CAR_Public/030814.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, August 14, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 160

                        Headlines                            

724 SOLUTIONS: Attempting to Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Suit
ARMKEL LLC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Condom Lawsuit in NJ
ARMSTRONG WORLD: PA Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
CANADA: Ontario Retirement Board Faces Suit Filed For Ex-Members

CENTILLIUM COMMUNICATIONS: Named in CSFB Securities Suit in FL
CARESCIENCE INC.: PA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
COLUMBIA ENERGY: KS Court Allows Filing of Fourth Amended Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: Appeals Court Reverses Securities Suit Dismissal
CORE LABORATORIES: Stock Suits Consolidated, Transferred To TX

DELTATHREE INC.: Working To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
DELTATHREE INC.: DE Court Dismisses Lawsuits Over Atarey Offer
DIRECTV INC.: Enters Settlement With NRTC For Suit in C.D. CA
FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. OH
FLORIDA: Parents Asking to Be Allowed To View Children's FCATs

HUGHES ELECTRONICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Echostar Suit
IDAHO: Idaho Farmers Mark Start Of Grass Field Burning in August
IMANAGE INC.: Working To Settle NY Consolidated Securities Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Dropped As Defendant in KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
LEXENT INC.: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in DE

LEXENT INC.: Inks MOU To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in VA
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: KS Court Allows Plaintiffs To Amend Lawsuit
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Enters Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Experts Chosen To Reinvent Family Services Division

NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Asks To Intervene in Con Edison Merger Suit
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Plaintiff Withdraws CA Medicare Fraud Lawsuit
PEAK INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Mediation For OH Suit Set September 2003
PUGET SOUND: WA, OR Court Grant Voluntary Dismissal of Lawsuits

RAFFLES TOWN: Members To Get Damages Based On Breach Of Promise
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Settles Securities Lawsuits in AZ Court
SUPERGEN INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in NY

WIRELESS FACILITIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
WYETH: More Personal Injury Lawsuits Lodged
WYETH: Faces Additional Suit Over Thimerosal in CA Court

*Small CA Firms Tagged as Prime Violators of Overtime Wage Laws


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CATALINA MARKETING: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in FL
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CT Securities Suit
CV THERAPEUTICS: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in CA
CV THERAPEUTICS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio

IMPATH INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMPATH INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Emerson Poynter Files Stock Suit in NC
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in NC
NOVEN INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL

QUEST SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA


                        *********


724 SOLUTIONS: Attempting to Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
724 Solutions, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court in the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purported classes of plaintiffs who acquired the Company's
common shares during certain periods.

The amended complaint names as defendants, in addition to the
Company, some or all of the current or former directors and
officers of the Company and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering of securities.  In general,
the amended complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the Underwriter
         Defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the aftermarket at certain pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
Individual Defendants failed to disclose these facts and that
the Company and the Individual Defendants were aware of, or
disregarded, the Underwriter Defendants' conduct.  

Similar actions have or since been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the
Southern District of New York.  

In October 2002, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from
the IPO Allocation Litigation without prejudice.  In July 2003,
a committee of the Company's Board of Directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of the Company and of the Individual Defendants for
the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended
complaint.

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign
away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the
Company may have against its underwriters.  Any direct financial
impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers.  

The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the Court overseeing the IPO
Allocation Litigation.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of Ameritrade Holding
Corporation in the class action claiming the Company was not
able to handle the volume of subscribers to its Internet
brokerage services.

The suit, which was initially filed in the district court of
Douglas County, Nebraska, alleged deceptive, fraudulent and
misleading practices.  It seeks equitable relief compelling the
Company to increase capacity, and unspecified compensatory
damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed.  The district court
granted summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and
the plaintiffs appealed.  

On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceedings.  The court did
not decide whether the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

The Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of pending
legal proceedings.  A substantial adverse judgment or other
resolution regarding the proceedings could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.


ARMKEL LLC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Condom Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a class action filed against
Armkel LLC, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., and two other condom
manufacturers, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, over condoms
lubricated with the spermicide nonoxynol-9.

The World Health Organization and other interested groups have
issued reports suggesting that N-9 should not be used rectally
or for multiple daily acts of vaginal intercourse, given the
ingredient's potential to cause irritation to human membranes.  
The lawsuit alleges that condoms lubricated with N-9 are being
marketed in a misleading manner because the makers of such
condoms claim they aid in the prevention of sexually transmitted
diseases whereas, according to the plaintiffs, public health
organizations have found that N-9 usage can under some
circumstances increase the risk of transmission of disease.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit after defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that their compliance
with comprehensive federal medical device regulations precluded
recovery.


ARMSTRONG WORLD: PA Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted approval to the settlement proposed by
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) for the class actions
filed against:

     (1) AWI's retirement committee,

     (2) certain current and former members of the Retirement
         Committee,

     (3) the Retirement Savings and Stock Ownership Plan
         (RSSOP),    

     (4) Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

     (5) the trustee bank of the RSSOP

Plaintiffs allege breach of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA
pertaining to losses in their RSSOP accounts, which were
invested in Armstrong common stock.  

While the Company believes there are substantive defenses to the
allegations and while denying liability, an agreement was
reached to settle this matter.  Contributors to the settlement
are AWI, its insurer and the trustee bank of the RSSOP.  The
full amount of the settlement will be allocated among
approximately 370 former employees.  

AWI's portion of the settlement is $1.0 million.  The settlement
was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on March 31, 2003 and by
the federal court on June 16, 2003.  Based upon the Bankruptcy
Court's approval of the settlement, AWI recorded a $1.0 million
charge in the first quarter of 2003 as an other non-operating
expense.


CANADA: Ontario Retirement Board Faces Suit Filed For Ex-Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement Board concerning the transfer of
benefits from the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System
(OMERS Plan) to another pension plan under the Multi-Lateral
Portability Agreement in respect to individuals who terminated
their membership in the OMERS Plan after January 1, 2000.  The
Agreement provides for the transfer of pension benefits between
the large Ontario public sector pension plans that participate
in it.

The plaintiffs are Angus Mortson and John Bacon, two former
OMERS Plan members who terminated their OMERS Plan membership
after January 1, 2000 and elected to transfer their benefits
under the OMERS Plan to another pension plan under the
Agreement.  They will be requesting court certification as
representatives of a class consisting of all individuals who
terminated their membership in the OMERS Plan after January 1,
2000 and elected to transfer their benefits under the OMERS Plan
to another pension plan under the Agreement.

The statement of claim alleges that the OMERS Board failed to
provide the members of the proposed class with the full value of
their OMERS Plan benefits.  The statement of claim also alleges
that the alleged failure of the OMERS Board to provide the
members of the proposed class with the full value of their OMERS
Plan benefits constituted a breach of its fiduciary and
contractual obligations to the members of the proposed class and
contravened the OMERS Plan and the Agreement.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the members of the
proposed class equal the difference between the amount that was
transferred and the value of their entitlements under the OMERS
Plan, plus interest.

For more details, contact Mark Zigler or Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky by Phone: (416) 977-8353


CENTILLIUM COMMUNICATIONS: Named in CSFB Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centillium Communications, Inc. was named as a defendant in the
securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation and its clients in United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint asserts wrongdoing relating to various initial
public offerings in which Credit Suisse First Boston was
involved between 1999 and 2001.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Company has not responded to the complaint.  Although it
believes this lawsuit is without merit, no assurance can be
given about its outcome, and an unfavorable outcome could have a
material adverse effect on its operating results.


