be predicted, nor can a reasonable estimate of loss, if any, be
made.


CCC INFORMATION: IL Court Refuses to Reconsider Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois refused to reconsider
its dismissal of a class action filed against CCC Information
Services, Inc. relating to the use of the Company's Valuescope
valuation product by its insurance company customers.

On June 11, 2003, the court entered an order denying plaintiff's
motion to reconsider, except that the court reconsidered its
decision to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud and conspiracy claims
with prejudice.  The court allowed plaintiff twenty-eight days
from the date of the order to attempt to replead her fraud and
conspiracy claims.


CCC INFORMATION: Customer Sues For Fraudulent Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.  

The plaintiff alleges that his insurer, using a valuation
prepared by the Company, offered an inadequate amount for his
automobile.  Plaintiff asserts various common law and statutory
claims against his insurance company and against the Company
including a claim under California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of unspecified
damages, an accounting, restitution and disgorgement, on his own
behalf and on behalf of the general public, punitive damages,
and an award of attorneys' fees.


CORNING INC.: Dropped As Defendant in Amended Suits in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning, Inc. was not named as a defendant in two amended class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, asserting various personal injury
and property damage claims.

The two suits were initially filed in April 2002 against a
number of corporate defendants.  These claims allegedly arise
from the release of toxic substances from a Sylvania nuclear
materials processing facility near Hicksville, New York.  
Amended complaints naming 205 plaintiffs and seeking damages in
excess of $3 billion were served in September 2002.  

The sole basis of liability against Corning was plaintiffs'
claim that Corning was the successor to Sylvania-Corning Nuclear
Corporation, a Delaware corporation formed in 1957 and dissolved
in 1960.  

Management contested all claims against Corning for the reason
that Corning is not the successor to Sylvania-Corning.  
Management will also defend on the grounds that almost all of
the wrongful death claims and personal injury claims are time-
barred.

At a status conference in December 2002, the court decided to  
"administratively close" the cases and ordered plaintiffs'   
counsel to bring new amended complaints with "bellwether"
plaintiffs.  In these actions, the plaintiffs have not named
Corning as a defendant.  Although it appears that plaintiffs may
proceed only against the other corporate defendants, the
original cases remain pending and no order has been entered
dismissing Corning.   


CORNING INC.: Renews Motion For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning, Inc. renewed its motion for summary judgment in the
securities class action filed against it and certain individual
defendants by a class of purchasers of Corning stock who allege
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts relative to
the silicone gel breast implant business conducted by Dow
Corning.  

This action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
Corning stock in the period from June 14, 1989, to January 13,
1992, who allegedly purchased at inflated prices due to the non-
disclosure or concealment of material information.  No amount of
damages is specified in the complaint.  

The court earlier dismissed the individual defendants from the
case.  The Company then filed a motion for summary judgment
requesting that all claims against it be dismissed.  Plaintiffs
requested the opportunity to take depositions before responding
to the motion for summary judgment.

In June 2003, Corning renewed its motion for summary judgment
upon papers incorporating additional discovery materials.  


CORNING INC.: NY Court Hears Arguments For Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York heard arguments for the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Corning, Inc. and three of
its officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of the US securities laws in
connection with Corning's November 2000 offering of 30 million
shares of common stock and $2.7 billion zero coupon convertible
debentures, due November 2015.  The Company and the same three
officers and directors were charged with making selective
disclosures and non-disclosures that allegedly inflated the
price of the Company's common stock in the period from September
2000 through July 9, 2001.  

In February 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to allege the requisite elements of the
claims with particularity.  Plaintiffs responded with opposing
papers on April 7, 2003.  The court heard arguments on May 29
and June 9, 2003, and reserved decision.  The Court's scheduling
order further provides that a motion to certify the action as a
class action shall be filed after all motions to dismiss are
resolved.


CORNING INC.: Court Hears Motions To Amend ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York heard plaintiffs' motion to amend the class action filed
against Corning, Inc., on behalf of participants in the
Company's Investment Plan for Salaried Employees, purportedly as
a class action on behalf of participants in the Plan who
purchased or held Corning stock in a Plan account.

The defendants in that action responded with a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit on a variety of grounds.  On December 12, 2002, the
court entered judgment dismissing the claims as to each of the
defendants.  On December 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
open the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.  
This motion was argued on April 10, 2003.  

The court reserved decision on the motion for leave to amend.


CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Charges Two Executives With Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed
financial accounting fraud charges against the former chief
financial officer and a former regional sales vice president of
Cutter & Buck Inc., an upscale clothing company based in
Seattle, Washington.  

The SEC complaint alleges that the executives caused Cutter to
fraudulently inflate its financial results for the fiscal
quarter and year ended April 30, 2000, by improperly recognizing
as revenue $5.7 million in shipments to distributors functioning
as Company warehouses, and later concealed the improper
transactions from the Company's auditors and shareholders.
     
Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, the defendants
agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying the
Commission's allegations, consenting to orders permanently
barring them from violations of the antifraud and other
provisions of the federal securities laws and requiring them to
pay civil penalties of $50,000 and $25,000, respectively.  The
defendants also consented to the entry of an order barring the
former chief financial officer from serving as an officer or
director of a public company, and an order prohibiting them from
practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
     
The Commission's complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges that
Cutter was encountering declining sales as it approached the end
of its fiscal year ended April 30, 2000.  In the final days of
April, the former regional sales vice president, now 46 and
residing in Parkville, Missouri, negotiated deals with three
distributors under which Cutter would ship them a total of $5.7
million in products.  He struck side deals with the
distributors, assuring them that they had no obligation to pay
for any of the goods until customers located by Cutter paid the
distributors.  

Because of Cutter's ongoing obligation to complete the sales,
revenue recognition was improper under generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP).  In press releases and in filings
with the Commission that were distributed to the public, Cutter
announced revenue of $54.6 million for the fourth quarter of
Fiscal 2000 and $152.5 million for the entire fiscal year.  
However, because these figures included $5.7 million in
improperly recognized revenue on the distributor sales, they
overstated Cutter's true quarterly and annual revenue by 12% and
4%, respectively.
     
The complaint also charges that the chief financial officer
learned by late 2000 that these distributors were operating as
Cutter warehouses and that revenue recognition had been
improper.  Rather than restate and correct the company's
financial statements, as required under GAAP, he took steps to
conceal the transactions from Cutter's independent auditors and
board of directors.  He arranged for the distributors to return
$3.8 million in unsold inventory in early 2001.

According to the complaint, he directed Cutter personnel to
override the company's accounting software program and divide
the returns among multiple company sales divisions in order to
hide the magnitude of the returns.
     
The chief financial officer left the company in 2001, and the
regional sales vice president resigned in August 2002.  On
August 12, 2002, Cutter, which had undergone a change in
management, announced that it would restate its financial
statements for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 as a result of the
improper distributor transactions.  The announcement caused
Cutter's stock price to drop from $4.02 to $3.44, or 14%, the
following day.
     
The complaint charges the defendants with securities fraud
(Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder) and causing Cutter to report false financial
information to the Commission (Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1).  The complaint additionally charges
the chief financial officer with lying to accountants (Rule
13b2-2 under the Exchange Act), falsifying the company's books
and records (Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-
1 thereunder), and causing Cutter's failure to maintain accurate
books and records and internal controls (Sections 13(b)(2)(A)
and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act).

     
FERDINAND MARCOS: Imelda Marcos Asks RP Court To Reverse Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The widow of the Philippines' former dictator Ferdinand Marcos
appealed to the Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday to reverse
last month's decision awarding his Swiss bank accounts to the
government after ruling the money was illegally acquired, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

In her petition, Imelda Marcos, along with daughters Imee and
Irene and son Ferdinand Jr., said they were deprived of due
process when the court ruled July 15, that the family "failed to
justify the lawful nature of their acquisition" of the Swiss
deposits.

The money, which totaled US$356 million when it was discovered
shortly after Mr. Marcos was ousted in a revolt in 1986,
currently amount to about US$681 million, due to earnings from
interest and investments.  The deposits were held by five
foundations, which the government said were owned by Mr. Marcos
and his wife.  Under a mutual legal assistance treaty between
the Philippines and Switzerland, the funds were ordered
transferred to an escrow account in a Philippine bank by the
Swiss federal tribunal in 1999.

Imelda Marcos said government prosecutors "failed to establish
clear and convincing evidence as to the ownership of the funds,"
adding that her family was a "mere beneficiary and the Swiss
foundations are the legal and admittedly, record owners
thereof."  Ms. Marcos did not claim direct ownership of the
deposits, but she said she "found herself deprived of her
property rights."

In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the Marcos couple
only legally earned US$304,372.42 during their 20-year rule.  
The court also said the two gave conflicting statements
regarding ownership of the funds.  The Swiss accounts make up
the single largest amount recovered from the billions of dollars
the Marcoses allegedly amassed.

The Swiss Supreme Court ruled that the money could be released
to the Philippine government if Imelda Marcos was criminally
convicted in connection with the deposits and if victims of
human rights violations during Mr. Marcos's administration are
compensated.

The Marcos estate lost a class action for human rights
violations to 9,539 Filipinos, who were awarded US$2 billion in
compensation by a US district court in Hawaii.  None of them has
received any money.

Mr. Marcos was president for two decades, including 14 years
after imposing martial law in 1972, and ruling by decree.  He
was ousted in a "people power" revolt in 1986 and died three
years later in exile in Hawaii.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has said she will set aside
part of the Swiss accounts as compensation for Mr. Marcos's
victims.


FREDDIE MAC: WV Investment Committee Votes To Pursue Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of West Virginia is suing Freddie Mac, claiming that
accounting irregularities acknowledged by the finance housing
company cost the state $1.7 million in investment losses, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.  The West Virginia
Investment Management Board's committee voted recently to pursue
a class action against the McLean, Virginia company.

Freddie Mac released an internal investigation last month,
showing it breached accounting rules and underreported profits
to meet Wall Street forecasts and keep its stock price high.

West Virginia filed to be the lead plaintiff in the class action
brought in a New York federal court.  The state's lawsuit claims
its loss of $1.7 million over two years resulted from the
company's fraud.  After the filing deadline has been met, a
judge will select one of the plaintiffs to lead the lawsuit.

Craig Slaughter, the investment management board's executive
director, said he knew of no other states that have filed in the
Freddie Mac case.  West Virginia also is participating in class
actions against Enron and Dynegy.

Freddie Mac is the second-largest player in the multitrillion-
dollar home mortgage market after Fannie Mae.  It has come under
scrutiny since ousting three top executives in June for not
cooperating in its internal investigation.  The US Justice
Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are
conducting separate investigations.


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Settlement Hearing Set September 2003 in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing in the settlement for the securities fraud and
shareholder derivative lawsuits against Hanover Compressor
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is set for September 19,2003 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Several securities class actions were filed and were later
consolidated into one case entitled "Pirelli Armstrong
Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Civil Action No. H-02-
0410."  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Mr. Michael J. McGhan,

     (2) Mr. William S. Goldberg and

     (3) Mr. Michael A. O'Connor

The complaints asserted various claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought
unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs,
including legal fees.  The court entered an order appointing
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits
Trust and others as lead plaintiffs on January 7, 2003 and
appointed Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP as lead
counsel.

On January 24, 2003, Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local 137 Pension
Fund and John Petti filed a putative securities class action
against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which is Hanover's auditor.  
The alleged class was all persons who purchased the equity or
debt securities of Hanover from March 8, 2000 through and
including October 23, 2002.  This suit was later consolidated
with the above suit.

Commencing in February 2002, four derivative lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, two derivative lawsuits were filed in state district
court for Harris County, Texas (one of which was non-suited and
the second of which was removed to Federal District Court for
the Southern District of Texas) and one derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County.

These derivative lawsuits, which were filed by certain of the
Company's shareholders purportedly on behalf of Hanover,
alleged, among other things, that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and sought
unspecified amounts of damages, interest and costs, including
legal fees.  

The derivative actions in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas were consolidated on August 19
and August 26, 2002.  Motions are currently pending for
appointment of lead counsel in the consolidated derivative
actions in the Southern District of Texas.

On March 26, 2003, three plaintiffs filed separate putative
class actions collectively against Hanover, Michael McGhan,
Michael O'Connor, William Goldberg and Chad Deaton (and other
purportedly unknown defendants) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The alleged class is
comprised of persons who participated in or were beneficiaries
of The Hanover Companies Retirement and Savings Plan, which was
established by Hanover pursuant to Section 401(k) of the United
States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.  The class
action seeks relief under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) based upon Hanover's and the individual
defendants' alleged mishandling of Hanover's 401(k) Plan.  

On May 12, 2003, the Company reached agreement, subject to court
approval, to settle the securities class actions, the ERISA
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions.  The terms
of the proposed settlement provide for Hanover to:

     (1) make a cash payment of approximately $30 million (of
         which $26.7 million is to be funded by payments from
         Hanover's directors and officers insurance carriers);

     (2) issue 2.5 million shares of common stock; and

     (3) issue a contingent note with a principal amount of $6.7
         million.

The note is payable, together with accrued interest, on March
31, 2007 but can be extinguished (with no monies owing under it)
if Hanover's common stock trades at or above the average price
of $12.25 for 15 consecutive days at any time between March 31,
2004 and March 31, 2007.

As part of the settlement, the Company has also agreed to
implement corporate governance enhancements, including allowing
large shareholders to participate in the process to appoint two
independent directors to the Company's Board.  The Company's
auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is not a party to the
settlement and will continue to be a defendant in the
consolidated securities class action.

On May 13, 2003, Hanover moved to consolidate all of the ERISA
actions and the consolidated shareholder derivative action into
the consolidated securities class action.  In addition, Hanover,
and the other defendants in the actions, together with the
plaintiffs that entered into the settlement filed a motion in
the consolidated securities action pursuant to which the parties
have agreed to seek preliminary approval of the court for the
settlement by September 29, 2003.

The settlement is subject to court approval and could be the
subject of an objection by shareholders as well as from
plaintiff's counsel to Harbor Finance in the shareholder
derivative matter and plaintiffs' counsel in the Angleopoulos
(H-03-1064) and the Freeman (H-03-1095) ERISA matters who were
not signatories to the agreement reached among the remaining
parties.


HEARTHSONG: Recalls 3,250 Happyvillagers Sets For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearthsong is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 3,250
Happyvillagers Toy Sets.  The head can detach from the body of
the villagers, posing a choking hazard to young children.  No
injuries have been reported.

The Happyvillagers are made with birchwood and painted with
various villager images.  The sets were sold separately with 12
villagers per set and as a part of the Happyville Special set
that included a set of 35 Happyville Blocks.  Only the
Happyvillagers are included in the recall.

HearthSong sold the toy trucks through their catalog and Web
site from September 30, 2002 through March 11, 2003 for about
$15.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: Attn: Returns,
3700 Wyse Road, Dayton, OH 45414-2541 or by Phone:
(888) 623-6557 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


HOMESTORE INC.: Inks Settlement With Cendant Over Move.Com Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online realty-listings concern Homestore Inc., owner of
Homestore.com and Realtor.com reached a settlement with Cendant
Corporation over its February 2001 acquisition of the real-
estate site Move.com and Welcome Wagon International Inc., The
Wall Street Journal reports.  A class action against Homestore
alleging it overstated its revenues is still pending.