CARESCIENCE INC.: PA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed in part the securities class action filed
against Carescience, Inc. on behalf of all persons who allegedly
purchased Company common stock between June 29, 2000 and
November 1, 2000.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading Prospectus and
Registration Statement with respect to the initial public
offering of Company common stock.

On July 25, 2003, the court dismissed all claims under Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, but allowed the claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act to continue.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's prospectus and registration statement
misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts concerning
the Company's competitors, two of the Company's prospective
products and the Company's contract with the California
HealthCare Foundation.  The action seeks compensatory and other
damages, and costs and expenses associated with litigation.

Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the
case or estimate the range of any potential loss that may be
incurred in the litigation, management believes the lawsuits are
frivolous and without merit, strenuously denies all allegations
of wrongdoing asserted by plaintiffs, and believes it has
meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims.  Management further
believes that the resolution of this litigation will not have a
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


COLUMBIA ENERGY: KS Court Allows Filing of Fourth Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Stevens County State Court in Kansas allowed plaintiffs to
file a fourth amended class action against Columbia Energy
Services Corporation, thirteen of its affiliates and over 200
natural gas measurers, mostly natural gas pipelines, over oil
and gas leases in Kansas.  The suit asserts:

     (1) a breach of contract claim,

     (2) negligent or intentional misrepresentation,

     (3) civil conspiracy,

     (4) common carrier liability,

     (5) conversion,

     (6) violation of a variety of Kansas statutes and other
         common law causes of action.

The suit purports to be a nationwide class action filed on
behalf of all similarly situated gas producers, royalty owners,
overriding royalty owners, working interest owners and certain
state taxing authorities.

In June 2001, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed ten of the
fourteen Columbia entities.  Discovery relating to personal
jurisdiction has begun.  On September 12, 2001, the four
remaining Columbia defendants along with other defendants filed
a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  That motion is
currently pending before the court.

On April 10, 2003, the judge denied Plaintiffs motion for class
certification.  On July 28, 2003, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for to file a fourth amended complaint.  


CONAGRA FOODS: Appeals Court Reverses Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of the class action filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc.
and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for Nebraska alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the events resulting in the
Company's restatement of its financial statements.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action and that the plaintiff is a
proper class representative, unspecified compensatory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief deemed proper by
the court.

On July 23, 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit and entered judgment in favor of the company
and the executive officers.  On June 30, 2003, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the
action for further proceedings in the district court.


CORE LABORATORIES: Stock Suits Consolidated, Transferred To TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Core Laboratories NV
have been consolidated and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The suits were originally filed against the Company and certain
of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging, among other things,
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suits generally allege
that the defendants overstated the company's revenues and net
income in 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.  


DELTATHREE INC.: Working To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deltathree, Inc. is engaged in settlement discussions in the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
arising out of the Company's initial public offering in November
1999.  Various underwriters of the Company's IPO also are named
as defendants in the action.  

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 underwriters allegedly:

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

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in
         the aftermarket at predetermined  prices.  

On August 8, 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be
transferred to Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District
of New York 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 and
underwriters.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion
granting in part and denying in part those motions to dismiss.  
The complaint against the Company was not dismissed as a matter
of law.  These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no
discovery proceedings have taken place.  A proposed settlement
agreement between the plaintiffs and issuer defendants is in the
process of being negotiated and approved.


DELTATHREE INC.: DE Court Dismisses Lawsuits Over Atarey Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery in and for New Castle County
dismissed the class actions filed against Deltathree, Inc., its
officers and directors, and its majority stockholder Atarey
Hasharon Chevra Lepituach Vehashkaot Benadlan (1991) Ltd.  The
suit was filed in connection with the Company's formation of the
special committee to evaluate the proposal by Atarey to purchase
all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock not held
by Atarey and its affiliates.  

The lawsuits purport to be class actions on behalf of the
Company's public stockholders.  The plaintiffs in these actions
have asserted a variety of claims, including allegations that
Atarey's proposed tender offer price for the Company's publicly
held shares is unfair and grossly inadequate and that the
Company's officers and directors have breached their fiduciary
duties to the public stockholders.  

The Company did not believe that these lawsuits stated valid
claims against it or any of its officers or directors.  On July
24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal with the
court to dismiss the actions without prejudice.  Such Notice of
Dismissal was approved by the court on August 1, 2003 and the
actions have been dismissed without prejudice.


DIRECTV INC.: Enters Settlement With NRTC For Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) dismissing
their claims against each other pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The settlement, which also resolves the class action claims
filed against the Company by certain NRTC member companies, will
not become final until the Court conducts a fairness hearing and
approves the settlement of the class claims.  The principal
terms of the settlement include:

     (1) No money damages: The NRTC and its member companies
         release DIRECTV from all financial damage claims;

     (2) Fixed Term: DIRECTV and the NRTC agreed that the term
         of the DBS Distribution Agreement which entitles the
         NRTC to distribute DIRECTV programming will end on the
         later of the date when the DBS-1 satellite (also called
         DIRECTV 1) reaches the end of its useful life or June
         30, 2008.  DIRECTV and the NRTC also agreed to a fixed
         successor term, to run until June 30, 2011, during
         which DIRECTV and the NRTC will continue their
         relationship on the current terms.  NRTC members and
         those other companies possessing the right to
         distribute DIRECTV programming in their NRTC territory
         who agree to settle their claims may amend their
         distribution agreements to take advantage of the June
         30, 2011 successor term.  At the end of such term, all
         subscribers to DIRECTV programming in the NRTC
         territories as of June 30, 2011 will be transitioned to
         DIRECTV and become DIRECTV owned-and-operated
         customers.  DIRECTV will pay $150 per subscriber for
         each such transitioned subscriber.  The NRTC -- and the
         other parties possessing distribution rights in their
         NRTC territory who agree to the settlement -- will be
         prohibited from selling or sharing information
         regarding the subscribers with third parties;

     (2) Financial arrangements: The parties have also agreed
         that DIRECTV retains the right to sell the disputed
         premium services in NRTC territories.  NRTC will
         continue to bill and collect for these services with an
         increased minimum revenue share, from 10% to 15%, under
         the parties' existing Seamless Consumer Agreement, the
         term of which will be extended through June 30, 2011.
         DIRECTV has also agreed to share with the NRTC on a pro
         rata basis certain launch support payments that it may
         receive in the future from programmers;

This settlement does not resolve certain related pending
litigation between DIRECTV and Pegasus Satellite TV, one of the
companies that distributes DIRECTV programming through the NRTC.  
That litigation includes DIRECTV's $50 million claim against
Pegasus for breach of its former marketing agreement with
DIRECTV, Pegasus' remaining claims in the Central District
litigation, as well as a patent infringement claim filed by
Pegasus in Delaware.  

Pegasus will have an opportunity to join in this settlement.  
However, whether or not Pegasus elects to join, DIRECTV believes
that all issues regarding how long Pegasus' contractual rights
last and its future relationship with DIRECTV are resolved by
this settlement because Pegasus' rights are derived from the
DIRECTV/NRTC contract and this settlement resolves all issues
under that contract.