As part of the agreement Cendant Corporation agreed not to sue
Homestore for claims related to the sale of Move.com, while
Homestore released Cendant from all claims related to the
Move.com deal and agreed to register by October, 18.3 million
shares of Homestore stock owned by Cendant.

Homestore also agreed to pay Cendant $1.5 million as part of a
pre-existing insurance contract negotiated between the companies
for expenses incurred during the settlement.  Cendant, New York,
also received a nonexclusive agreement to display its listings
on other Websites.

The settlement comes after a string of Securities and Exchange
Commission inquiries were made earlier this year into financial
transactions between Homestore and some of its partners.  As
indicated, above, a shareholder class action against Homestore
that alleged overstated revenues by the company is still
pending.

The settlement with Cendant, which still retains rights to sue
Homestore if fault is found in the class action, shows that the
Westlake Village, California, firm is trying to move beyond
earlier legal and contractual altercations.  As it has said, the
company is looking forward to creating value for its customers
and shareholders and to leaving the legacies of illegal issues
behind.


HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: States Settle Large Consumer Protection Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 2,000 Maine consumers who had home loans with
Household Finance or Beneficial Finance will be able to claim
settlement payments beginning next week, according to the
Portland Press Herald.  The consumer payment program stems from
the landmark settlement between Household International and the
attorneys general and consumer credit offices of all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.

Under the settlement, Household International agreed to pay $484
million to the states to be distributed to eligible Household
borrowers.  This monetary settlement was the largest ever
obtained by state attorneys general in a consumer protection
case.

The settlement resolved an investigation by the states into
allegations of unfair and deceptive mortgage lending practices.  
The states alleged that Household overcharged borrowers with
fees and interest, and misled borrowers about loan terms such as
"EZ pay" plans.

Household International, through its subsidiaries Household
Finance and Beneficial Finance, is one of the nation's largest
sub-prime mortgage lenders.  Under the terms of the settlement,
Household has agreed to institute new standards to prevent
future lending abuses, according to Maine Attorney General
Steven Rowe's office.  Household also agreed to implement a
series of reforms in its lending operations.  Court injunctions
in all 50 states restrict prepayment penalties on current and
future home loan, prohibit loan "flipping," limit up-front
points and origination fees.

Notices will be sent to an estimated 2,150 Household Finance and
Beneficial Finance borrowers in Maine, notifying them of their
eligibility to share in the state' $1.6 million share of the
landmark settlement with Household International.


HUGHES ELECTRONIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Echostar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Court of Chancery to
dismiss the claims in the class action filed against Hughes
Electronics and each of the members of its Board of Directors.

The suit, filed by certain holders of Panamsat Corporation's
common stock alleged that the settlement between Hughes
Electronics, General Motors Corporation and EchoStar
Communications Corporation of all claims related to the
termination of the proposed merger between EchoStar and Hughes
violated alleged fiduciary duties.

On July 10, 2003, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims with prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the complaint.  On August 4, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware.  Unless the appeal is successful, the July
10, 2003 ruling will effectively conclude this suit.


INTEL CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Settlement of DSP Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the class action filed against Intel
Corporation, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the US Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
14d-10 in connection with Intel's acquisition of DSP
Communications, Inc.

The complaint alleged that Intel and CWC (Intel's wholly owned
subsidiary at the time) agreed to pay certain DSP executives
additional consideration of $15.6 million not offered or paid to
other stockholders.  The alleged purpose of this payment to the
insiders was to obtain DSP insiders' endorsement of Intel's
tender offer in violation of the anti-discrimination provision
of Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 14d-10.  The plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages for the class, and unspecified costs and
expenses.

In July 2002, the court granted Intel's motion for summary
judgment, but in October 2002, the court vacated the summary
judgment.  In January 2003, the parties reached a settlement
agreement, which was reviewed and approved by the court in June
2003.  The settlement did not have a material impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.


INTEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Withdraw CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their consolidated securities class action
filed against Intel Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The lawsuit alleged that purchasers of Intel stock
between July 19, 2000 and September 29, 2000 were misled by
false and misleading statements by Intel and certain of its
officers and directors concerning the Company's business and
financial condition.  In July 2003, the court granted Intel's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint in
its entirety with prejudice.  

In addition, various plaintiffs filed stockholder derivative
complaints in California Superior Court and Delaware Chancery
Court against the Company's directors and certain officers,
alleging that they mismanaged the company and otherwise breached
their fiduciary obligations to the company.  

The plaintiffs in the California action filed the original and
two successive amended complaints, and the California Superior
Court sustained Intel's demurrers on each of these complaints.  
Following the court's dismissal without prejudice of these
complaints, the plaintiffs notified the court and Intel in June
2003 that they would not file a fourth complaint and they signed
a stipulation withdrawing their lawsuit with prejudice, which
the court approved.

The Delaware action remains pending and the complaint in that
action seeks unspecified damages.  The company disputes the
plaintiffs' claims in the Delaware action.


KANSAS CITY: Firms Played Key Roles In $142M Fiber-Optics Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City law firms played a key role in the recent $142
million settlement of the class actions involving the placement
of fiber-optic cables along railroad rights of way, The Kansas
City Star reports.  

The cases sought damages for what the plaintiffs alleged was the
impermissible giveaway of their land to telecommunications
companies, the federal government and other parties.  First
advanced in state court in Indiana years ago, the seemingly far-
fetched legal theory found its way into a mountain of federal
and state court litigation naming the country's major
telecommunications companies as defendants, including Overland
Park-based Sprint Corporation.

Sprint, like the other telecommunications companies, installed
much of its fiber-optic cable along railroad and utility
corridors.  The problem was that the railroads and utilities did
not always own the land outright but only had easements allowing
them to use the land for limited purposes.

Under a preliminary settlement, approved recently by a federal
judge in Chicago, Sprint, Quest Communications, Level 3
Communications and WilTel Communications will pay an estimated
$142 million to owners of the land in question.  No one knows
precisely how many property owners will be eligible to receive
compensation, but attorneys have offered a preliminary estimate
of 360,000.

The settlement calls for the landowners to receive $2 per linear
foot if the railroad had an easement and 33-1/3 cents per linear
foot if the railroad owned the land outright.  The railroads
received releases as part of the settlement and are not
responsible for any payments to the landowners.  That is because
they had the right to seek indemnification from the
telecommunication companies if the landowners had sought damages
from the railroads.  The settlement enjoins any competing class-
action claims, both state and federal, across the country.

One of the key lawyers in negotiating the settlement was J.
Emmett Logan of Stinson Morrison Hecker, who, along with fellow
partner A. Bradley Bodamer and a small army of associates,
represented Sprint.  Other Kansas City lawyers included Ron
Bodinson and Joseph Rebein of Shook Hardy & Bacon, which
represented Union Pacific Railroad; and Douglas Dalgleish, David
Powell and Thomas Stewart of Lathrop & Gage, which represented
Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York refused to dismiss the amended consolidated securities
class action filed against KeySpan Corporation and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit alleges, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in connection with disclosures relating to or following
the acquisition of the Roy Kay companies and the announcement of
the agreement to acquire Eastern Enterprises and EnergyNorth
Inc.  

In October 2001, a shareholder's derivative action was commenced
in the same court against certain officers and directors of the
Company, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duty, violations of the New York Business Corporation Law and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

In addition, a second derivative action has been commenced
asserting similar allegations.  Each of the proceedings request
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  

On March 18, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the class action.  The court's order dismissed certain
class allegations with prejudice, but provided the plaintiffs a
final opportunity to file an amended complaint concerning the
remaining allegations.  In April 2003, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in July the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss 7this amended complaint.  

The Company strongly denies the allegations.