"We believe that the terms of this settlement are very
reasonable and are pleased that now there is clarity concerning
DIRECTV's contractual obligations to the NRTC," said Roxanne
Austin, president and COO, DIRECTV, Inc.  "With this litigation
behind us, DIRECTV can collaborate with the NRTC on constructive
issues designed to grow our respective businesses."


FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its officers face eight
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suits allege violations of federal securities laws related
to disclosures made by the Company's regarding its integration
of Old Kent and its effect on the Company's infrastructure,
including internal controls, and prospects and related matters.  
The complaints seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Company's common stock,
attorneys' fees and other expenses.

Management believes there are substantial defenses to these
lawsuits.


FLORIDA: Parents Asking to Be Allowed To View Children's FCATs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The head of a grassroots group, Gloria Pipkin, president and
founder of the Florida Coalition for Assessment Reform, has
asked Governor Jeb Bush to let parents see their children's
tests (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) while a lawsuit
over the issue is in the courts, Associated Press Newswires
reports.

Ms. Pipkin wrote to Governor Bush, "We feel strongly that any
test used to make life-altering decisions about children should
be subject to scrutiny."  However, the governor replied that the
state cannot afford to let them be seen because the state reuses
the test by rotating the questions.  Otherwise the expense would
be too great.

Ms. Pipkin argued that parents can see their children's FCAT
tests without violating the security of the test.  Such an
oversight is an important one, she said, and referred to
Minnesota, where the company that scores the FCAT wrongly scored
thousands of high school exams required for graduation.

The lawsuit making its way in the courts on the issue of parents
viewing the FCATs concerns the guardian of a Pinellas County
10th-grader who failed the test.  The guardian said she wanted
to see her ward's test to figure out where the student had
fallen short so she could help him get ready for the next test.

A state judge had ruled last October that parents should be able
to see graded FCAT test booklets and answer sheets.  However,
the state appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal, which
automatically suspended the effect of the decision and scheduled
oral arguments for September 18.

Students in grades three through 10 take the FCAT, which forms
the foundation for grading schools, rewarding schools and
granting vouchers.  It also plays a key role in deciding whether
third graders are promoted and whether seniors can graduate.


HUGHES ELECTRONICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Echostar Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed in
Delaware Chancery Court against Hughes Electronics Corporation
and the PanAmSat Board of Directors.

The suit alleged that the settlement between EchoStar
Communications Corporation and Hughes of all claims related to
the termination of the proposed merger between EchoStar and
Hughes favored Hughes in violation of 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 with the Delaware Supreme
Court.


IDAHO: Idaho Farmers Mark Start Of Grass Field Burning in August
----------------------------------------------------------------
August sparks the start of grass field burning by Idaho farmers
- that is when the growers of Kentucky bluegrass torch their
fields to stimulate next year's crop, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

It is also a time when people with asthma and respiratory
illnesses stay indoors or leave the region and the thick smoke
billows into the air near the Washington-Idaho border, sickening
people in both states, according to activists who are trying to
bring an end to the practice.

However, the grass seed farmers contend there is no evidence
that smoke from their fields is any different from the auto
emissions, wood stoves, wildfires and other burnings that also
pollute the air.

Northern Idaho is a major producer of Kentucky bluegrass seed,
which is used to create lawns and golf courses all over the
world.  Farmers have been burning their bluegrass-seed fields
since the 1950s, contending it eliminates stubble and stimulates
the growing of the next crop.

However, though there are fewer than 100 growers producing about
$125 million worth of grass seed a year in Idaho, the industry
has been a big player in the courts and the Legislature.  
Getting permission to burn this summer required a certain amount
of legal maneuvering by the farmers.

Last fall, Idaho First District Judge John Mitchell of Coeur
d'Alene, ordered growers not to burn their fields until they had
removed most of the straw on the ground.  He also ordered
farmers to post a $100,000 bond to reimburse people for medical
costs, lost wages and expenses if they leave town to escape the
smoke.  Judge Mitchell referred to two deaths in the area and
testimony from area doctors that the smoke was harming their
patients.

Growers appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which ruled that
Judge Mitchell overstepped his authority and that field burning
could proceed.  When another attempt to stop burning occurred,
the state of Idaho certified that no economic alternative exists
to burning of the fields, and burning continued.   

A new Idaho law shields farmers from lawsuits so long as they
burn legally.  However, the state has taken some steps to
protect public health.  It has a Web site that publicizes when
and where grass field burning will occur, so vulnerable people
can leave.  

Last year, 74,280 acres were burned statewide in Idaho,
including 5,462 acres in Kootenai County and 30,000 acres on the
nearby Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation.

The Idaho bluegrass farmers are now facing a class action
lawsuit filed by Seattle attorney Steve Berman, who is
representing thousands of people who say they are hurt by the
burning.

In documents for the case, lawyers for the grass growers say
there is no proof that bluegrass smoke is any more damaging to
vulnerable children than any other smoke.  They contend there
has never been a specific study of the health effects of
bluegrass smoke.

The state of Washington used to allow burning.  After hundreds
of Spokane doctors signed a petition in 1996, declaring the
burning a health menace, the Washington Legislature took steps
that effectively banned the practice.


IMANAGE INC.: Working To Settle NY Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
iManage, Inc. is working for the settlement of a consolidated
securities class action filed against it, the underwriters of
its initial public offering, its directors and certain officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from November
17, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleges
liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the
grounds that the registration statement for the initial public
offering did not disclose that:

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

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

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.  

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other public offerings conducted in 1999, 2000 and 2001.  
The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The motion was denied as to claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving the Company, as
well as in majority of all other cases.  The motion was denied
as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to the Company, on the
basis that the complaint alleged that the Company had made an
acquisitions following the initial public offering.

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

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


KINDER MORGAN: Dropped As Defendant in KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs did not name Kinder Morgan, Inc. as a defendant in
the amended class action filed in the Stevens County, Kansas
District Court, against some 250 natural gas pipelines and many
of their affiliates.

The suit, which alleges a conspiracy to underpay royalties,
taxes and producer payments by the defendants' undermeasurement
of the volume and heating content of natural gas produced from
nonfederal lands for more than 25 years.   The named plaintiffs
purport to adequately represent the interests of unnamed
plaintiffs in this action who are comprised of the nation's gas
producers, state taxing agencies and royalty, working and
overriding interest owners.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages,
interest, costs and fees from the defendants, jointly and
severally.

This action was originally filed on May 28, 1999 in Kansas State
Court in Stevens County, Kansas as a class action against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates,
including certain Company entities.  Subsequently, one of the
defendants removed the action to Kansas Federal District Court.

On January 12, 2001, the Federal District Court of Wyoming
issued an oral ruling remanding the case back to the State Court
in Stevens County, Kansas.  The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on grounds other than personal jurisdiction, which was
denied by the court in August 2002.

The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of the
nonresident defendants has been briefed and is awaiting
decision.  Merits discovery has been stayed.  The current named
plaintiffs are Will Price, Tom Boles, Cooper Clark Foundation
and Stixon Petroleum, Inc.  Quinque Operating Company has been
dropped from the action as a named plaintiff.

On April 10, 2003, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs moved
the Court for permission to amend the complaint.  On July 8,
2003, a hearing was held on the motion to amend.  On July 28,
2003, the court granted leave to amend the complaint.

The amended complaint does not list the Company or any of its
affiliates as defendants.  Additionally, a new complaint was
filed but that complaint does not list the Company or any of its
affiliates as defendants.  The Company will continue to monitor
these matters.


LEXENT INC.: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexent, Inc. agreed to settle a consolidated securities class
action filed in response to an offer from Hugh J. O'Kane, Jr.,
the Company's Chairman, and Kevin M. O'Kane, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and Vice Chairman, to purchase all outstanding
shares of Company common stock (other than those owned by them)
at $1.25 per share.

The suit was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware, naming as defendants the Company and the two O'Kanes.  
The suit alleged, inter alia, that:

     (1) the offer was unfair and inadequate,

     (2) the buying group had engaged in self-dealing and had

         not acted in good faith, and

     (3) that the Company and its Board of Directors, present
         and former, had breached their fiduciary duty to
         shareholders.


The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including but not
limited to, damages and enjoining the Company and the Purchaser
Stockholders from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed merger.

On June 17, 2003, the Company publicly announced an agreement in
principle among it, Hugh J. O'Kane, Jr., Kevin M. O'Kane and the
plaintiffs named in the suit.  Under the proposed terms of the
settlement, the Purchaser Stockholders agreed, among other
things, to raise the per share merger consideration to $1.50 per
share.  On August 6, 2003, the parties in the suit filed a
Stipulation of Settlement with the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  

Pursuant to the settlement, the plaintiffs (on their own behalf
and on behalf of a class of holders of Lexent common stock)
agreed to dismiss the litigation and release the defendants from
all related claims.  In exchange, the defendants, without
admitting any liability, agreed to raise the consideration to be
paid in the proposed merger to $1.50 per share and condition the
approval of the proposed merger on the receipt of the vote of a
majority of shares of Lexent common stock actually voted with
respect to the adoption and approval of the merger agreement and
the proposed merger (other than shares held by Purchaser and the
Purchaser Stockholders).

The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
consummation of the proposed merger and approval of the
settlement by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  
The court will schedule a hearing to determine the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, whether or not
the settlement should be approved and to hear and determine any
objections to the settlement.

In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
in an aggregate amount not to exceed $500,000.  Defendants have
agreed not to object to such an application.

In the event that the stockholders of the Company approve the
proposed merger and the proposed merger is completed,
plaintiffs' court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses will be
paid by the Company.


LEXENT INC.: Inks MOU To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexent, Inc. has forged a memorandum of understanding to settle
a consolidated securities class action filed in the Southern
District of New York against it, certain of its present and
former senior executives and its underwriters.

The complaint alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions in that
those documents did not disclose that:

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

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

The suit against the Company was one of a number of initial
public offering securities claims against approximately 308
other issuers and underwriters.  For the purpose of
coordination, the suits were consolidated.  

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs' executive committee,
responsible for coordinating and managing the IPO Litigation for
all plaintiffs, announced a proposed settlement between
plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the issuer defendants and their
respective officer and director defendants, including Lexent
Inc. and its named officers and directors, on the other.  The
proposed settlement does not resolve plaintiffs' claims against
the underwriter defendants.

A memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims
against the issuers and their directors and officers has been
approved as to form by counsel for the issuers and the process
of obtaining individual approval by each of the other 308 issuer
defendants has begun.

On July 9, 2003, the Company elected to adopt the plaintiffs'
settlement proposal set forth in the memorandum of
understanding.  The principal components of the proposed
settlement include:

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

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

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

If recoveries in excess of $1 billion are obtained by plaintiffs
from the underwriters, the insurers of the settling issuer
defendants will owe no money to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs'
proposed settlement is contingent upon a substantial majority of
the issuer defendants entering into the settlement and is
further subject to approval by the court.


MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against MCG Capital Corporation and certain of its officers in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The suit alleges that the defendants made certain misstatements
in violation of Sections11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the
complaint asserts that members of the plaintiff class purchased
our common stock at purportedly inflated prices during the
period from November 28, 2001 to November 1, 2002 as a result of
certain misstatements regarding the academic degree of the
Company's chief executive officer.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and other damages, along with costs and
expenses.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action complaint.

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: KS Court Allows Plaintiffs To Amend Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court in Stevens County, Kansas
allowed plaintiffs to amend the nationwide class action filed
against two MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. entities, Kern River
Gas Transmission Company and Northern Natural Gas Company, and
other interstate pipeline defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs.  

In November 2001, Kern River and Northern Natural Gas, along
with the coordinating defendants, filed a motion to dismiss
under Rules 9B and 12B of the Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In January 2002, Kern River and most of the coordinating
defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  The court has yet to rule on these motions.  

The plaintiffs filed for certification of the plaintiff class on
September 16, 2002.  On January 13, 2003, oral arguments were
heard on coordinating defendants' opposition to class
certification.  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On May
12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
fourth amended petition alleging a class of gas royalty owners
in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The court granted the motion
for leave to amend on July 28, 2003.  

Kern River and Northern Natural Gas believe that this claim is
without merit and that their gas measurement techniques have
been in accordance with industry standards and its tariff.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Enters Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries, Ltd. entered into a private settlement for a
class action filed against it and its directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
alleging that its May 10, 2002 proxy statement/prospectus
contained certain material misstatements and omissions in
violation of federal securities laws and state law.

Shareholder Steve Rosenberg filed the suit after the Company's
May 10, 2002 proxy statement/prospectus was sent to shareholders
in connection with the special meeting to consider and vote on
its proposed reorganization and effective reorganization in
Bermuda.  Mr. Rosenberg requested that the court either enjoin
the closing of the shareholder vote on the scheduled date or the
effectuation of the reorganization.  The suit was filed on
behalf of all shareholders, alleging that the Company and its
directors violated their state law fiduciary duties by making
these alleged misstatements and omissions.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the suit, which the court
granted on March 18, 2003.  On April 14, 2003, Mr. Rosenberg
filed an appeal of the United States District Court's decision
to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
parties entered into settlement negotiations and in July 2003
reached a confidential settlement of all disputes between the
parties.  This settlement had no material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.


NEW JERSEY: Experts Chosen To Reinvent Family Services Division
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Jersey has placed the future of the "broken"
child welfare agency, the Division of Youth and Family Services
(DYFS) in the hands of the Annie E. Casey Foundation of
Baltimore, a $2.7 billion philanthropic organization and
troubleshooter for failing child welfare systems in dozens of
cities and states across the country, The Star-Ledger reports.

Casey has a proven record of repairing child welfare systems,
and it has accepted the task asked of it by state officials.  
The foundation has committed experts and money to help reinvent
DYFS over the next two years.

The foundation's involvement in the future of DYFS stems from a
June 24 settlement between DYFS and Children's Rights Inc., of a
four-year-old class action.  The national advocacy group had
sued the state for violating the civil rights of the 11,600
children DYFS supervises in foster homes, group homes or
institutions.

Children's Rights' class action accused DYFS of putting foster
children at risk of abuse and neglect, and trapping them
indefinitely in a cash-strapped, mismanaged system.  Children's
Rights and the state agreed in the settlement that an
independent panel of child welfare experts was needed to devise
a new blueprint for DYFS, and they gave the Casey Foundation a
prominent place at the drafting table.  They named Casey senior
staff to occupy two of the panel's five seats.  Casey also will
supply the full-time staff to assist the panel.