MAGIC CABIN: Recalls 220 Dump, Tow Trucks For Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Magic Cabin is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 220
Big Boy Trucks (Dump Truck & Tow Truck).  Small parts can break
off of the toy trucks posing a choking hazard to young children.  
No injuries have been reported.

The Big Boy Trucks are made of oak, maple, or walnut wood with a
natural oil finish.  The trucks are about 9 to 12 inches high.  
Magic Cabin sold the toy trucks through their catalog and Web
site from September 2002 through March 18, 2003 for about $16.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: Magic Cabin Attn:
Returns, 3700 Wyse Road, Dayton, OH 45414-2541 by Phone:
(888) 623-6557 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


MANUFACTURERS SERVICES: Working To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers Services, Ltd. is considering a memorandum of
understanding to settle a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against it, certain of its former officers and the underwriters
that participated in the Company's initial public offering
(IPO).

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters,
which cases have been consolidated to a single federal district
court for coordinated case management.

The complaint, which demands unspecified damages among other
things, alleges that the prospectus filed by the Company
relating to stock sold in its initial public offering contained
false and misleading statements with respect to the commission
arrangements between the underwriters and their customers.  The
Company believes that this claim against the Company lacks
merit.

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 consolidated complaints against
them on various legal grounds.  On October 9, 2002, the court
approved a stipulation between the plaintiffs and the individual
defendants providing for the dismissal of the individual
defendants without prejudice.  In February 2003, that motion was
denied with respect to most issuers, including the Company.  

The Company is currently considering a Memorandum of
Understanding and related documents proposed by the plaintiffs
containing the terms of an agreement resolving the claims of the
plaintiffs against the Company and its named officers.  While
the Company can make no assurances regarding the outcome of this
action, the Company believes that the final result will have no
material effect on its consolidated financial condition or
result of operations.


MEDCO HEALTH: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Criticize PBM Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for plaintiffs involved in class action suits against
pharmacy benefit managers -- including the Merck-Medco case in
Federal Court in White Plains, NY -- today said the proposed
Merck-Medco settlement is "grossly inadequate" and predicted
final approval will be a very difficult task for Merck and the
attorneys who have recommended the settlement.

"Health plans will have to seriously examine the fairness of the
proposed settlement," they explained, noting that "the
settlement will fail because of the number of plans which we
think will opt out, object or appeal once they have a chance to
review the case and the proposed settlement in detail."

The attorneys, who work with the HermanMathis Group based in
Atlanta, responded to news that the federal judge in the case
granted preliminary approval to the settlement.  The judge will
make a final ruling following a hearing scheduled for December
11th.  Approximately 65 million Americans are covered by
prescription drug plans administered by Medco.

The attorneys explained that the $42.5 million Medco has agreed
to pay is only a minuscule amount given the billions in pricing
spreads, discounts, rebates and other hidden dollars Medco
withheld from 1995 to 1999 and in later years.  They also
pointed to remarks made by counsel for Medco, who said in court
just last year,  "The alleged damages, I think, would run in the
hundreds of millions of dollars.  I think it is disingenuous to
contend that it wouldn't rise to that level."

"This settlement is unreasonable given how Merck-Medco itself
acknowledges how it benefited from financial arrangements that
should have been disclosed," said Russ M. Herman, a partner
based in New Orleans.  "PBMs like Medco were intended to be a
cost-saving mechanism beneficial to all.  Instead, they have
become cash machines beneficial to the PBMs."

"Tell me what is wrong with this picture?" Mr. Herman asked.  
"The PBMs are making record profits while companies are reducing
health care plans because of the cost of prescription drugs.  
How can this company honestly say this is a fair settlement when
it promises to serve as a cost control manager and, at the same
time, engages in secretive and suspicious behavior with drug
manufacturers and refuses to fully open its books?  Until Merck
Medco agrees or is required by court order to full open
discovery of all pertinent records -- including rebates, spreads
and switching -- approval should not be given."

According to the New York Times and other publications, Medco
has previously disclosed -- in a Securities and Exchange filing
-- that it was under pressure from Merck to gain market share
for Merck drugs.  "When it comes to the health care of Americans
we need transparent bookkeeping so plan managers know the true
cost of prescription drugs and how to best serve their members,"
said Mr. Herman.

Mr. Herman urged plan fiduciaries to take a close look at the
proposed settlement and the impact on their plans.  "Medco plans
may not even know about the settlement or its true
ramifications," he warned.  "We must make sure that plan
providers and members know about this proposed settlement so
they can make fully informed decisions whether to opt out.  By
our calculations the settlement is less than one cent on the
dollar recovery to the plan members."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Nears Pact In Windows Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation has agreed in principle to settle an
antitrust lawsuit over sales of its Windows operating software,
following a ruling that reduced the number of buyers in the
lawsuit, according to people familiar with the situation, The
Seattle Times reports.  Microsoft would pay $10.5 million to as
many as 500,000 customers who alleged they overpaid for single
copies of Windows purchased directly from the company since
1995, the people close to the situation said.

In April, US District Judge J. Frederick Motz of Baltimore
excluded customers who bought Windows in large quantities from
the lawsuit.  Hundreds of millions of customers could have been
affected by the original lawsuits, but Microsoft persuaded Judge
Motz to narrow the case.

Customers eligible for refunds would be those who bought Windows
at Microsoft's Web page or in response to direct marketing by
the company.  Excluded are the corporate buyers and the millions
of customers who received Windows with new computers.

By settling, Microsoft would avoid a trial and the triple
damages allowed in antitrust cases.  A settlement would mean
Microsoft "avoids the potential exposure of treble damages and
precedent," said Andrew Gavil, a Howard University antitrust law
professor.  As for they buyers, they would trade "the certainty
of any payoff today against the uncertainty and expense of
waiting for a future judgment."

The agreement, which must be approved by the judge, represents
Microsoft's latest effort to resolve lawsuits that stemmed from
the federal government's 2000 victory in its antitrust case
against the company.  The court in that case ruled Microsoft
illegally protected its monopoly for Windows, which powers 95
percent of the world's personal computers.

Judge Motz has set a September 8 trial date in the lawsuit
involving individual buyers of Windows.

The settlement would be only a fraction of the $1 billion
Microsoft originally had agreed to spend to settle the lawsuit
with all direct customers.  Judge Motz rejected that plan last
year, which would have given computers to 14,000 U.S. schools in
low-income neighborhoods.


NIKU CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Niku Corporation is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of the Company's officers and directors and:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs and Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray and

     (4) Thomas Weisel Partners,

The consolidated suit arose out of the Company's initial public
offering in February 2000.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that the registration statement and prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of the
IPO were false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the managing underwriters, allegedly:

     (i) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO; and

    (ii) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares of
         ours in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

On August 8, 2001 the Court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers,
underwriters and officers and directors be transferred to one
judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In July 2002,
omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on common legal
issues were filed on behalf of all issuers, underwriters and
officers and directors.

By order dated October 8, 2002, the court dismissed the
Company's officers and directors from the case without
prejudice.  In an opinion issued on February 19, 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The
complaints against the Company and the other issuers and
underwriters were not dismissed as a matter of law.

A proposed settlement between the plaintiffs and issuer
defendants is in the process of being negotiated and approved.  
These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery
proceedings have taken place in relation to the issuers.  The
Company believes that the claims asserted against it are without
merit.


RICHARD MOHR: SEC Files Injunctive Action For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
injunctive action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Raymond C. Mohr,
formerly of Wayne, Pennsylvania, for violating the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.  

The SEC complaint alleges that, from at least June 1993 until
the fall of 2001, Mr. Mohr knowingly engaged in a Ponzi scheme
in which he obtained approximately $9.6 million from 87
investors.  As detailed in the complaint, Mr. Mohr
misappropriated the funds for his personal use and to fund
payments of principal and purported profits to clients who had
invested at earlier points in time.