"Casey is the country's largest and most revered child welfare
foundation, with a huge corpus and investments in every state,"
said Kevin Ryan, Governor James E. McGreevey's deputy chief of
management and operations.  "Here we were squarely in the midst
of the country's most infamous child welfare nightmare.  It was
a natural place for Casey to be.  It was a matter of us
convincing them they needed to be here."

The nightmare is the case of seven-year-old Faheem Williams, who
was found dead in January.  The case prompted the state to
settle the four-year-old lawsuit with Children's Rights.  His
death highlighted how DYFS failed him and his dysfunctional
family.  Child welfare workers had received a tip that the boy
and his two brothers were being scalded and beaten, but they
never completed their investigation and closed the case.

The McGreevey administration has six months to develop a plan
that cures DYFS's many ills.  The panel's job is to make sure
the plan is viable, and to hold DYFS accountable for carrying it
out.

In New York, where the foundation was appointed in 1998, to help
clean up New York's child welfare system, Casey spent $4.5
million over three years to run the panel's operation.  They
funded it entirely themselves because they did not want to be
beholden to the city government on the funding of their
activities.  According to John Mattingly, a Casey senior
associate, a similar multimillion-dollar effort is envisioned
for New Jersey.

The 65-year-old foundation, created by one of the founders of
United Parcel Service, James Casey, and his siblings, reported
$2.7 billion in assets and $180 million in grants awarded last
year, Casey spokeswoman Diane Camper said.  Annie was the Casey
children's mother.

The foundation's projects and clout have been growing steadily
for the last decade.  It provides intensive foster home finding
and adoption family services, helps communities plan for new
schools and invests in job training, housing and commercial
development in low-income neighborhoods.  One project provides
financial counseling to Camden residents.  Until now, New Jersey
has known Casey through its annual KidsCount reports, a
compilation of data on children's health, economic stability,
safety and mortality in every state.

Once the plan for DYFS is completed, the panel must release
progress reports for the public every six months according to
the settlement agreement.


NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Asks To Intervene in Con Edison Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notheast Utilities filed a motion to intervene in the class
action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on
behalf of all holders of shares of NU common stock as of 4:00 pm
on March 5, 2001, as third party beneficiaries of the merger
agreement between the Company and Consolidated Edison, Inc.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, plus interest and costs,
against Consolidated Edison for breach of the merger agreement.  
The named plaintiff, Robert Rimkoski, allegedly sold his Company
shares on March 7, 2001, two days after Con Edison's refusal to
consummate the merger with the Company was made public.   The
Company was not named as a party.

On June 4, 2003, the Company filed a motion to intervene and
request for stay of proceedings in the shareholders' class
action.  Mr. Rimkoski has requested that the decision on this
motion be postponed pending the outcome of his July 24, 2003
motion to intervene in the suit.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Plaintiff Withdraws CA Medicare Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action filed against Pacificare Health
Systems, Inc., its California subsidiary and FHP International
Corporation voluntarily dismissed his amended suit with
prejudice.

The suit was filed in November 1999 in San Francisco Superior
Court, relating to the period from November 2, 1995 to the
present and purporting to be on behalf of all enrollees in the
Company's health care plans operating in California, other than
Medicare and Medicaid enrollees, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair
business acts in violation of California law, engaged in false,
deceptive and misleading advertising in violation of California
law and violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  It
also alleges that the Company received unjust payments as a
result of its conduct.

The amended complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
an order requiring the defendants to inform and warn all
California consumers regarding the Company's financial
compensation programs, unspecified monetary damages for
restitution of premiums and disgorgement of improper profits,
attorneys' fees and interest.

The Company moved to compel arbitration and the Superior Court
denied the motion.  The Company filed an appeal from this
denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's
decision. Thereafter, the Company filed a petition asking the
California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's
decision, and the California Supreme Court granted the petition.

On June 4, 2003, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his
amended complaint with prejudice.  Following the dismissal, the
plaintiff individually filed a demand for arbitration and
settled the case with the Company on immaterial terms.


PEAK INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peak International Ltd. settled the securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all TrENDS purchasers against
it and:

     (1) the Peak TrENDS Trust,

     (2) Mr. T. L. Li,

     (3) Mr. Jerry Mo, the Company's former Chief Financial
         Officer,

     (4) Luckygold 18A Limited and

     (5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
         (DLJ)

The suit claims that the TrENDS prospectus failed to disclose
that allegedly significant short selling of the Company's common
stock was certain to occur at the time of the TrENDS offering.

On June 5, 2000, plaintiff and defendants stipulated to the
dismissal with prejudice from the action of the Company and Mr.
Mo.  Additionally, Mr. T. L. Li, Luckygold and the Company
entered into certain indemnification agreements with the Trust
and DLJ in connection with the TrENDS offering.  Certain of
these indemnification agreements may require that under certain
circumstances the Company, Luckygold and/or Mr. T. L. Li
indemnify the Trust and/or DLJ from certain liabilities that the
Trust and/or DLJ may incur to plaintiff or to the purported
plaintiff class.

Mr. T. L. Li and Luckygold have, in turn, provided a deed of
indemnity to the Company pursuant to which Mr. T. L. Li and
Luckygold have agreed to indemnify the Company from liabilities
related to the TrENDS offering.

In June 2003, the remaining parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
for an aggregate payment of $4,000, and the settlement is
currently pending approval by the court.  In addition, the
remaining defendants entered into an agreement that will become
effective when and if the settlement is approved by the court in
which they agreed not to seek contribution or indemnification
arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs.

The Company believes that this agreement, if approved, will
preclude the remaining defendants from asserting claims of
indemnification or contribution against the Company.  While
there is no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or
approved by the court, the Company believes that the settlement
will become final in due course.

Accordingly, the Company believes it is remote that the Company
will have any liability, including claims for contribution or
indemnification, to any party in connection with this matter and
therefore no impact to the financial statements has been
reflected related to the pending settlement.


PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Mediation For OH Suit Set September 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation for the class action filed against Prolong
International Corporation and EPL Prolong Inc. is set for
September 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas, Columbiana County,
Ohio.

The operative complaint alleges:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) fraudulent conveyance of corporate assets,

     (3) breach of fiduciary duties,

     (4) breach of an alleged novation and

     (5) fraud in the inducement relating to the alleged
         novation

Plaintiffs allege that they purchased certain "pre-primary
shares" of stock in a Canadian company known as Prolong
Industries Inc. from defendant Ronald Sloan and other agents of
the Canadian company during the period of May 1985 through
October 1987, a period prior in time to the formation of EPL
Prolong, Inc.

It remains undisputed that the EPL defendants had no involvement
in the solicitation or sale of the pre-primary shares that were
allegedly sold to the plaintiffs between 1985 and 1987, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The court has ruled that the case can proceed as a
class action.


PUGET SOUND: WA, OR Court Grant Voluntary Dismissal of Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Seattle, Washington and the
Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon granted plaintiffs'
motions for voluntary dismissal of two lawsuits against Puget
Sound Energy, Inc. and more than 30 other defendants.

The complaints alleged that they were brought on behalf of all
retail customers in Washington and Oregon, respectively, and
seek relief against the defendants (each of which is a seller           
of electric energy at wholesale in certain markets) for:

     (1) unfair or deceptive acts,

     (2) fraud by concealment, and

     (3) negligence

The suits seek for an accounting, but did not plead a specific
amount of damages.