Over the course of the eight years during which Mr. Mohr
operated the Ponzi scheme, he paid approximately $7.9 million in
principal and purported profits to investors and used the
remaining $1.7 million for his own personal use.  Ultimately,
Mr. Mohr's fraudulent scheme resulted in client losses of
approximately $3.1 million.
     
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Mohr has agreed to settle with the Commission by consenting
to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  Mr. Mohr has also consented to
a bar from the investment advisory and broker-dealer industries.


SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Consumer Groups File Suit Over Estratest
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of consumer groups today filed a lawsuit against Solvay
Pharmaceuticals (OTC: SVYSY), claiming that the drug maker has
engaged in false and illegal marketing of Estratest, a hormone
replacement therapy drug the company has been marketing without
FDA approval.

The suit, led by the Boston-based advocacy group Prescription
Access Litigation project (PAL) on behalf of the 650,000-member
Congress of California Seniors and the California Public
Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), was filed in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles.

The suit alleges that Solvay has been marketing and selling
Estratest for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, or hot
flashes, in menopausal women since at least 1981, despite the
fact that the drug has never been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for that use.

Further, the group points out that in its marketing to doctors,
Solvay implies that the drug is not only effective -- a claim
questioned recently by the FDA -- but also is a FDA-approved
drug for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, a direct
misrepresentation, the suit claims.

"We have uncovered another situation in which a pharmaceutical
company has prioritized profits over patients," said Ahaviah
Glaser, PAL Project Director.  "The complaint alleges that
Solvay has reaped tens of millions of dollars over the past two
decades without following the rules which provide that before a
drug is marketed, the FDA must sign off on the safety of the
drug, which clearly did not happen here."

The suit is part of PAL's broadened focus on the marketing
practices of the drug industry.  The lawsuit has been brought
under California's Unfair Competition and Untrue and Misleading
Advertising laws.  It charges that the Estratest marketing
materials that Solvay disseminates to doctors imply that the
drug is FDA-approved for treating vasomotor symptoms, and make
assertions not backed by scientific support.

"The law is very clear -- before a drug can be marketed to the
public, the FDA must approve it as safe and effective for that
specific use," said Steve Berman, attorney for the plaintiffs
and managing partner of Seattle-based Hagens Berman.  "Doctors
have written more than 34 million prescriptions of Estratest,
and many for conditions the drug is not approved to treat."

In an unrelated patent case in 1999 the FDA, Department of
Justice and the presiding judge all reprimanded Solvay for
marketing Estratest for unapproved uses, the complaint contends.  
According to the consumer groups, these practices have increased
sales of the drugs at the expense of consumers who have paid for
and taken a drug that has not been proven safe or effective.

"By implying that Estratest is safe and effective for this use,
this drug company has taken doctors and consumers for a ride,"
said Steve Blackledge with CALPIRG.  "We're standing up to this
drug company to stop what appears to be dangerous, arrogant
behavior."

Estratest is a combination therapy, consisting of both estrogen
and androgen.  In the early 1970s the FDA announced its belief
that such combination drugs are effective and safe when used by
menopausal women suffering from hot flashes that have not been
abated by estrogen-only treatment.  At that time, the makers of
Estratest and other similar drugs applied for FDA approval of
their therapies.

Bill Powers of the Congress of California Seniors points out
that the financial impact of the illegal marketing practices of
pharmaceutical companies is often devastating to seniors.  "Not
only are seniors among the greatest consumers of prescription
drugs, especially hormone replacement drugs, but they also
commonly have to pay for their drugs 100% out-of-pocket," he
said.  "High prescription drug prices are eating into any
savings seniors have while the drug companies are profiting at
the expense of one of our most vulnerable populations."

Though Solvay applied to the FDA in 1981, Estratest has never
been approved for its marketed use.  Furthermore, on April 14,
2003, the FDA announced it is investigating whether the
combination therapy effectively treats such menopausal symptoms.

Despite its lack of FDA approval and questioned effectiveness,
Estratest has proven a lucrative product for Solvay.  In 2000,
Estratest was the 199th top sold prescription drug in the United
States. Sales of the drug reached $110 million in 2001,
according the complaint.

Filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, the suit asks the court to order Solvay to immediately
stop marketing its product and to issue notices regarding the
truth about Estratest's FDA status.  In addition CCS, CALPIRG,
and PAL ask that the company be forced to compensate consumers
for money spent on the drug and relinquish all profits received
from its sale.

For more details, contact Lisa Kaplan of Prescription Access
Litigation by Phone: 1-617-275-2931 or Steve Berman of Hagens
Berman by Phone: 1-206-623-7292 or visit the Website:
http://www.prescriptionaccess.org


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Pact in Engle Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Clark County, Nevada granted approval for
the settlement proposed by Technical Olympic USA, Inc. to settle
a class action filed in connection with its proposed merger with
Engle Holdings Corporation.  

The settlement also includes a similar class action filed in the
80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The suits
charged that the Company breached their fiduciary duty by
entering into the merger.  Two interveners filed interventions
in the Texas class action.  

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

The parties originally contemplated that the settlement would be
consummated in the Texas action.  In the third quarter of 2002,
the parties learned that the anticipated Texas forum was
unavailable due to a prior dismissal.  The court later entered
an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement relating to
the Nevada action.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Growers Suit Changes How Auctions Are Done
--------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco auctioneer's chant has faded away in the Southside
city of Danville, Virginia, where it was born more than a
century ago.  When the flue-cured tobacco sales started recently
at Motley's Warehouse, the last auction house operating in
Danville, the old-fashioned way of marketing Virginia's largest
cash crop surrendered to the computer age, a victim to a class
action brought by tobacco farmers who charged the tobacco
companies with price-fixing at auctions, the Richmond Times-
Dispatch reports.

As in auctions past, buyers walked the rows of bright leaf
tobacco offered for sale by the farmers.  However, instead of
shouting or signaling their bids to an auctioneer who then
chanted what was going on to the prospective buyers, they
pressed button on hand-held computers-- a silent, colorless
procedure.

It seemed the auctioneer's chant would last at least as long as
the auctions survived -- that is, until this year, when legal
concerns did away with the "storied art."

In may, several US tobacco companies agreed to settle a class
action filed by a group of farmers in 2000.  The lawsuit accused
the companies of price-fixing at auctions and conspiring to
undermine the federal tobacco price-support program.

The farmers got a $200 million settlement, far less than they
initially sought.  However, the companies, which admitted no
wrongdoing, demanded changes to the auction system to avoid
future accusations.  Thus was born the electronic bidding system
and the demise of the auctioneer's chant that filled the auction
house with color, sound, and excitement.

"It takes the thrill out of the auction without the auctioneer,"
said T. Ryland Dodson, 81, a retired judge and farmer, who has
watched the auctions since he was a boy.  Most of the growers at
the auction in the Motley Warehouse lamented the loss of the old
way.

Among the companies that agreed to the recent settlement were
Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest cigarette maker, as well
as the domestic tobacco subsidiary of Richmond-based leaf dealer
Universal Corporation.  RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., the second
largest U.S. cigarette maker, refused to settle with the farmers
and said it will go to trial next year.


US WIRELESS: SEC Files Securities Fraud Complaint V. Executives
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced
that it has filed an action in federal court charging Oliver
Hilsenrath and David S. Klarman with fraud and other misconduct
in violation of the federal securities laws.  Mr. Hilsenrath is
the former Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Klarman the former
General Counsel for U.S. Wireless Corporation headquartered in
San Ramon, California.
     
The SEC's complaint alleges that from August 1997 to January
2000, Mr. Hilsenrath and Mr. Klarman had US WIRELESS transfer
common stock worth approximately $3.2 million and cash totaling
approximately $428,000 to several offshore entities that they
secretly owned and controlled.   

The transfers were part of a scheme by Mr. Hilsenrath and Mr.
Klarman to extract assets from U.S. WIRELESS without providing
any consideration in return.  In order to conceal their
misappropriation of company funds and stock, the defendants
caused U.S. WIRELESS to make materially false and misleading
statements in its 1998, 1999, and 2000 annual and periodic
financial reports filed with the Commission.   

Under the direction of Mr. Hilsenrath and Mr. Klarman, the cash
and stock transfers were originally recorded in U.S. WIRELESS's
books and financial statements as compensation for services or
as the sale of stock for valid consideration.  Mr. Hilsenrath
and Mr. Klarman also made misrepresentations about the transfers
to U.S. WIRELESS's auditors.  The defendants also made false
statements in at least one Form S-3 filing.  

In early 2001, U.S. WIRELESS's Board of Directors received
information challenging the validity of the transfers.  Once the
unauthorized and illegal character of the transfers was
recognized, U.S. WIRELESS restated its financial results for
fiscal 2000 to increase its annual net loss from $11.4 million
to $17.7 million, or by 35%.
     
The Commission's complaint charges Mr. Hilsenrath and Mr.
Klarman with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act), Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and
13b2-2 thereunder and aiding and abetting violations of Sections
13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-
1 and 13a-13 thereunder.  

The Commission seeks an order enjoining Mr. Hilsenrath and Mr.
Klarman from future violations of these provisions, barring them
from serving as directors or officers of companies reporting to
the Commission, requiring them to disgorge their ill-gotten
gains, and requiring them to pay civil money penalties.
     

XTO ENERGY: Finishes Gas Royalties Settlement Payment in OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy has finished payments for the settlement of a class
action filed in the District Court of Dewey County, Oklahoma by
royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs allege that since 1991, XTO Energy has underpaid
royalty owners as a result of reducing royalties for improper
charges for production, marketing, gathering, processing and
transportation costs and selling natural gas through affiliated
companies at prices less favorable than those paid by third
parties.

The parties have agreed on a settlement that the court approved
in April 2003 and was paid in July 2003.  This settlement will
reduce royalty income paid to the trust in August 2003 and the
distribution to be paid to unitholders in September by $832,665,
or 2.1 cents per unit.  This amount reflects 80% of the portion
of the settlement relating to production from the underlying
properties for periods since December 1, 1998, the effective
date of the trust.  The effect of the settlement on future
distributions for other months will not be significant.


*The New Legal World of Philip Morris: Through A Window Darkly
---------------------------------------------------------------
The legal world which Philip Morris USA perceives the Company to
inhabit today surely must be different from the one the Company
inhabited before the Fifth District Court of Appeals' decision
on July 14, 2003.  Today, Philip Morris holds forth in a legal
world in which stay of the $10.1 judgment rendered against the
company in the light cigarettes case is not linked to the
constitutional right of Philip Morris to appeal.

The Fifth District's decision held, among other things, that it
was the clear law of the state of Illinois that the right to
appeal is not dependent on posting a bond. The right to appeal
resides in the Illinois constitution. "Even if an appellant is
unable to post a sufficient bond, that party may still appeal,
but the enforcement of the judgment will not be stayed."  Today,
the bonding requirements that must be satisfied to obtain a stay
of judgment are contained in Supreme Court Rule 305.

What did the appeals court say about Rule 305?  One of the
inherent powers possessed by all courts, independent of Supreme
Court Rule 305, is the power to grant a stay pending appeal.  It
is a discretionary act, but it cannot be exercised in a fashion
that would conflict with the letter or spirit of Supreme Court
Rule 305.  The duration of an unsecured or undersecured stay
should be very limited.   To allow an extended unsecured or
undersecured stay of judgment would eviscerate the salutary
purpose served by the supersede as bond provided for in section
305 (a):  "The bond shall be in an amount sufficient to cover
the amount of the judgment, interest and costs."

Therefore, the Fifth District believes ". that this paragraph
(305(b)) is a codification of the inherent power of courts to
grant temporary stays in situations where the procedural
requirements of paragraph (a) , such as timeliness, sufficiency
of the surety, have not yet been satisfied."  

The court amplified and stressed that such discretion to grant a
stay of a money judgment on "just" terms, as is codified in
section (b), is limited in scope, and the stay is limited in
duration to the time needed to post a proper bond.  If after a
short but reasonable time, a proper bond as mandated by section
(a) is not posted, the stay must be lifted.  Further than this
the discretion of a court may not be exercised.  Otherwise, said
the Fifth District, a judgment creditor could have no confidence
that the judgment would ever be collectible.

The Fifth District decision makes it clear that Circuit Court
Judge Brody had no discretion to change the amount of the
required bond, although he did have the discretion to stay the
judgment while Philip Morris sought to put together a proper
bond as defined by Section (a).  However, it is a discretion
limited in both scope and duration.  

Given these principles set forth by the Fifth District, the
legal world is one very different from the one contemplated by
Philip Morris prior to the Fifth District's decision.  Prior to
the decision, Philip Morris believed the stay of judgment would
be extended and that the company would be permitted to post a
bond that it characterized as onerous, yet possible to handle.  
Now, unless the original amount of $12 billion is posted in
order to stay judgment against Philip Morris, the plaintiffs
could proceed to execute judgment, the threat of which earlier
elicited a "promise" from Philip Morris that it would seek
protection in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. At the moment a 30-day
stay is in effect dating from the date of the Fifth District
decision.

Probably another stay of enforcement would be forthcoming while
Philip Morris appeals the Fifth District decision to the
Illinois Supreme Court.  However, Philip Morris stands on a
position that is more fraught with peril so long as the Fifth
District decision stands.  Whether the Supreme Court is ready to
find the rules it enacted of a more conditional nature than did
the Fifth District is a "wait and see."

The legal world in which William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris's
associate general counsel and a Philip Morris vice president,
would argue elegantly that "Neither Philip Morris USA nor any
other company in this country can secure a $12 billion bond to
stay enforcement of a $10.1 billion judgment; that the entire
bonding capacity in the United States is a fraction of that
amount," is a more doubtful, questionable legal world for the
Company and its coterie of attorneys.  The place from which Mr.
Ohlemeyer further argued that the right to appeal was a due
process right under the constitution of the United States, so
that it followed that the bond must be reduced in order that  
the company might exercise its right to appeal, is a position of
linkage between the right to a bond and a right to appeal that
seems to have been "blasted out of the water."

Joined with these arguments were the protestations from Philip
Morris that it would not be able to meet the requirements of the
MSA, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which requires annual
payments to the states for 25 years, and that the company would
have to seek Chapter 11 protection from its creditors in
bankruptcy court.   

This argument had been reinforced by motions filed by Washington
State Attorney General Christina Gregoire and a number of other
states attorneys general who brought the message vividly to
Judge Byron's courtroom that without the annual payment from
Philip Morris, which paid the largest percentage of the
installment payments, the annual budgets of many of the states
would be in dire straits.  "Hooked" on tobacco money was how the
budgetary dependence of the states was characterized by some
prominent representatives of the press.

Judge Byron, thereupon, after lengthy, closed-courtroom
hearings, altered the amount and basic nature of the appeal
bond.  The core of the bond would now be an existing $6 billion,
seven percent long-term note issued by Philip Morris's parent
company, the Altria Group Inc. in April 2002; plus the semi-
annual $210 million interest due on the inter-company note
beginning October 1, 2003; plus four cash payments of $200,000,
000 each, due September 2003, December 2003, March 2004 and June
2004.