In May 2003, the plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for
voluntary dismissal.  Although the motions expressly reserved
the right to re-file the complaints, no new case by those           
plaintiffs or law firms has named the Company.  


RAFFLES TOWN: Members To Get Damages Based On Breach Of Promise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore's Court of Appeals ruled that the Raffles Town Club
did not misrepresent itself when it told founding members when
it told founding members that it was an "exclusive and premier
club with first-class facilities."  The club provided the
facilities, but by later taking in about 19,000 members, it
breached its obligations to deliver a premier club, said the
three-judge court, the Straits Times reports.

As a result of such reasoning, the Court of Appeal ruled that
4,895 disgruntled members who sued in November 2001, are
entitled to damages, which they must pursue separately.  The
club, which in July 2001, passed into the hands of Singaporeans
Lim Jian Wei and Margaret Tung, was also ordered to pay two-
thirds of the members' legal fees, which can amount to between
$750,000 and $1 million.  This decision overturns the High Court
ruling in November, when Justice S. Rajendran dismissed the
members' suit of misrepresentation and ordered them to pay legal
costs.

Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justices Lai Siu Chiu and Tan
Lee Meng said in their written judgment that the members could
not recover the entire $28,000 membership fee they paid in 1996,
because current economic conditions have reduced its price to
about $7,000 in the open market.

The 33-page judgment made it plain that the RTC has delivered
the facilities, but the problem lies in the Club's accepting too
many founder members.

"It is plain logic that where you have a large number of
members, the pressure on facilities would naturally increase
even though members may not turn up all at the same time, the
judges wrote.

Even the most luxurious of amenities would be turned into a
"noisy market place," which meant the club had breached its
obligation to deliver a premier club.  Further, wrote the
judges, "A constant 'full house' spoils the ambience which a
premier club should have."


RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Settles Securities Lawsuits in AZ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rural/Metro Corporation (Nasdaq:RUREC), a leading national
provider of ambulance and fire protection services, reached an
out-of-court settlement in a 1998 shareholders' class action.  
The agreement is subject to court approval after the shareholder
class has been notified of its terms.

Rural/Metro and certain of its former officers and directors
were named in two purported class-action lawsuits in 1998.
Haskell v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al. (Haskell) was filed
August 25, 1998 in Pima County, Arizona, Superior Court; and
Ruble v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al. (Ruble) filed September
2, 1998 in United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.

Rural/Metro and certain of its former directors and officers,
agreed to settle the cases to avoid further expensive litigation
and uncertainty and to put the issue to rest.  Rural/Metro and
the individual defendants have consistently denied any
wrongdoing, and the settlement is not an admission of liability
by any party.  Further, the settlement will have no impact on
Rural/Metro's financial position or results of operations
because the settlement amount is within applicable insurance
limits.

John Banas, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said,
"While we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, we
have decided that it is in the best interests of Rural/Metro and
its shareholders to settle the lawsuits and eliminate the risks,
expense and disruption of continuing litigation."

The lawsuits, which contained virtually identical allegations,
were brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
company's publicly traded securities including its common stock
between April 28, 1997 and June 11, 1998.  The Haskell case was
stayed while the Ruble case moved forward.

In March 2002, the court dismissed claims against some of the
individual defendants in the Ruble case, allowing only limited
claims against the Company and Warren Rustand, the Company's
former CEO, to proceed.  According to the terms of the Ruble
settlement, both the Ruble and Haskell cases will be dismissed.

In other legal matters, a federal court judge has dismissed all
claims against the company and certain of its current and former
officers brought by Steven A. Springborn and Jeffrey T. Jensen
in a purported class action filed in 2002.  The allegations
included violations of state and federal securities laws, breach
of contract, and common law fraud, among others.  Plaintiffs
later conceded that their federal securities claims should be
dismissed.

In his order dismissing the remaining claims against Rural/Metro
and all of the individual defendants, United States District
Court Judge John W. Sedwick noted, "Based on the court's
evaluation of the file, it does not appear that plaintiff could
plead viable claims at this time."


SUPERGEN INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed a securities class action filed against
SuperGen Inc. (Nasdaq: SUPG), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking unspecified damages,
after plaintiffs asked it be voluntarily dismissed.

Each of the dismissals has been approved and entered by the
Court, thus ending all of the pending securities lawsuits
against the Company.  The Company has not made any monetary
payments, and has no obligation to make any monetary payments
whatsoever, to any of the plaintiffs or their counsel in
connection with the dismissals, and has undertaken no other
obligations in connection therewith.

Based in Dublin, California, SuperGen is a pharmaceutical
company dedicated to the development and commercialization of
products intended to treat life-threatening diseases,
particularly cancer.

For more details, contact Dr. Joseph Rubinfeld, President, CEO
and Chairman, SuperGen Inc., by Phone: 800-353-1075, ext. 330 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.supergen.com


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Switchboard, Inc. agreed to settle the securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against it, the managing underwriters of
its initial public offering, and:

     (1) Douglas J. Greenlaw,

     (2) Dean Polnerow, and

     (3) John P. Jewett.

Mr. Greenlaw and Mr. Polnerow are officers of the Company, and
Mr. Jewett is a former officer.  In July 2002, the Company, Mr.
Greenlaw, Mr. Polnerow and Mr. Jewett joined in an omnibus
motion to dismiss which challenges the legal sufficiency of
plaintiffs' claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds
of issuer and individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  
The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On September 30, 2002, the lawsuit against Mr. Greenlaw,
Mr. Polnerow and Mr. Jewett was dismissed without prejudice.  
The court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2002.  
On February 19, 2003, the court issued its decision on the
defendants' motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying
in part the motion as to the Company.  In doing so, the court
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against certain defendants,
including the Company.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their
insurers agreed on the terms and conditions of a proposed
settlement of this case.  The terms and conditions of the
proposed settlement have been widely reported in the press.  

The Company's special committee of the board of directors met
twice during June 2003 to evaluate the proposed settlement.  The
committee was advised by outside counsel on the merits of the
proposed settlement.  The committee determined that the
settlement was in the best interest of the Company and that it
should accept the proposed settlement.

There is no guarantee that the settlement will become final, as
it is subject to a number of conditions, including court
approval.  However, based on this proposed settlement, the
Company does not believe it will suffer material future losses
related to this lawsuit.


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. faces a securities class action filed
on behalf of United States holders of the Company's ordinary
shares as of the close of business on April 1, 2002 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit was filed against the Company, certain of its
shareholders and directors, including Eli Harari, its President
and CEO and a Tower board member.  The suit asserts claims
arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its
directors made false and misleading statements in a proxy
solicitation to its shareholders regarding a proposed amendment
to a contract between the Company and certain of its
shareholders.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages
and attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Facilities, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
directors and officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons and
entities who acquired the Company's common stock at various
times on or after November 4, 1999.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
issued by the Company in connection with the public offering of
its common stock contained untrue statements of material fact or
omissions of material fact in violation of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Specifically, these claims allege that the Company failed to
disclose that the offering's underwriters had solicited and
received additional and excessive compensation and benefits from
their customers beyond what was listed in the registration
statement and prospectus and entered into tie-in or other
arrangements with certain of their customers which were
allegedly designed to maintain, distort and/or inflate the
market price of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.  
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

This case is among the over 300 class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York that have come to be known as the IPO laddering cases.  On
October 9, 2002, the court signed stipulations and orders of
dismissal, which dismissed the Company's named individual
officers and directors from the action, without prejudice, but
the Company remained a defendant in the case.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its decision on the joint
motion to dismiss the IPO laddering cases.  The decision allowed
the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the Company based
on its alleged issuance of a registration statement and
prospectus that failed to disclose a fraudulent scheme by the
offering's underwriters and dismissed, with leave to amend, the
plaintiffs' claim against the Company based on its alleged
knowledge and intent to defraud investors so as to benefit from
an inflated price for the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket.