Judge Byron held that this atypical bond, which Philip Morris
agreed to, would be sufficient to secure payment of the Judgment
all the way to the US Supreme Court.  Certainly, the confidence
in the procedures asked for and granted during the bond-
modifying process can be looked at askance, with some wonderment
aroused as to why the meaning and impact of Rule 305 were not
more thoroughly plumbed by all the actors in the drama.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel, Stephen Tillery, of the law firm
Korein and Tillery in St. Louis, and Michael Brickman, of
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman in Charleston, South
Carolina, contended that the now reduced appeal bond - reduced
from its original amount of $12 billion - was insufficient to
protect the amount of the $10.1 billion judgment rendered in
March 2003, by Circuit Court trial judge, the Hon. Nicholas G.
Byron in the "light" cigarettes case.   

The plaintiffs' attorneys further contended that Judge Byron had
no discretion to reduce the bond that earlier had been required.  
With these arguments in hand, they appealed the reduction to the
Fifth District Court of Appeals in Illinois.  The plaintiff
class lawyers maintained that a cash or near-cash bond, anything
more certain than a note payable by the defendant's parent
company was required.  

Even this position did not approach the mandated nature of the
supersedeas bond as defined in Rule 305(a), according to the
Fifth District decision.  The Court held that the bond
requirement is unambiguous:  "The bond shall be in an amount
sufficient to cover the amount of the judgment, interest and
costs," says Rule 305(a).

The Philip Morris attorneys acknowledge that "Judge Byron
balanced the financial condition of the company with the
financial interests of the plaintiffs and ordered that a bond be
posted that Philip Morris USA believes, while still onerous to
the company, is in full compliance with the letter and the
spirit of the Illinois Supreme Court bonding rules."

PM attorneys, George Lombardi and Jeffrey Wagner, of the law
firm Winston & Strawn in Chicago, among others, are relying upon
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305(b) that states, in part, "on
notice and motion, and an opportunity for opposing parties to be
heard, the (trial) court may stay the enforcement of any
judgment . conditioned upon such terms that are just."  

The reasoning by which the Fifth District Court of Appeals comes
to its conclusions has an amazing simplicity.  The underlying
facts of the case are by this time well known to the reader who
has followed the saga of the class-action lawsuit tried before
Judge Byron in his courtroom in Madison County, Illinois.  

The plaintiff smokers, some 1.1 million Illinois smokers of
light cigarettes, originally filed the case of Price et al. v.
Philip Morris Inc., in the circuit court of Madison County,
Illinois, against Philip Morris.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act by engaging in certain marketing
practices that the plaintiffs considered false and fraudulent;
more particularly, the claims by Philip Morris that its light
cigarettes were less harmful to the consumer than its regular
brands of cigarettes.  The plaintiffs alleged they had been
damaged by these practices.

During the course of the litigation, class-action status was
granted and a statewide class was certified.  Following a bench
trial before Judge Nicholas G. Byron, the circuit court found in
favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $10.1 billion.  As part of
the judgment, the circuit court set the amount of the Rule 305
appeal bond at $12 billion.

Subsequently, Philip Morris filed a motion to reduce the bond,
citing an inability to post the bond that had been ordered, and
claiming, as indicated above, that it would be forced into
bankruptcy and that other settlement obligations it owed to many
states under the 1998 "Master Settlement Agreement" would be
jeopardized.

Following several hearings, the circuit court modified the bond
requirements.  The bond approved by the circuit court is
substantially less than the amount needed to cover the judgment,
interest and costs during appeal.  The $6 billion note from
Altria Group Inc. to Philip Morris, which is central to the
amount of the modified bond, inspires questions about the nature
of the bond's security.  In other words, if the judgment is
affirmed, the amount of security pledged would not be enough to
satisfy what would be owed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals made clear at the outset
that requiring the kind of bond described in Rule 305(a) to be
posted as a precondition for granting a stay, serves as a means
to give the judgment creditor security during pendency of the
appeal that it will be paid if the judgment is affirmed.  

A stay, formally referred to as a supersedeas, suspends
enforcement of a judgment and is intended to preserve the status
quo pending the appeal and to preserve the fruits of a
meritorious appeal where they might otherwise be lost.  The
supersedeas operates against enforcement of the judgment, but
not against the judgment itself.

At the outset, again, the court wanted still another principle
of law understood - that it is the clear law of the state of
Illinois, that the right to appeal, the right to file post trial
motions and the right to obtain a stay by filing a supersedeas
bond are separate, independent rights.  The right to appeal is
not dependent on posting a bond; even if the bond is
insufficient, the right to appeal will be intact, but the
judgment will not be stayed.

The court acknowledged that historically every appeal operated
in and of itself as a stay or supersedeas of all proceedings,
because a bond was an essential part of every appeal.  Today,
the constitution of Illinois provides for an appeal, as a matter
of right, from all final judgments of the circuit court.  Having
created the right of appeal under the Illinois constitution,
that right may not be discriminated against by reason of
appellants' inability to furnish an appeal bond. Section 76 of
the Civil Practice Act provides that an appeal shall be deemed
perfected when the notice of appeal shall be filed in the lower
court.  No other step by which an appeal is perfected shall be
deemed jurisdictional.

Today, the bonding requirements that must be satisfied in order
to obtain a stay, independent of the appeal right, are contained
in Supreme Court Rule 305.  General administrative and
supervisory authority is vested in the Illinois Supreme Court by
the state constitution.  The constitution expressly vests rule-
making authority concerning appeals in the Illinois Supreme
Court.  Pursuant to this rule-making authority, the Illinois has
adopted Rule 305, which sets forth the requirements to obtain a
stay of judgment pending appeal, as well as the procedure
governing such stays.

The Illinois Supreme Court has stated the following with respect
to the rules adopted pursuant to its constitutional rule-making
authority: "The rules of court we have promulgated are not
aspirational.  They are not suggestions.  They have the force of
law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and
enforced as written."

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

The court notes that Philip Morris claims that the bond posted
conforms to Rule 305(b).  It notes, as well, that Philip Morris
claims that paragraph (b) allows for discretionary stays on such
terms and conditions as are "just" (a word used in paragraph
(b)), including the approval of a stay when the bond posted
fails to satisfy paragraph (a).  According to Philip Morris,
said the court, unless this was true, paragraph (b) would be
meaningless.

"We disagree with Philip Morris.  Nothing has been cited to
support this construction of Rule 305 . Rule 305(b) to the
extent it concerns money judgments is a safety valve.  Nothing
in that subsection authorizes a bond amount or condition that
deviates from Rule (a)."

Then the court takes up, in its decision, the claim Philip
Morris makes that it established sufficient facts to warrant a
discretionary stay in light of the alleged adverse consequences
to third parties and the prospect of bankruptcy if the bond
requirements are not relaxed.  However, the court does not yield
upon considering these critical considerations.  "Rule 305 is
not a suggestion.  We have no authority to deviate from its
requirements to entertain these arguments."  

The court then refers to a statement by Justice Marshall in the
1987 case before the Supreme Court, Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.  
"Because a wealthy business corporation has been ordered to pay
damages in an amount hitherto unprecedented and finds its
continued survival in doubt, we and the courts below have been
presented with arguments of great sophistication and complexity.  
The court's opinion, which addresses in sweeping terms one of
these questions, is the result of what Justice Holmes called 'a
kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear
seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of
law will bend.' "

Finally, Philip Morris argues, said the Fifth District Court,
that the United States and Illinois constitutions guarantee its
right to appeal.  It claims that it cannot post a bond in
conformity with Rule 305 (a) and that, therefore, its
constitutional right to appeal has been violated.

The Fifth District court said such a claim is meritless.  The
court observed that all its arguments presented earlier in the
decision, and which are given here, refute such a claim.  
"Suffice to say that the right to a stay and the right to appeal
are separate and independent.  Philip Morris may appeal with or
without a bond and with or without a stay.  There is no
constitutional deprivation."

The Fifth District Court of Appeals, concluded, that with
respect to strictures of Supreme Court Rule 305, which both the
Fifth District and the circuit court must observe, that they
remand the instant cause to the Madison County circuit court for
the limited purpose of reconsidering the amount, terms,
conditions, and security of the appeal bond in support of a stay
of the judgment in conformity with Supreme Court Rule 305.

The court ordered that the present stay of enforcement is to
remain in effect for 30 days from July 14, to preserve the
status quo while proceedings are conducted on remand.  The court
acknowledged that the circuit court might exercise its inherent
authority to grant an additional temporary stay if additional
time is required to comply with requirements of an appeal bond
fashioned after the reconsideration.

Philip Morris had appealed for an interim stay, but the appeal
court denied it in light of the ability of the circuit court to
grant a temporary stay following the remand.

These are now the problems Philip Morris faces:  If the company
goes forward with its appeal of the light cigarettes case, it
must post a bond covering the full amount of the judgment with
interest and costs; or if it does not, it must appeal and face
enforcement of judgment while it exercises its right of appeal
on the merits.

On the other hand, it may be able to get a stay while it appeals
the appeals court's decision as to the meaning of Rule 305.  Or,
given the financial exigencies it pleaded earlier, it may seek
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

These are the new contours of Philip Morris's legal world.  
Perhaps, the imaginative legal team of the company may fashion
others.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals decision was written by the
Honorable J. Maag (Gordon E.), and concurred in by J.Donovan
(James K.) and J. Goldenhersh (Richard P.).


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:
ASF) between May 2, 2001 and July 31, 2002, inclusive, against
the Company and certain officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of material misrepresentations artificially
inflating the price of Administaff securities.  Defendants
failed to disclose several adverse facts concerning their
business as follows:

     (1) the Company had improperly calculated the pricing on
         worksite employees for employers with decreasing costs;

     (2) that Administaff's accounting did not correspond costs
         with pricing on healthcare insurance adversely
         affecting future results from the insufficient pricing;
         and

     (3) that the Company's revenues were improperly recognized
         from the exclusion of worksite employee payroll costs.

Upon this news, Administaff stock declined to $4.20 per share,
compared to the Class Period high of $36.48.

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


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Launches TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Flowserve
Corporation (NYSE: FLS) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 23, 2001 and September 27, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 23, 2001 and
September 27, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flowserve securities.

During the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company issued statements that failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's declining revenues and earnings
         during 2001 and 2002 would have caused the Company to
         violate its loan covenants but for its public stock
         offerings, which enabled the Company to reduce its
         debt, obtain favorable interest rates and debt
         refinancings from lenders, and enable Flowserve to fund
         the acquisition of the Flow Control Division (IFC) of
         Invensys plc, among other things;

     (2) that demand for the Company's products had materially
         declined, especially its aftermarket sales or "quick-
         turnaround business" resulting in revenue and earnings
         shortfalls;

     (3) that the Company's recent acquisitions, including
         Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. (IDP) and IFC, had not
         materially altered the Company's dependence on revenue
         streams from the Chemical industry, or further
         stabilized its aftermarket revenue streams for its pump
         and valve business through significant cross-selling
         opportunities, among other things;

     (4) that the Company's reorganizations, downsizing and
         facility closures, following its acquisition of
         Innovative Valve Technologies, Inc. ("Invatec"), IDP
         and IFC had failed to eliminate excess manufacturing
         capacity resulting in the material erosion of the
         Company's gross margins and earnings;

     (5) that the Company had severe and continuing integration
         problems following the acquisition of Invatec,
         resulting in a disruption of the Company's service and
         maintenance operations and contributing to the decline
         in Flowserve's high margin service revenues, eventually
         necessitating the reorganization of the Company's
         service business segment; and

     (6) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections and forecasts concerning the Company and
         its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during roadshow presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.  Market reaction to
the Company's announcement was swift and severe.  Flowserve
shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on September 27, 2002, a
decline of more than 75% from the Class Period high of $34.90
reached on May 2, 2002.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts, Flowserve completed
two public offerings of its common stock, thereby raising more
than $433.9 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their
personally-held Flowserve common stock, generating millions in
proceeds.

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


IMPATH INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of IMPATH Inc. (NasdaqNM:IMPH), from April 25, 2001
to July 29, 2003, inclusive and who were damaged thereby.

IMPATH describes itself as "the Cancer Information Company."  
The complaint alleges that defendants Carter Eckert, James
Agnello, David Cammarata, Richard P.Adelson, Anu D. Saad, and
the Company, 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 April 25, 2001 and July 29, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's securities.

The complaint also alleges that the Company's press releases and
periodic SEC filings were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the Company had materially
overstated its accounts receivable and improperly capitalized a
material asset, resulting in artificially inflated reported
financial results and condition during the Class Period.

On July 30, 2003, prior to the opening of regular trading,
IMPATH issued a press release announcing that its audit
committee had begun an investigation into possible ``accounting
irregularities'' by IMPATH and that the Company believes it has
overstated its accounts receivable and had been improperly
capitalizing one of its assets.

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

The Company's financial statements during the class period, all
of which were implicitly or explicitly represented to have been
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP), it is alleged in the complaint, were
materially false and misleading because the defendants had
caused the Company to materially overstate its accounts
receivable and improperly capitalize a material asset in its
publicly issued financial statements.  As a result, the
Company's shareholders have sustained tremendous losses.

In response to IMPATH's announcement, the Nasdaq stock market
has halted trading in IMPATH common stock and announced that
trading will not resume until IMPATH provides Nasdaq with
additional information.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, David R. Buchanan or
Eric T. Chaffin by Mail: Seeger Weiss LLP, One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: 212-584-0700 or 877-539-4125
or by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com, dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
or echaffin@seegerweiss.com


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVN) common stock during the
period between October 29, 2001 and April 28, 2003.

The complaint charges Noven and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Noven develops, manufactures and markets transdermal drug
delivery systems.  The Company is currently developing a
methylphenidate transdermal drug delivery system for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) called MethyPatchr.

During the class period, Noven was engaged in the development
and testing of MethyPatchr.  Noven began screening and
enrollment for a repetition of a Phase III clinical study of the
drug on October 29, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading
statements regarding the rationale and marketing strategies for
approval of MethyPatchr permitted Noven to artificially inflate
the value of its technology to shareholders and thereby minimize
the impact of financial uncertainties relating to serious
marketed product issues during the class period.  Moreover, it
allowed defendants to reap bonuses and insider trading proceeds.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period,
were as follows:

     (1) MethyPatchr did not possess the safety and efficacy of
         immediate release oral methylphenidate products;

     (2) The utility and advantages for MethyPatchr had been
         misrepresented by pointing to unmet needs and product
         advantages that did not and would not exist by the time
         Noven expected NDA approval;

     (3) The FDA was aware of the reasons why MethyPatchr would
         not be considered as safe or efficacious as Noven had
         claimed;

     (4) Transdermal drug delivery systems have been the source
         of serious medication errors that would complicate the
         product's contemplated use; and

     (5) For one or more reasons related to the safety or
         efficacy of the product, the MethyPatchr NDA submitted
         on June 27, 2002 would not be "approvable" as
         submitted.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
Noven's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $27.45 on June 17, 2002, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors reaped bonuses and insider
trading proceeds, selling more than $500,000 worth of their own
shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


STELLENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of Stellent, Inc. (NasdaqNM:STEL), between October 2,
2001 and April 1, 2002 inclusive.  The class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Stellent is a provider of business content management solutions.  
The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Stellent securities.

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