The plaintiffs, the Directors & Officers' insurance underwriters
and the Company, among other issuer co-defendants, have agreed
in principle to a form of settlement that would dismiss the
Company and its individual directors and officers from the
litigation without requiring that the Company fund the
settlement.  The settlement documents are presently being
drafted, and will be submitted to the court for approval once
they have been finalized.

The Company believes this litigation is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against it, should the
lawsuit be re-filed.  It is impossible at this time to
assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


WYETH: More Personal Injury Lawsuits Lodged
-------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical firm Wyeth faces four additional class actions
relating to PREMPRO, the Company's estrogen and progestin
replacement therapy.  The suits are:

     (1) Alexander, et al., v. Wyeth, No. 03-WM-0160, in the   
         United States District Court for the District of
         Colorado,

     (2) Katzman, et al. v. Wyeth, No. L-1285-03, in the
         Superior Court of Morris County, New Jersey,

     (3) Leone, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 03CV0588, in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of New
         York,

     (4) Phelps, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 03-80063, United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Plaintiffs in three of the cases seek to represent a nationwide
class of women who have ever ingested PREMPRO.  They generally
seek similar relief on behalf of the putative class purchase
price refunds, medical monitoring expenses and compensatory and
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs in the Katzman case seek to represent a class of
New Jersey women who have ingested the drug and seek purchase
price refunds and medical monitoring expenses on their behalf.

In addition to the 20 pending putative class actions, the
Company is defending approximately 100 individual actions and
approximately 25 multi-plaintiff actions in various courts for
personal injuries including breast cancer, stroke and heart
disease.  Together with the class actions, these cases assert
claims on behalf of approximately 380 women alleged injured by
PREMPRO or PREMARIN.


WYETH: Faces Additional Suit Over Thimerosal in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth faces an additional class action alleging that the
cumulative effect of thimerosal, a preservative used in certain
vaccines manufactured and distributed by the Company as well as
by other vaccine manufacturers, causes severe neurological
damage, including autism in children.  The suit was filed in the
Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California, seeking
relief under California's Proposition 65.

Of the other cases, one has been dismissed with prejudice,
although an appeal of that dismissal is pending.  Six of the
other ten previously-reported putative class actions have also
been dismissed without prejudice to permit plaintiffs to pursue
claims under the Vaccine Compensation Act, one has been
dismissed with prejudice because the claims of the class
representatives were barred by the Vaccine Compensation Act's
statute of limitations and motions to dismiss are pending in the
remaining three putative class actions.

Including the putative class actions, the Company has been
served with approximately 260 thimerosal lawsuits, involving
approximately 1,800 named plaintiffs.  The Company is also in
the process of filing motions to dismiss in many of the
individual cases for failure of the minor plaintiffs to file in
the first instance under the Vaccine Compensation Act.  

The Vaccine Compensation Act mandates that vaccine recipients
alleging injury from childhood vaccines first bring a claim
under the Vaccine Compensation Act (the Act).  If a claim under
the Act has not been adjudicated within 240 days, the claimant
may be released from proceeding under the Act and may pursue a
lawsuit against the manufacturer.  Four claimants who have not
elected to participate in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding
currently being conducted under the auspices of the Act have
filed lawsuits against the Company following the expiration of
the 240-day period, and an unknown number of additional
claimants are expected to do likewise.


*Small CA Firms Tagged as Prime Violators of Overtime Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanny Ekowibowo recently filed a claim for overtime against the
restaurant where he makes sandwiches, Quizno's Subs at the Block
at Orange, The Orange County Register reports.  Mr. Ekowibowo
has pay stubs that appear to show he worked 64.5 hours overtime
in 2001, but was paid at his regular $8 hourly wage instead of
the time-and-a-half rate required by state and federal law.

The state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement is
investigating Mr. Ekowibowo's claim.  A conference on his case
will be held soon at the division's office in Santa Ana.

Mr. Ekowibowo's claim is like most overtime cases today, in that
it was filed against a small employer.  This claim comes at a
time when larger employers are working to avoid a repeat of
recent multi-million-dollar overtime lawsuits, such as the
claims that Irvine-based Taco Bell settled last week for more
than $13 million.

At the same time, the US Department of Labor is tightening
national overtime regulations in response to the rash of
overtime lawsuits and California's tougher overtime rules.  
Those revisions are scheduled to be completed by the end of the
year.

The pressure for change began a few years ago, when a wave of
class actions hit restaurant chains, retailers and others.  
Thousands of workers won millions of dollars in back pay from
their employers in settlements and in verdicts.  In some cases,
the plaintiffs were restaurant assistant managers who were
expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week for a fixed salary with
no overtime pay, even though they spent most of their time doing
non-managerial tasks such as flipping burgers, rolling burritos
and taking orders.

The suits were typically based on state labor laws in California
and some other Western states where the laws are more favorable
to workers than federal law when it comes to determining who is
eligible to be paid overtime.

For example, under federal law, salaried supervisory employees
are generally exempt from overtime pay.  However, under
California law, those same employees are eligible for time-and-
a-half overtime if they spend less than 50 percent of their time
doing administrative or managerial tasks.

The American Bar Association has said that workers filed 79
federal class actions seeking overtime pay in 2001, exceeding
for the first time the number of discrimination class actions.  
This wave of class actions has subsided since 2001, because many
large retailers and restaurant companies have adjusted their
overtime policies to comply with state laws, the experts say.  
However, the settlements from 2001, continue to trickle in, such
as last week's $1.5 million settlement involving allegations of
overtime and meal-break violations brought by 1,000 former Taco
Bell employees in Oregon.

Class actions against large restaurants are less common now,
only because you would have to have lived in a hole over the
last five years not to have seen, as an employer, what the risk
is if the overtime laws are ignored, said Jon Mower, an Irvine
attorney who represents workers in overtime cases.  However, not
all large employers have managed to avoid new claims.

This is because even well-intentioned employers can be confused
by "insanely complex" state and federal laws that cover who is
eligible for overtime pay, said Stephen Kimball, a Mission Viejo
attorney who represents workers.  Perhaps the Department of
Labor's rewriting of the federal rules governing overtime pay
will help reduce the confusion.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


CATALINA MARKETING: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of purchasers of Catalina Marketing Corporation
(NYSE:POS) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 17, 2002 and June 30, 2003 inclusive.

The lawsuit 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 numerous positive statements
concerning the Company's ability to grow its revenues and
earnings at a rapid pace and the strong demand that existed for
the Company's products, especially at its Health Resource
division.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing a
slowdown in its revenue growth because its pharmaceutical
clients had curtailed their spending on promotional items, such
as the Company's newsletters, and retail pharmacies had become
more cautious about participating in the Company's advertising
programs and had reduced their distribution of the Company's
health newsletters.

When these facts were belatedly disclosed by the Company on
October 1, 2002, the price of Catalina common stock fell from
$27.97 per share to close at $17.90 per share -- a drop of 36% -
- on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact John G. Emerson or Tanya Autry by
Mail: 830 Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058 by Phone:
(281) 488-8854 or 1-(800) 663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CT Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of all purchasers of Crompton Corporation
(NYSE:CK) securities during the period from October 26, 1998
through October 8, 2002, inclusive.

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

On October 8, 2002, the Company shocked the market by disclosing
that it and several of its employees had been issued grand jury
subpoenas in connection with an investigation by US and European
Union authorities concerning allegations of collusive dealings
in the rubber chemicals industry.  

News of this announcement stunned the market.  On October 9,
2002, shares of Crompton fell $3.25 or 35.5% to close at $5.90
per share, down from $9.15 per share.

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


CV THERAPEUTICS: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of CV Therapeutics, Inc.
(Nasdaq:CVTX), between May 14, 2003 and August 1, 2003
inclusive.  The class action was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

CV Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of drugs for the treatment of
cardiovascular diseases.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period about
CV Therapeutics' New Drug Application for Ranexa, a drug for the
treatment of chronic angina, thereby artificially inflating the
price of CV Therapeutics 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


CV THERAPEUTICS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CVTX) between May 14, 2003 and August
1, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE) between April 24, 2002 and
August 5, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
against the Company and:

     (1) H. Peter Burg,

     (2) Anthony J. Alexander,

     (3) Richard H. Marsh and

     (4) Harvey L. Wagner

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 April 24, 2002 and
August 5, 2003.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, First Energy
issued quarterly press releases and filed financial reports with
the SEC which purported to accurately reflect the Company's
operating results and financial condition.  Unbeknownst to class
members, according to the complaint, the financial information
contained in the Company's quarterly news releases and reports
was artificially inflated through accounting improprieties.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company had been
improperly accounting for certain of its leased generation
plants by assigning such assets inflated values and had
improperly accounted for costs incurred in connection with the
deregulation of certain of its businesses by employing an
inappropriately long amortization schedule, thereby artificially
inflating its reported earnings by material amounts.

The complaint alleges that these accounting irregularities had
the effect of materially inflating the Company's reported assets
and income, thereby deceiving investors as to the Company's true
results and financial condition.

On August 5, 2003, the Company issued a press release and posted
a letter on its website announcing that it would be restating
its previously reported financial results for all of 2002 and
the first quarter of 2003 materially downward, reportedly "to
reflect implementation of changed accounting treatments
regarding the recovery of transition assets in Ohio and
recognition of above-market values of certain leased generation
facilities."

In reaction to this announcement, the price of FirstEnergy
common stock dropped materially, falling from $34.24 per share
on August 4, 2003, to close at $31.33 per share on August 5, a
one-day loss of 8.5% on unusually high trading volume of 5.4
million shares, which is more than four times the stock's
average daily trading volume of 1.2 million shares.

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


IMPATH INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of IMPATH Inc.
(Nasdaq:IMPH) securities during the period from February 21,
2001 through July 29, 2003, inclusive.

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

On July 30, 2003, IMPATH shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into possible accounting irregularities involving accounts
receivable which the Company believes have been materially
overstated and will likely require restatement.  Following this
announcement, shares of IMPATH common stock were halted from
trading.

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


IMPATH INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Impath,
Inc. (Nasdaq:IMPH) from February 21, 2001 through July 29, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the class period regarding the Company's financial
performance.  

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

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

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

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

On July 30, 2003, Impath shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into possible accounting irregularities involving accounts
receivables which the Company believes have been materially
overstated and will likely require restatement.  Following this
announcement, shares of Impath common stock were halted from
trading.

For more details, contact John G. Emerson or Tanya Autry by
Mail: 830 Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058 by Phone:
(281) 488-8854 or 1-(800)-663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Emerson Poynter Files Stock Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE:LH) between
February 13, 2002 and October 3, 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 materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 13,
2002 and October 3, 2002.  During the class period, the Company
issued statements that failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) LabCorp was experiencing increased competition in its
         traditionally strongest and core markets, such as the
         Carolinas;

     (2) the Company had understaffed certain of its core
         markets, leading to a lack of key employees, such as
         phlebotomists and account representatives, causing a
         material deterioration of service levels and a loss of
         business to increased competition;

     (3) the decreased sale volume was caused by material
         operational deficiencies, rather than by a couple of
         pending deals that closed late, as the Company had
         represented;

     (4) defendants knew that the Company's sales problems would
         continue in the foreseeable future, contrary to the
         statements that volume growth would increase; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's assurance
         that its historical strong growth would continue lacked
         any reasonable basis.

Throughout the class period, LabCorp insiders, including the
individual defendants, sold a total of 316,112 shares of LabCorp
stock at artificially inflated prices, collecting proceeds of
over $26 million.

On October 3, 2002, after the close of regular trading, LabCorp
shocked the market by announcing that it expected disappointing
3Q:2002 results due to "continued slowdown in volume growth in
the routine, or core, testing business in certain key regions of
the country," which it expected would continue at least until
the end of 2002.

Investors, primed by defendants' Class Period statements to
believe that the Company's business was growing faster than ever
and had already overcome the brief slowdown in growth during the
second quarter, were shocked to learn that the slowdown had
continued and was not expected to abate until after the end of
the year and that the slowdown had been in the Company's core
business.

In reaction to the Company's belated disclosure, the price of
LabCorp common stock plummeted, falling 34.6% in one day, from a
close of $33.18 per share on October 3 to $21.68 per share on
October 4, on trading volume of over 21.2 million shares, which
is many times the Company's average daily trading volume.

For more details, contact John G. Emerson or Tanya Autry by
Mail: 830 Apollo Lane, Houston, TX 77058 by Phone:
(281) 488-8854 or (800) 663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Stock Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (NYSE:LH) securities
during the period from February 13, 2002 through October 3,
2002, inclusive.

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

The truth about LabCorp was partially revealed when on October
3, 2002, defendants announced that LabCorp failed to meet
revenue and earnings guidance for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2002, as well as the remainder of 2002, due to a
revenue shortfall, primarily, in the South and Southeast regions
of the US stemming from a material loss of routine/core testing
volumes among independent physicians.

Subsequently, on October 4, 2002, Thomas MacMahon, LabCorp's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, admitted that defendants
were aware that the Company was losing sales to local and
regional labs and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to "remedy the
problem" as early as May 2002.  

Following these announcements, the price of LabCorp common stock
collapsed, losing over 34% of their value in one day of trading
to close at $21.68 per share on October 4, 2002, and falling
over 58% from the Class Period high of $51.98 per share reached
on or about May 10, 2002.

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


NOVEN INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Noven, Inc. (Nasdaq:NOVN), between
October 29, 2001 and April 28, 2003 inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The Company develops, manufactures and markets transdermal drug
delivery systems.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's 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


QUEST SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Quest
Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:QSFT) securities during the period from
April 30, 2002 through July 23, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges Quest and certain of its senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The alleged violations stem from the
dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the
effect -- during the class period -- of artificially inflating
the price of Quest's shares.  On July 23, 2003, the Company
admitted that previously-issued financial statements had been
inaccurately reported.

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

                        *********

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  * * *